#84600 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& TG), An interesting discussion. Don't give up! --- Scott Duncan wrote: > You might wish to show where the three types of pa~n~naa are mentioned > in the suttas. I'm assuming they are since you have used them to > discuss your thesis regarding thinking and understanding. .... See U.P. under: Sutamayapanna, cintamayapanna, bhavanamayapanna #52420, 53130, 53227, 62281 The first is a very clear message of Sukin's on these terms. The second one includes a ref from DN 33. Also, I remember suttas in AN. It's important not to forget the ordinary, conventional meanings of terms used too at the time of the Buddha. Sometimes these terms like cinta-maya-panna and suta-maya-panna can have a more general, ordinary meaning. Suta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna refer to levels of listening, considering and understanding, but we can't say first suta, second cinta etc. So, as to the order, in the suttas, cinta-maya panna is often referred to before suta-maya panna. I believe this is because there can be wise reflection of a degree or kind before one has even heard about the teachings. In such cases, it's not about namas and rupas, but may still be wise reflection. We have to check the context all the time. I think we also need to appreciate that there is ordinary 'listening and contemplating' and 'listening and contemplating' with wisdom! The Buddha taught about suta-maya panna, cinta-maya panna and bhavana-maya panna - all with right understanding. Without the first two, the third cannot be developed. There has to be the hearing and intellectual considering of dhammas first (except for the Buddha who would only have cinta and bhavana). For example, if we have never heard that seeing consciousness sees visible object and only visible object, there isn't going to be any awareness or direct understanding of either seeing or visible object. The awareness and understanding have to develop on and on to really know dhammas more and more precisely as they are. Without suta maya panna and cinta maya panna, there cannot be the development of satipatthana or any vipassana (insight)through bhavana maya panna. Finally, in terms of ultimate dhammas, these terms can refer to moments of hearing, wise consideration (yoniso manasikara) and right understanding of realities at this moment. I understand the Buddha to have brought us closer and closer to the reality now, depending on the degree we can appreciate this. Metta, Sarah ========== #84601 From: Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-1) jonoabb Hi Alex Replying to your other post from a week or so ago. > > Well, this is all inference, if not speculation ;-)). Sorry, but it's > > not a textual basis for what you've said. > > > > Quite the opposite. Buddha has taught Noble 8, EIGHT fold path. Not > seven fold path. I think we've perhaps lost sight of the point being discussed, which was your contention that: (a) it's possible for the non-self characteristic to be seen by intellectual study only, and (b) it is by means of developed samadhi (rather than panna) that this characteristic is seen. The fact that samma-samadhi is one of the 8 path-factors does not really support either of these points as a necessary inference. > Furthermore in many other suttas he has said that > Ending of mental fermentations depend on Jhana (AN 9.36 comes to > mind). The sutta was delivered to Ascetics who had the time and the > opportunity to meditate. After all, they weren't busying themselves > with tax returns... :) I agree that the circumstances of a sutta's delivery are important in considering how the sutta should be understood. If in this particular case the audience had in fact been lay-followers who were "busying themselves with tax returns", it is I think unlikely that the sutta would have concerned jhana. Yet lay-followers could and did become enlightened in then Buddha's time. How do you explain this? > Buddha has NEVER separated "path of insight vs path of tranquility". > Both legs are required to walk. Furthermore, in order to REACH jhana, > one must have at least SOME wisdom. I agree that the development of samatha requires panna. But the panna required for the develoment of samatha is not the panna of insight development. > > Samatha is about the development of tranquillity by virtue of the > > contemplation of an appropriate (conceptual) object, whereas > > satipatthana/vipassana is about the direct experience of a > presently arisen dhamma. > >>>> > > Jhana IS contemplation of directly arisen dhammas. See MN111. Would you mind referring me to the particular words of MN111 that you understand to say or show that jhana is the contemplation of directly arisen dhammas? Thanks. Jon #84602 From: Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:44 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) jonoabb Hi Alex > Tell me, is contemplating breath (which is a touch sensation after > all) conceptual? As we have already agreed in a previous post, samatha with breathing as object can be developed by a person who has not heard any of the teachings in that lifetime. Thus, an understanding of the rupa that is hardness is not a prerequisite. Of course, the development of anapanasati and insight in tandem, with jhana as the basis for insight, as described in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati suttas, is a special case and is another matter altogether. > Furthermore whats this deal with conceptual vs non? The term "concepts/conceptual" is not important. What is necessary to know and to understand more about is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of "dhammas". > Buddha has taught Suffering and Cessation OF IT, and craving and its > cessation. He also taught 4NT. Are 4NT conceptual or not? The 4 Noble Truths are truths about dhammas, and are truths that become evident by the development of the direct understanding of dhammas. > What about DO? DO is also about dhammas, surely? > You are talking from SCHOLASTIC POV that has NOTHING to do with > actual practice or actual Noble 8Fold path. On the contrary, what I have been talking about I see as having immediate practical significance or relevance ;-)). > We don't live in a "non > conceptual world". The cars are really moving on the highway and no > amount of mental equilibristics can disprove that. Of course I am not denying the conventional idea of cars moving on the highway. But "cars moving on the highway" cannot the be object of insight development. > Besides this "ultimate vs conventional" truth was developed very much only > after the Buddha has died and monks became well fed scholars and > seems like a red herring to lure intellectuals from actual work which > is really hard. So what is your understanding of the term "dhammas" as used by the Buddha? And how do you see this term relating to the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc? > It is > funny, that when all of this scholastic material (dealing with non- > existence of objects, emptiness, relative & absolute, vipassana only) > came out, actual achievements dropped significantly so much that some > Abhidhammikas don't think that Arahatship is possible... I wonder why? > :) So is it your view that arahantship will remain possible forever, and that there will be no disappearance of the teachings? Or do you say there will be such disappearance, but that it will occur at a later time (and if the latter, what is the basis for your view as to the timing)? Jon #84603 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 8:34 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (1) truth_aerator Dear Jon and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi Alex > > You say, "If a person has fixed wrong view ...". Well, that is everyone who is not yet a sotapanna. >>> No. There is a difference between wrong view and fixed wrong view. The major difference is that the latter is more dogmatic and heinous than the former, which may be wrong (for now) but not *evil*. >>> And fixed wrong view can only be attenuated by the development of insight. So it all comes down to the understanding of presently arisen dhammas, rather than to the development of jhana. >>> Jhana *if, and only if* used properly gives the experience of anatta, DO, 4NT etc. I will be absent for quite somet time. I am going somewhere today, so I may not catch up with all the posts. Best wishes, Alex #84604 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 8:42 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (3) truth_aerator Hi Jon and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi Alex (3) > > I agree with the general idea that only the person who has heard the teachings may attain enlightenment. And it is precisely the teaching on the development of insight (rather than the development of jhana) that needs to be heard. >>>> Many of the wonderers who have heard the Buddha's teaching got instantly awakened. One of the things was that they may already have possesed Jhana. All they needed to do was to use it PROPERLY. > > Seeing things as they are has a proximate cause of samadhi (Upanisa > > sutta). > > > > What I have meant to say was that in order to meditate and try to let > > go off the world is often due to a certain grain of wisdom > > that "there is something higher than sensuality." Most people > > aren't interested in Meditation, much less in leting go. > > Attachment can only be eradicated (as opposed to being temporarily suppressed) by developed panna. >>> And one who develops panna sees the nessesity of Jhana (used properly)! After all, jhana requires temporary stoppage of defilements that obstruct vision. If a person cannot get rid of defilements/hindrances, atleast temporarily, then they cannot get awakened OR achieve Jhana. In fact those who can stop the hindrances, have no problem entering Jhana. If one cannot enter Jhana, then it is due to some obstruction, which in most cases means that one cannot at that moment enter the stream. IMHO. Best wishes, Alex #84605 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 8:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > ... > S: What does this mean? Are the sanna and vedana accompanying a citta (vinnana) with anger passive? What about those accompanying lobha?. What about those accompanying the development of wisdom or the path factors? > .... I am talking using sutta analysis. As I understand it, it is volition that "wills". Sanna & vedana are "resultant perceptions". > >rupa > > is known, And sankhara khanda is what actually "wills" (but this > > willing is conditioned of course and isn't a self). > ... > S: OK, not bad! What exactly do you understand sankhara khandha to refer to? Do all the cetasikas 'will'? > .... > I don't know much about Abh analysis, so I can't say much about its view. I guess only certain cetasikas such as 3 w/u roots, cetana, manasikara and perhaps sati "wills". However as I understand the suttas, it is Sankhara Khanda that wills. Best wishes, Alex #84606 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 9:47 am Subject: Jhana IS important truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi Alex > > I think we've perhaps lost sight of the point being discussed, which was your contention that: > (a) it's possible for the non-self characteristic to be seen by intellectual study only, and >>> To minimum degree, if at all. And its not simply intellectual study, it is reading the suttas and developing Yoniso Manasikara. Ultimately one must let go of the hindrances to see the truth. In Jhana the hindrances are gone for while. > > The fact that samma-samadhi is one of the 8 path-factors does not really support either of these points as a necessary inference. > Ultimately after Right View, it is the most important thing. > > Would you mind referring me to the particular words of MN111 that you understand to say or show that jhana is the contemplation of directly arisen dhammas? Thanks. > > Jon > Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness,2 desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html Also, regarding Jhana "Now, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: [2,3,4th] ... This is called renunciation-pleasure, seclusion- pleasure, calm-pleasure, self-awakening-pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is to be cultivated, to be developed, to be pursued, that it is not to be feared. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.066.than.html Best wishes, Alex #84607 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 10:04 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi Alex > > So what is your understanding of the term "dhammas" as used by the Buddha? And how do you see this term relating to the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc? >>> In earlier strata of Buddhist teaching the term dhamma was more of an Ethical than ontological meaning. > So is it your view that arahantship will remain possible forever, and that there will be no disappearance of the teachings? Or do you say there will be such disappearance, but that it will occur at a later time (and if the latter, what is the basis for your view as to the timing)? > > Jon > Arahantship will remain possible as long as N8P remains. Furthermore, one of the signs of decline is lack of reverence toward SAMADHI. Earliest Buddhism was more of a Forest Tradition, then there were lots of Arahants. Today as Buddhism has made to the cities, the meditation teachings started to change... Best wishes, Alex #84608 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Pretty good comments! Even I wouldn't disagree with them too much. ;-) Understanding what is presently occurring is very important as I always contend. On this aspect, we agree. But I am not as obsessed as you or others on "just that" because there are other aspects of the Buddha's teaching that support and lead to detachment. But awareness of present changes in the 5 aggregates or elements is very very important. However, imbuing that present experience with a theory of -- dhammas as -- ultimate realities with their own characteristics -- is the type of "programming" (view imprinting) that actually does not allow for insight to see things as they really are. Which, I believe, is one reason the Buddha never taught such a thing. TG In a message dated 4/4/2008 8:27:06 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Scott (& TG), An interesting discussion. Don't give up! --- Scott Duncan <_scduncan@..._ (mailto:scduncan@...) > wrote: > You might wish to show where the three types of pa~n~naa are mentioned > in the suttas. I'm assuming they are since you have used them to > discuss your thesis regarding thinking and understanding. .... See U.P. under: Sutamayapanna, cintamayapanna, bhavanamayapanna #52420, 53130, 53227, 62281 The first is a very clear message of Sukin's on these terms. The second one includes a ref from DN 33. Also, I remember suttas in AN. It's important not to forget the ordinary, conventional meanings of terms used too at the time of the Buddha. Sometimes these terms like cinta-maya-panna and suta-maya-panna can have a more general, ordinary meaning. Suta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna refer to levels of listening, considering and understanding, but we can't say first suta, second cinta etc. So, as to the order, in the suttas, cinta-maya panna is often referred to before suta-maya panna. I believe this is because there can be wise reflection of a degree or kind before one has even heard about the teachings. In such cases, it's not about namas and rupas, but may still be wise reflection. We have to check the context all the time. I think we also need to appreciate that there is ordinary 'listening and contemplating' and 'listening and contemplating' with wisdom! The Buddha taught about suta-maya panna, cinta-maya panna and bhavana-maya panna - all with right understanding. Without the first two, the third cannot be developed. There has to be the hearing and intellectual considering of dhammas first (except for the Buddha who would only have cinta and bhavana). For example, if we have never heard that seeing consciousness sees visible object and only visible object, there isn't going to be any awareness or direct understanding of either seeing or visible object. The awareness and understanding have to develop on and on to really know dhammas more and more precisely as they are. Without suta maya panna and cinta maya panna, there cannot be the development of satipatthana or any vipassana (insight)through bhavana maya panna. Finally, in terms of ultimate dhammas, these terms can refer to moments of hearing, wise consideration (yoniso manasikara) and right understanding of realities at this moment. I understand the Buddha to have brought us closer and closer to the reality now, depending on the degree we can appreciate this. Metta, Sarah #84609 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/4/2008 4:40:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Scott & TG, --- Scott Duncan <_scduncan@..._ (mailto:scduncan@...) > wrote: > TG: "#1 The Buddha does not call it 'presence.' The Buddha calls > it 'changing while persisting.. it 'changing while persisting.. Abhidhamma's presentation? > > Scott: No, Abhidhamma, as has been oft stated, refers to arising, > presence, and ceasing as the 'moments' of a dhamma. Please show me > where 'changing while persisting' is stated in the suttas. .... S: This is a translation of the Pali phrase "thitassa a~n~athattam" I believe as in: "Tín'imaani bhikkhave sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanaani"Tín'imaani bhikkhave Uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, thitassa a~n~nathattam pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho bhikkhave tiini sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanaanip ti. Anguttara 3s,v,7 "There are, monks, these three determined-characte"There are, monks, the phenomena. Which are the three? Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest. These, monks, are the three determined-charactemonks, are the three determine S: It is changing even whilst exisiting/persistinS: It is cha Nina wrote the following before: _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.N: PTS transl: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes (III, 5, §47) Conditioned(ConditionC < Monks, there are three condition-marks of that which is conditioned. What three? Its genesis (upada) is apparent, its passing away (vaya) is apparent, its changeability while it persists (jaraa) is apparent....> The Co. elaborates that of what is conditioned (sankhata), upada (genesis) appears when it arises, jaraa (decay) appears when it persists and vaya when it falls away. N: Co. adds: changeability. . Thus here we see the three submoments of citta.< ***** Metta, Sarah #84610 From: J Simon Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 8:31 am Subject: Re: 2nd Introduction judyleesimon I joined the group and unsubed before ever talking with anyone.....then I got a nice email from Sarah and Jo, so I rejoined.....I'm casting about looking for a group to talk to and it surely looks like yall's group is pretty chatty. Thanks for letting me join, quit and rejoin all in the space of a few days! Looking forward to meeting you and joining in the conversation. Judy Free Tibet #84611 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:49 pm Subject: Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) jonoabb Hi TG Thanks for the article. The 3-fold classification of panna as suta-maya, cinta-maya and bhavana-maya has often been discussed on this list. I don't think there is anything particularly new in what the article has to say in this regard. In particular, it has always been stressed that direct understanding must be preceded by understanding at an intellectual level (hence our interest in discussing here the precise meaning of what is found in the texts!). There are other classifications of panna mentioned in the texts also, such as sacca-nana, kiccha-nana, and kata-nana (see UP under 'sacca'). So there is no question but that panna can be of a level that does not amount to the direct understanding of a presently arisen dhamma. However, when the term "insight" is used it refers, to my understanding, to panna of a certain level, namely, direct understanding of a presently arisen dhamma. At least, that is how most folks here use the term, I believe. Hoping this helps clarify our differences. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi All > > > Below is an article that describes 3 types of insight found in the Suttas. > 2 of the types are NOT derived from direct experience. This is what I mean > when I talk about inference or reasoning/thinking being mutual support for > direct insight. > > > This SHOULD? dispel the notion that "all of insight ONLY entails" direct > seeing. (I'll post the link and then I'll also copy the article into the > e-mail. My e-mails seem corrupt so the link may work better.) > > > I'll be particularly interested in hearing from those who keep claiming that > insight is only direct experience. :-) > > > _Relevance of Vedana to Bhavana-maya Panna_ > (http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/vedana5.html) #84612 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 4:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Can I ask a few questions to clear up some discrepencies which create > the misinterpretations and potentials for WRONG VIEW(s)? > > I've read the STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS since it's terminology related > the process of thought as a stream or river where it is always > flowing. Just to be clear, the generally understood meaning of "stream of consciousness" would, in dhamma terms, be simply various moments of thinking. They would not be regarded as a stream since they are not contiguous (obviously there would be moments of sense-door consciousness arising in between all the time). > My understanding would be that there can be a "stream of > namas" which are of the mind, but a stream of rupas seems a bit odd > as well as an impossibility. If we view that rupas could be a stream > we can simplify this misleading terminology as being reality since we > are confronted by rupas constantly in this materialistic > society/world. I agree with you on this. The idea of a stream of rupas doesn't really make sense. > If you have not renounced rupas, materialism, and have > tried the ascetic path of removing all materialism from your sphere > of influence, for lack of better terms, then I believe that you'd > have great trouble, difficulty, in realizing how rupas themselves can > play such an influential part in an existance of illusion(s). Yes, we are generally not aware of the degree of attachment there is to "ordinary" rupas. > I certainly believe that there can be and are streams of cittas, > which are the mental formation of representations of the rupas as > well as streams of namas which are the mental representations of the > conditioning a sentient being undergoes throughout existance. Yes, we are generally not aware of the degree of attachment there is to "ordinary" rupas. > I wouldn't mind watching KenH grill you but I don't think he has the > bar-b to do the grilling with, yet. Got any shrimp or prawns? Maybe > some callimari? We'll find out later today ;-)) Jon #84613 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 2:12 pm Subject: Dynamics of Impermanence ... was ... Direct knowledge and Inference TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, All Thanks Sarah for posting this. This highlights the dynamic and continuous alterations/changes that are always occurring in relation to conditionality. Let's break it down... what is the arising of "a state"? The arising of "a state" (what some call "a dhamma") is the is the coming together of the necessary forces that form a formation and that is identifiable by perception. When this "arising" is occurring, the "state" that we will eventually think of as "arising" is not yet completely matured into the formation we will "identify." This "arising" is a continuous dynamic change taking place. This "change" is really just reconfigurations of conditional structures/forces. This happens all the time with all formations/conditions. When the formation matures and is the "state" that we identify, the Buddha called it "changing while persisting." This is what Scott called "presence" below. But "presence" gives a static and stilted depiction of what is really a continuous dynamic "unfolding." In dependence of the condition being examined/experienced, there is a time interval whereby it can still be identified as the same type of condition. This is the "persistence while changing" time. After which, the object of awareness disappears or disintegrates as the process of conditionality is continuously forging phenomena into different forms. This whole thing is a continuous dynamic process. Speaking of things "arising," "changing while persisting," or "disappearing," is just a way of speaking about impermanence for purposes of communication. It is just a way of showing the change of phenomena. It is not meant to indicate that there are "3 aspects to realities." There are NOT three submoments of cittas. Its just that we can merely "think about them" in these three ways. Conscious awareness just alters in accordance to conditions. These conditions do not come prepackaged with 3 submoments. There is no bing bing bing reality. This is not a digital process. It is this area that commentary has really lead to misleading folks about the nature of nature. It is exactly this type of interpretation of commentaries that has led to views of "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." Because, in a digital world, something really would have "its own" characteristic momentarily. But by the same token, it would be have to be something unconditioned momentarily -- conditioned, then unconditioned, then conditioned, then unconditioned....which is impossible...in the realm of conditionality. The bing bing bing outlook regarding impermanence, in fact, conceals the Buddha's teaching on emptiness, corelessness, nonself. The Buddha highly approves of this monks comments... "Then, venerable sir, while I was staying in an empty hut following along with the surge and decline of the five aggregates..." (Mahavagga 30 (10), Connected Discourses of the Buddha, page 1588) The terms "surge and decline" nicely show the continuous flow of phenomena in accordance to conditions. BB's notes show the Spk saying that "surge and decline" are "rise and fall." This is fine, however, I think its more instructive to think of "rise and fall" as being "surge and decline." This is also very well highlighted by the "Dyad" Suttas.... In dependence of a dyad, consciousness comes into being...etc. This quote posted below, also demonstrates a great sense of "ebb and flow" in accordance to conditional dynamics.... “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. “Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the same manner and finishes with...] “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1172) TG .................................................... In a message dated 4/4/2008 4:40:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Scott & TG, --- Scott Duncan <_scduncan@..._ (mailto:scduncan@...) > wrote: > TG: "#1 The Buddha does not call it 'presence.' The Buddha calls > it 'changing while persisting.. it 'changing while persisting.. Abhidhamma's presentation? > > Scott: No, Abhidhamma, as has been oft stated, refers to arising, > presence, and ceasing as the 'moments' of a dhamma. Please show me > where 'changing while persisting' is stated in the suttas. .... S: This is a translation of the Pali phrase "thitassa a~n~athattam" I believe as in: "TÃ'imaani bhikkhave sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanaani"TÃ'imaani bhikkhave Uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, thitassa a~n~nathattam pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho bhikkhave tiini sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanaanip ti. Anguttara 3s,v,7 "There are, monks, these three determined-characte"There are, monks, the phenomena. Which are the three? Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest. These, monks, are the three determined-charactemonks, are the three determine S: It is changing even whilst exisiting/persistinS: It is cha Nina wrote the following before: _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.N: PTS transl: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes (III, 5, §47) Conditioned(ConditionC < Monks, there are three condition-marks of that which is conditioned. What three? Its genesis (upada) is apparent, its passing away (vaya) is apparent, its changeability while it persists (jaraa) is apparent....> The Co. elaborates that of what is conditioned (sankhata), upada (genesis) appears when it arises, jaraa (decay) appears when it persists and vaya when it falls away. N: Co. adds: changeability. . Thus here we see the three submoments of citta.< ***** Metta, Sarah #84614 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) TGrand458@... Hi Jon, All In a message dated 4/4/2008 4:49:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG Thanks for the article. The 3-fold classification of panna as suta-maya, cinta-maya and bhavana-maya has often been discussed on this list. I don't think there is anything particularly new in what the article has to say in this regard. ........................................... TG: If this is so commonly understood, why all the fuss when I keep saying that thinking/contemplating is an important part of insight? No, I don't think so. From my experience, it is rejected by many in this group and needs more attention. ...................................... In particular, it has always been stressed that direct understanding must be preceded by understanding at an intellectual level (hence our interest in discussing here the precise meaning of what is found in the texts!). ................................. TG: Not always so precise. "Ultimate Realities with their own characteristics" is a huge fabrication. ..................................... There are other classifications of panna mentioned in the texts also, such as sacca-nana, kiccha-nana, and kata-nana (see UP under 'sacca'). So there is no question but that panna can be of a level that does not amount to the direct understanding of a presently arisen dhamma. ................................................. TG: Super! I won't worry about trying to inform you then. :-) ............................................... However, when the term "insight" is used it refers, to my understanding, to panna of a certain level, namely, direct understanding of a presently arisen dhamma. At least, that is how most folks here use the term, I believe. ....................................................... TG: Yea, there you go. That's the heart of the matter. You see, when I think of insight, I think of "seeing more deeply into nature than normal." This certainly includes deep direct understanding, but does not preclude deep indirect understanding. That's my point in a nut-shell. And it is met with huge resistance I can assure you. LOL IMO, the way I think about the matter is in accordance to the way the Buddha presents it... I.E. -- a broad spectrum of insight, not just a narrow "presence only" viewpoint. The importance is, that the obsession on "presence only" has two drawbacks... 1) A lot of important insight fodder is negated. 2) It tends to misdirect understanding by overly "substantiating" the present. (The proof is in the "Ultimate Realities" pudding.) ...................................................... Hoping this helps clarify our differences. ...................................................... TG: From this post, I don't see much difference. :-) TG OUT #84615 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:17 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Sarah, S: Er...What do you mean when you say the Buddha had already accepted her for the monk side?? .. C: Yeh, sounds like I'm trying to do that cake thing. I don't really know whether she was formally accepted on both sides. I was just thinking about different 'bring back the bhikkhui order' things... controversial stew. I mean, IF Buddha had actually said "ehi bhikkhunii" it would be exactly that, but (see #69800 & 69846) he said "ehi bhaddeti". "Come" might mean "I give you permission". Far as I'm concerned, she was a already a bhikkhunii anyway, being an Arahat. "Come" might mean "Live longer". Maybe it meant "I'll walk part way with you". I think it meant "Go". #82867 - << Similarly, they of two sorts (4) as having received full ordination from the Teacher and as having received full ordination from the Order. Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii received the full ordination from the Teacher through the acceptance of the [eight] important rules, and because she received the full ordination in that way, she is called one who received the full ordination from the Teacher. All the others received the full ordination from the Order. >> and << They are also of two sorts (5) through a single ordination or through a double ordination. In regard to that, aside from Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii, those 500 Sakyan women who departed [from household life] together with Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii received the full ordination through a single ordination from the Order of Bhikkhus, the other had full ordination by both Orders through the double ordination. >> peace, connie #84616 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 7:52 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (118) nichiconn Dear Friends, continuing ch.1: When someone who listens to the Dhamma gains right understanding, he accumulates sincerity, and this is the perfection of truthfulness, sacca paarami. He also accumulates the perfection of determination: he has an unshakeable conviction of his aim, that is, the eradication of defilements. We can evaluate the benefit of listening to the Dhamma at this very moment: have we accumulated more kusala and eliminated akusala? There is another kind of daana, generosity, and this is abhayadaana, the giving of freedom from danger and fear. We read in the "Gradual Sayings", Book of the Eights, H IV, §9, Outcomes of Merit, about eight outcomes (yields) of merit: going for refuge to the Triple Gem and five gifts *1. We read about these five gifts: "Herein, monks, a noble disciple gives up the taking of life and abstains from it. By abstaining from the taking of life, the noble disciple gives to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, gives to them freedom from hostility, and freedom from oppression. By giving to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression, he himself will enjoy immeasurable freedom from fear, hostility and oppression..." *1 I inserted this sutta and my additional remarks. I am using the translation of Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel no. 238-240, B.P.S. Kandy, Sri Lanka. The same is said about the abstaining from stealing, sexual misconduct, wrong speech and intoxicants. Thus, siila can also be considered under the aspect of daana. Abstaining from deeds that harm others as well as giving protection from danger is included in giving freedom from fear, abhayadaana. Moreover, also forgiving can be seen as an aspect of giving freedom from fear *2. When we forgive someone, we do not give in to ill feelings or revenge. *2 In Thai to forgive is to give abhaaya, freedom from fear or danger. Bhaaya is fear or danger, and a is a negation. Just bouncing off that last footnote: Summary and Exposition: << The word summary (sa"ngaha) indicates the [book's] purpose in terms of its usefulness: when the explanations of the Abhidhamma are summarized in one book, then by studying that book and asking questions, a proper understanding of those matters is accomplished without trouble, and, based on that, success in the things of this life and of lives to come. Therein the teachers elaborate in very many ways on the usefulness of venerating the Triple Gem, but they predict in particular the preventing of dangers. Hence the authors of the summaries have stated that by its power dangers are stopped. As to its meaning, veneration of the Triple Gem is the wholesome volition that produces the act of venerating. It is to be experienced in this life as the success of the store of meritorious kamma of those venerated and those venerating: by virtue of supporting the kamma that is the ground for accomplishments already gained, it inhibits 'obstructive' and 'destructive' kammas, which are obstacles to the flow of the results produced by that [wholesome] kamma, and brings about the non-occurence of the obstacles of disease, etc., which block the aforementioned success and have their origin in that [unwholesome] kamma. >> peace, connie #84617 From: "m_nease" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 8:36 pm Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) m_nease Hi Jon and Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > Tell me, is contemplating breath (which is a touch sensation after > > all) conceptual? Hi Jon and Alex, > We don't live in a "non > conceptual world". The cars are really moving on the highway and no > amount of mental equilibristics can disprove that. > > Of course I am not denying the conventional idea of cars moving on the highway. But "cars moving on the highway" cannot the be object of insight development. Sorry if display's bad--I'm trying to reformat my email etc. after a couple of big crashes. I think this discrepancy can be at least ameliorated if 'designation' is substituted for 'concept'. Aren't they synonymous in this context? In other words, if 'cars' are (re)cognized as designations rather than as concepts (which people often take for mere figments) this might make more sense. In other words (sorry if this is long-winded) 'designation' may refer to multiple dhammas rather than to mere concepts--I think. Of course, by neither name can they be the bases of insight, by my reading of the texts. mike #84618 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 11:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > .... > S: OK, so can we agree that now there are only a succession of cittas > which we refer to as S. or J.? James: What about a body? Don't you have a body? :-) I know I have a body. :-) > .... > > James: My parents are sensed throught the five senses and cognized > > through the mind. I don't know what else you may mean. > .... > S: And what exactly is sensed through each of those senses? And what > exactly is cognized through the mind? James: My parents. > ..... > > > S: A good point and a good question. He taught that no self, no > > atta is to > > > be found anywhere. There are just 5 khandhas, that's all. The rest > > are > > > concepts, inc. any ideas about mother, father or ordinary > > worldling. > > > > James: No, this is not an answer. He did not equate himself with > > ordinary worldlings. People can be identified with nama and rupa > > and they can be traced from lifetime to lifetime, but the Buddha > > cannot. What he said about himself doesn't apply to others. > ... > S: What we refer to as the Buddha was also only namas and rupas. However, > the particular namas, such as the great wisdom and other qualities, were > very different from the namas of worldlings, of course. James: We will have to disagree on this one. I can't claim to know what the Buddha's mind was like; however, I just know that it was nothing like the worldling's "unfathomable like the sea". > > Metta, > > Sarah > ============== > Metta, James #84619 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 6:20 am Subject: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Today is Nina's 80th birthday and she celebrated with Thai dhamma discussion in the morning and English dhamma discussion in the afternoon, after a special lunch next door to the Foundation at Khun Douangduen's which we all attended. Nina was really appreciating all the kindness, the flowers, the cakes, the gifts and seeing so many friends. She was wearing a new ring which Lodewijk had given her on this memorable day In the afternoon session, there were several octogenerians present in the small room (Nina, Lodewijk, Sujin, her sister and Han). They really all impress the rest of us with their stamina, energy for listening to, considering and discussing dhamma and also for their considerable patience with worldly matters, such as the heat, the waiting around, the changing arrangements, physical discomforts and so on. Somehow '80' used to seem so old, but no longer does.....different concepts! On the recently edited recording, KS comments that when there's no self, there's no birthday.....a long way to go. In the full room this afternoon, others attending (and members here) included Ken H (on his first visit to the Foundation), Sukin, Ann, Azita, Ivan (Matt), Rob K (with his mother, aunt and son) and Betty. Han took centre stage and in his clear, youthful voice articulated some of his questions and concers that he's raised before on DSG. So most (but not all) of the following points related to these and will be familiar here. I look forward to Han's detailed elaborations on his points:-)). -Pariyatti, can it be accumulated? What about now, at this moment? -Sickness - included in the 1st NT? Yes, unpleasant (bodily) feeling. - Separation from the dear - Yes, as unpleasant feeling - Decay as referring to the arising and falling away of each conditioned dhamma - Perfections and selection. Have you selected this moment to arise? Selecting - a moment of thinking. - Guarding of sense doors as the function of sati. The distinction between sati and satipatthana, sati without understanding, guarding has to develop, sampadana without understanding.... - The Haarita Jataka that Han has questioned under Sacca Parami. Why is truthfulness more important than not breaking any of the other precepts? It's truthfulness with panna, right understanding. A long story, but the point is to understand this moment, otherwise they are just stories about past and future. - Object condition conditioning root condition? We have to understand what object condition is. It just refers to the object - it's the condition by way of being the object, nothing else. We can't refer to it conditioning another condition. Understand sound now that is heard. That' s all - object condition. By understanding realities, we begin to understand the Patthana, not the other way. -Paritta dhammas (insignificant realities). Seeing now, so short and then fallen away ...insignificant, but we're so attached to them. Jhana cittas are longer....can be many, many cittas. Lokuttara cittas, no attachment to them and a special object. [Han, as a recap, this is what I quoted from the Atth, before. How close were we today? "In the triplet of 'Limited,' (parittattike) the word 'limited' is applied to a little mass (kha.n.ditattaa), as in 'a small or little mass of cowdung,'[SN iii 144]etc., because of its being cut off all round. States which, because of their small power are like little objects, are called 'limited,' a name given to things pertaining to the universe of sense(kaamaavacara dhammaanam). 'Sublime' (mahaggataa) means 'having reached greatness,' from ability to discard corruptions, from the abundance of fruition, from the length of duration; or it means 'have been reached by great persons.' i.e., persons with noble intention, energy, impulse, and understanding.(chandaviriyacittapa~~nehi pa.tipannaa)"] to be contd.... Metta, Sarah ========= #84620 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 6:24 am Subject: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (2)! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, contd... - Giving as done with different purposes, such as just giving, for someone like a God, for the benefit of the receiver with no expectations, understanding about accumulations - sakkaya ditthi - an idea of 'something' here, not the other thing.When it's the other thing, it's attanuditthi. 20 inner and outer, the same. Khandhas - also 20 inner and outer. - seeing arising as conditioned by kamma - no one, no world, so dark. Seeing - a little 'spot' which can condition the whole world of sight and v.o. - Anantara paccaya (proximity condition), avyakata cittas (i.e not kusala or akusala cittas) - which ones condition each other by anantara? Which ones condition each other with a very long gap in between? Understand one reality at a time to understand the condition. Gaps? Each citta must be anantara paccaya (except for last citta of an arahant), so no gap. - Turning on the air-con, unpleasant and pleasant bodily feelings. Which conditions? Lots of thinking about situations. If not sense experiencing, then it's thinking (not counting other cittas such as sampaticchana, santirana etc). - Patthana.....now, how many pathana or paccaya can be known? What's the purpose of studying and asking about the details, Han was asked by Betty as usual! He was ready and armed and fired back with a spirited defence... To understand the reality is to understand the Patthana. Learning paccaya according to accumulations. - Khandhas. The meaning of khandha is 'that void of self'. Khandha refers to a single dhamma. Each rupa is rupa khandha. It's a different way to explain anattaness, that which arises and falls away. English translations such as mass or aggregate are misleading. You can never learn what khandha is by reading. Past, future, present khandhas - realities now when they arise. Metta, Sarah p.s Han, hope you got home safely. Thank you so much for joining us. Nina said she hoped you'd attend again next week! Ken H, if you have any free time in your busy Bkk life, consider sending a few comments about your impressions. I'm sure folk here would be interested to read them along with Han's more detailed comments.... ========= #84621 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Nina & all) - In a message dated 4/5/2008 9:20:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Friends, Today is Nina's 80th birthday and she celebrated with Thai dhamma discussion in the morning and English dhamma discussion in the afternoon, after a special lunch next door to the Foundation at Khun Douangduen's which we all attended. =============================== Damn - I'm annoyed at myself! On my AOL address-book, I left a note about this for myself, but I never accessed it! Nina, I apologize for not keeping track of this wonderful event! Have a very, very happy day, both you and Lodewijk, and may you both live many more happy, healthy, and fruitful years!! With metta, Howard #84622 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (and TG), Thanks for the reply: S: "...Sometimes these terms like cinta-maya-panna and suta-maya-panna can have a more general, ordinary meaning. Suta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna refer to levels of listening, considering and understanding...I think we also need to appreciate that there is ordinary 'listening and contemplating' and 'listening and contemplating' with wisdom!" Scott: Yes, this was what I was hoping to come to. The problem with TG's assertions, as I see it, is that they are somewhat philosophically removed from what I see as the 'orthodox' Theravada position to be. In the above, and according to those posts in the Useful Posts Archive, the hearing and the thinking are 'with wisdom'. The main reason I discounted the short essay was that the author chose to translate 'anatta' as 'essencelessness' ("... impermanence, suffering and essencelessness..."). I see why TG would choose to quote the author. This use of 'essenceless' over 'not-self' shows the bias inherent in the whole piece. 'Essencelessness' seems to reflect the insubstantialist leanings I find problematic in TG's thesis. This word is used to support the erroneous (or, less strongly, the non-Theravadin) notion that conditioned dhammas are without characteristic. This mirrors the evolution of philosophical thinking which lead the various Mahayana schools to become enamoured with the notion of su~n~natta, and reflects a significant difference in point of view regarding anatta. Without a grounding in this basic tenet, that is that pa~n~naa, or vitakka, or vicaara all have their own characteristic, there is no common ground for discussing TG's assertions other than to simply note that they are philosophically other than the traditional Theravadin position. S: "There has to be the hearing and intellectual considering of dhammas first (except for the Buddha who would only have cinta and bhavana)..." Scott: Does this mean that the 'hearing' and the 'intellectual considering' must be accompanied by pa~n~naa in the moment? In other words, what does 'with wisdom' mean in terms of the sequence of arising and falling away? Sincerely, Scott. #84623 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:09 am Subject: Re: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Regarding: S: "Today is Nina's 80th birthday..." Scott: I'd like to join Howard in wishing you a Very Happy Birthday!! Sincerely, Scott. #84624 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (2)! hantun1 Dear Sarah, Nina and All, Thank you very much for writing a short outline of our discussions so quickly! I got home safely. It was very difficult to get a taxi in the evening to go to my home which is quite a distance from the Foundation. As regards the “minutes” of the meeting I will write slowly those topics that originated from my old posts, one after another. I do not want to rush it, as I want my reporting to be as correct as possible and I want to be corrected by other members who were present there, for any mistakes or incorrect reporting. For next week attendance I will contact you off-line for details. I take this opportunity to wish Nina once again, the best of health and happiness on her birthday and many more happiest birthdays to come! Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, > > contd... > < - > > p.s Han, hope you got home safely. Thank you so much > for joining us. Nina > said she hoped you'd attend again next week! > #84625 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:38 am Subject: Re: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! philofillet Hi Nina Birthday party pile on! Many happy returns, Nina! (Well, 7 more happy returns, at most...) Metta, Phil #84626 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! lbidd2 Hi Sarah, Please wish Nina a happy birthday from me too. She is a great blessing and good fortune to all of us. And a hearty pat on the back to all the other octogenarians. Anumodana!! Larry #84627 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Scott, (Sarah) OK, I just have to make a couple of comments to correct the record. LOL Let me get my boots and shovel first though... In a message dated 4/5/2008 8:08:40 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Sarah (and TG), Thanks for the reply: S: "...Sometimes these terms like cinta-maya-panna and suta-maya-panna can have a more general, ordinary meaning. Suta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna refer to levels of listening, considering and understanding.understanding...I think we also need to appre ordinary 'listening and contemplating' and 'listening and contemplating' with wisdom!" Scott: Yes, this was what I was hoping to come to. The problem with TG's assertions, as I see it, is that they are somewhat philosophically removed from what I see as the 'orthodox' Theravada position to be. .................................................. TG: The problem isn't with "TG's assertions." The problem is the "philosophy of orthodox Theravada's positions" when they do not represent what the Buddha taught. See below... .................................................. In the above, and according to those posts in the Useful Posts Archive, the hearing and the thinking are 'with wisdom'. .................................................. TG: Of course its "with wisdom." Its with "non-direct analytical wisdom." This is my point. .................................................. The main reason I discounted the short essay was that the author chose to translate 'anatta' as 'essencelessness' ("... impermanence, suffering and essencelessness.suffering and essencelessness..." quote the author. This use of 'essenceless' over 'not-self' shows the bias inherent in the whole piece. .................................................... TG: I didn't even read this article closely enough to realize that the author used the word "essencelessness." LOL But if you want to think that's why I picked the article, so be it. ;-) However, now that you point it out, I find the author even more astute! It is precisely the "lack of essence" that Dependent Arising entails. This author obviously read Suttas a lot. And when the Buddha said that phenomena were empty, coreless, hollow, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick, void, insubstantial, etc., this author understood the point and the point of Dependent Arising. Quote -- "As he investigates them, they appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness?" (Khandhavagga, 95 (3), Connected Discourses of the Buddha, page 951 - 952) Being that there is no substance in the 5 Aggregates, per Buddha's teaching, I find "essencelessness" to be a very good rendition! Its is a biased piece. Its biased in accordance to the Buddha's teaching. .................................................... 'Essencelessness' seems to reflect the insubstantialist leanings I find problematic in TG's thesis. ...................................................... TG: My thesis??? My thesis??? Here we go again. LOL Please read the Suttas!!! ................................................. This word is used to support the erroneous (or, less strongly, the non-Theravadin) notion that conditioned dhammas are without characteristic. ................................................ TG: OMG(B), what have they done??? Forgive them Lord (Buddha.) ................................................ This mirrors the evolution of philosophical thinking which lead the various Mahayana schools to become enamoured with the notion of su~n~natta, and reflects a significant difference in point of view regarding anatta. Without a grounding in this basic tenet, that is that pa~n~naa, or vitakka, or vicaara all have their own characteristic, there is no common ground for discussing TG's assertions other than to simply note that they are philosophically other than the traditional Theravadin position. S: "There has to be the hearing and intellectual considering of dhammas first (except for the Buddha who would only have cinta and bhavana)..." Scott: Does this mean that the 'hearing' and the 'intellectual considering' must be accompanied by pa~n~naa in the moment? In other words, what does 'with wisdom' mean in terms of the sequence of arising and falling away? ............................................................... TG: As for the above comments, I find them so utterly biased and distorted as to not even bother with them. I'm sure you two will be eagerly awaiting my upcoming post on "Internal and External Mindfulness"...as described in the Suttas!!! Oh yes, that will be fun! I want to wait for Nina to come back though. Wouldn't want any anti-orthodoxness to escape her attention. And oh yes, it will be a very biased piece ... as I will be quoting from Suttas the bias therein. Hey, thanks for the good times. TG OUT #84628 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:50 am Subject: Tolerance is the Highest Praxis! bhikkhu0 Friends: Patience is the Sixth Mental Perfection: The characteristic of patience is acceptance, it's function is to endure, and it's manifestation is non-opposing tolerance! The cause of patience is understanding how things really are.. The effect of patience is calm tranquillity despite provocation.. Patience of the Will produce forgiving forbearance! Patience of the Intellect produce faithful confidence! Internal Tolerance of states within oneself is patient endurance. External Tolerance of other beings is forbearance & forgiveness. He who patiently protects himself, protects also others. He who patiently protects others, protects also himself. Not from speaking much is one called clever. The patient one, free from anger, free from fear, only such one is rightly called clever. Dhammapada 258 Patient tolerance is the highest praxis... NibbÄ�na is the supreme Bliss!! So say all the Buddhas. Dhammapada 184 The innocent one, who has done nothing wrong, who patiently endures abuse, flogging & even imprisonment, such one, armed with endurance, the great force of tolerance, such one, I call a Holy One. Dhammapada 399 One should follow those who are determined, tolerant, enduring, intelligent, wise, diligent, clever, good-willed and Noble. One shall stick to them as the moon remains in it's regular orbit. Dhammapada 208 Friends, even if bandits were to cut you up, savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, you should not get angry, but do my bidding: Remain pervading them & all others with a friendly Awareness imbued with an all-embracing good-will, kind, rich, expansive, & immeasurable! Free from hostility, free from any ill will. Always remembering this very Simile of the Saw is indeed how you should train yourselves. Majjhima Nikaya 21 The five ways of removing irritating annoyance: Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which any irritation can be entirely removed by a Bhikkhu, when it arises in him. What are the five? 1: Friendliness can be maintained towards an irritating person or state.. 2: Understanding can be maintained towards an irritating person or state.. 3: On-looking Equanimity can be maintained towards an irritating person or state.. 4: The forgetting and ignoring of an irritating person or state can be practiced.. 5: Ownership of Kamma in an irritating person can be reflected upon thus: This good person is owner of his actions, inherit the result his actions, is indeed born of his actions & only he is responsible for his actions be they good or bad. This too is how annoyance with the irksome can be instantly removed. These are the five ways of removing annoyance, by which irritation can be entirely removed in a friend just when it arises... Anguttara Nikaya V 161 Buddha to his son Rahula: Develop a Mind which is Imperturbable like the elements: Rahula, develop a mind like earth, then contacts of arisen like and dislike does not obsess your mind! Rahula, on the earth is dumped both pure & impure, excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, but the earth does not detest any of those... Even & exactly so make your mind like earth! Rahula, develop a mind like water, then contacts of arisen pleasure and pain does not seize your mind. Rahula with water both the pure and the impure are cleaned... Washed away with water are excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the water does not despise any of that! Even so make the mind like water! Rahula, develop a mind like fire, then contacts of arisen attraction & aversion do not consume nor hang on to your mind! Rahula, fire burns both the pure and the impure, burns excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the fire does not loathe any of that.. In the same manner refine the mind like fire! Rahula, develop a mind similar to space, then contacts of arisen delight and frustration does not take hold of nor remain in your mind. Rahula, space does not settle anywhere! Similarly make the mind un-settled & un-established like open space. When you expand a mind like space, contacts of delight & frustration will neither dominate nor obsess your mind... Majjhima Nikaya 62 Tolerance is the Highest Praxis! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84629 From: "Chew" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 9:55 am Subject: Re: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! chewsadhu Hi Nina, I also want to greet you, Happy Birthday. Hope I am not too late to greet. :) Metta, Chew #84630 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 5:59 pm Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (1) hantun1 At the Foundation on 5th April (1) Dear All, I will try to elaborate on some points that were discussed at the Foundation on 5th April 2008. I will be grateful to other members, who were present there, to correct me if there are any mistakes in my reporting. (1) Byaadhi (sickness) It all started when I was in hospital. Sarah telephoned me to enquire about my condition and I told her that I was really suffering due to sickness, but sickness is not considered as dukkha sacca in some texts such as Maha Satipatthaana Sutta and Dependent Origination. And I told her jokingly that I wanted to write to the Buddha an open letter to reconsider it and include it in all texts as dukkha sacca. Sarah encouraged me to write this at DSG. Accordingly I wrote it. If you can spare a few minutes please read the following: my initial presentation and the discussions between me and Nina on this subject. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/83103 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/83239 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/83245 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/83251 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/83280 At the Foundation, I mentioned that sickness is not included as dukkha sacca in Maha Satipatthaana Sutta and Dependent Origination. But the sickness is really a suffering and it should be recognized as dukkha sacca like aging or separation from the loved ones, which are already regarded as dukkha sacca. Ajahn Sujin replied that sickness is unpleasant feeling. She emphasized on “feeling.” I said other factors that are already included as dukkha sacca are also feelings like separation from loved ones. Why then is sickness not considered same category as separation for loved ones, for example? I do not understand Ajahn Sujin’s explanation. Perhaps, Nina can explain what Ajahn Sujin meant. I think Jon asked me whether sickness can be considered as a part of aging. I said yes, sickness can be considered as a part of aging. But I want it to be regarded as dukkha sacca on its own merits. Jon said although sickness is not regarded as dukkha sacca in Maha Satipatthaana Sutta and Dependent Origination, it is included in other texts such as Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. So he asked me what problem do I have with it? I said I wanted to clarify this issue so that I can argue with some one who says sickness is not dukkha sacca. Anyway, this topic is not an important issue. You can ignore it if you like. Respectfully, Han #84631 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 6:46 pm Subject: Re: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Nina (and Han), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Today is Nina's 80th birthday and she celebrated with Thai dhamma > discussion in the morning and English dhamma discussion in the afternoon, Happy Birthday, Nina! BTW, I don't understand one single issue that Han raised. I don't know if the notes are spotty or if the discussion was just way out of my league. :-) Metta, James #84632 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! hantun1 Dear James (and Sarah) > James: BTW, I don't understand one single issue that Han raised. I don't know if the notes are spotty or if the discussion was just way out of my league. :-) Han: It was like a short-hand note. But when I elaborate on these topics, one by one, you will have the full picture. I have started on this task with the subject title of “At the Foundation on 5th April.” Please do not hesitate to put in your comments on my posts; I will really appreciate it. Respectfully, Han #84633 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 9:09 pm Subject: Photos: Nina's Birthday sukinderpal Dear All, I have just uploaded a few pictures from yesterday's meeting. They are in the folder: Nina's 80th Birthday. Sukin #84634 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 12:23 am Subject: Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sukinderpal Hi Howard (and Sarah), Some thoughts I would like to express. ================= > S: This is a recurring topic, I know. I think that 'sight' for visible > object or colour may lead to this conclusion. Yes, it's true that the only > visible object (sight) seen is the one experienced through the eye- door by > seeing consciousness. > > However, the Abhidhamma makes it very clear that colour is one of the 8 > rupas that arises with every single kalapa of rupas. > > So take the rupas of a rock which are not experienced now. All the kalapas > of rupas which make up that so-called rock rise and fall away all the time > and all have colour as an essential ingredient. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > When we open our eyes and look, say at a field in which there is grass, > and trees, and a rock, and the sky above, and birds in the trees, and we are > attending in particular to the rock, we are not seeing the "rupas which make > up the rock" - we are seeing *the entire scene*. It is that entire scene that > is the eye-door rupa of the moment that is our object of consciousness. What > we see, the visual content of consciousness, is the eye-door rupa we > observe, and it does not exist other than in its being seen, and it is not a > property of a rock. > I any case, eye-door rupas are sights, with each being an object-content > of consciousness and dependent on consciousness. When there is no seeing, > there is no sight. There is no visible object (or sight) that is unseen. Unseen > sights residing in some rupa repository are figments of the imagination. Sukin: Yes, the idea of "unseen sights" is just thinking, on the other hand only the presently arisen `visible object' can be the object of insight. The understanding developed through insight, arises over and over to know the kind of reality, in this case "rupa" as distinct from "nama", as conditioned in particular ways, and as anicca, dukkha and anatta, at the end of which doubt arises no more. In the meantime I believe, there is a correct way and incorrect way of thinking about the matter. You Howard, say that thinking in terms of visible object (your `sights') which is not being experienced is wrong. If you stick to your `sights' instead of `visible object', I can understand why you would logically conclude this. However I think the use of `sight' to be in fact misleading to those who want to understand the nature of the particular "rupa". Though I do understand why you would choose this term, namely it harmonizes with and supports your general position about rupa being "object-content". And this it seems to me, to originate from your phenomenalist perspective? It may be that the phenomenalist perspective initially was meant to keep you away from speculating about the nature of `reality out there' to instead focus the attention on the experience itself. However this being itself a "view" (a wrong one imo), it has lead you to in fact speculate about the nature of reality anyway, in this case, that rupa is "object content" and which is reflected in the choice of `sight' over `visible object'. In an attempt to avoid thinking about the nature of `unexperienced rupa', you seem to move away from any `correct thinking' about the nature of any rupa as being in reality conditioned by other rupas, re: the four primary and derived rupas and leaning towards making "consciousness" a *necessary* condition. Your choice of `sight' does not stop you from speculating about rupa; therefore it seems to me that in the end, it all must come down to determining what the nature of reality is and how this can be described. Besides when `sight' is being used by you to describe the particular kind of experience, is this not also speculation given that insight into the nature of the kind of experience has never taken place? Furthermore, I think when it comes to moment to moment experience involving the five senses and the mind and where "view" is not involved, the common sense experience of the `worldling' and that of the `one who knows', is little different. When a worldling flips open a page to read what is written on the other side of it, this is as sensible as when an Ariyan does the same. When after seeing `something' the one reaches out to pick up the particular object, the `inference' made is equally valid as in the case of the other. The difference is in the "understanding" which may arise in between about the nature of experiences. How does a phenomenalist explain such consistency in day to day perceptions and reactions? From the above point of view, I consider the phenomenalist perspective to be nothing but perversion of view (all philosophy is) encouraging of further perversions including of perception and consciousness. And this most definitely does *not* allow for one to better grasp the Dhamma. On the other hand, a correct `intellectual understanding' of Dhamma, even when talking about `unexperienced rupas', especially when this is also known to be an instance of `thinking', the view involved is a "correct" one. I possibly misrepresented your position or else the general view may be wrong. In either case, corrections welcome. Metta, Sukin. #84635 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive sarahprocter... HI TG, --- TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Sarah > > > Pretty good comments! Even I wouldn't disagree with them too much. > ;-) .... S: Now that makes me nervous, lol! Btw,before I forget, I appreciated your comments to Colette in #84577. As you said so well, "If we are trapped in the quagmire of ignorance, then who are we to say what is good or bad...because we wouldn't really know. IMO, people will never be purified from the outside in." Sometimes in these discussions, we forget about some of the basics which we agree on:-). ... > Understanding what is presently occurring is very important as I always > > contend. On this aspect, we agree. But I am not as obsessed as you or > others on > "just that" because there are other aspects of the Buddha's teaching > that > support and lead to detachment. But awareness of present changes in > the 5 > aggregates or elements is very very important. .... S: I'd just suggest here that before any changes in the 5 aggregates can be known, the aggregates themselves have to be clearly understood. So, visible object is rupa khandha, but is there any awareness of it? .... > However, imbuing that present experience with a theory of -- dhammas as > -- > ultimate realities with their own characteristics -- is the type of > "programming" (view imprinting) that actually does not allow for insight > to see things > as they really are. .... S: Does visible object have a characteristic which is different from that of sound? Is the visible object now appearing the same as the one a moment ago? That's all it means. ... >Which, I believe, is one reason the Buddha never > taught > such a thing. ... S: He certainly taught about the different doorways and the different objects appearing through them. Visible object can not be experienced through the ear-door, for example, because v.o. is not sound. Metta, Sarah ========== #84636 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 2nd Introduction sarahprocter... Hi Judy, Thanks for trying again! I'm sure it's rather an 'overwhelming' list to dive into, but hope you can find a niche here and a good group of friends to chat to. Please join in any thread or perhaps more easily, start your own. Why not start with some intro about your interest in the Buddha's teachings, what led you hear and anything about your background you'd care to share? We'd all be interested to hear what you have to say. Jon and I are currently in Bangkok with Nina and other friends. We live in Hong Kong. Metta, Sarah --- J Simon wrote: > I joined the group and unsubed before ever talking with anyone.....then > I got a nice email from Sarah and Jo, so I rejoined.....I'm casting > about looking for a group to talk to and it surely looks like yall's > group is pretty chatty. Thanks for letting me join, quit and rejoin all > in the space of a few days! Looking forward to meeting you and joining > in the conversation. Judy #84637 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (117) sarahprocter... Dear Connie, --- connie wrote: > Summary & Exposition: > << The helping of beings is twofold as intention and practice. Wishing > for the welfare of even those who are against him, such as Devadata, and > waiting until the faculties of those whose faculties are not ripe are > ripe is called intention. The teaching to other beings of the Dhamma > that leads away from all suffering by way of the three vehicles by one > whose mind is without thought of gain or honour is called practice. >> > > c: The 3 vehicles being? Emptiness, signlessness & desirelessness? ... S: Yes, as I understand. ... > But I think those are doors and the vehicles might be 'contemplation' of > same. ... S: Vehicles - the means of penetration and arrival at the lokuttara cittas... Only one object, one vehicle that can be taken at a time... Metta, Sarah ========= #84638 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... sarahprocter... Dear Scott (and Tep), --- Scott Duncan wrote: > "1946. ...Thus this Discrimination of Language comes to have sound > (words) as its object, not a concept as its object." > > "1947. Why? Because on hearing sound, one knows that this is the > natural language, this is not the natural language..." > > "1977. ...Likewise the Discrimination of Language arises by making > sound its object at the time of reviewing language..." > > "1981. ...since the Discrimination of Language makes only sound its > object it has a limited object..." > > "1985. The Discrimination of Language, since it makes only present > sound its object, has a present object..." > > "1986. The Discrimination of Language, because of having sound as its > object, has an external object..." > > Scott: In 1946 above, I'm not sure whether the parenthetical '(words)' > is in the original text or was an opinion added by the translator. ... S: I'd say it was an opinion and to ignore it! ... > There is a difference between 'sounds' and 'words', as I see it. ... S: Big difference. One is referring to paramattha dhammas (realities) and one to pannatti (concepts). ... > Since there are sounds and not concepts as object, I'd say 'words' > would be 'sound of word'. I don't know. ... S: I think better to stick to "D of L comes to have sound as its object". Even 'sound of word' seems like a possible fudging, like saying 'hardness of the computer' that is experienced. OK, if it's understood that there's no computer and no words. ... > It would seem that Paa.li terms have a significance that might be very > difficult to render in another language. The above seems to suggest > that this significance can be known with the arising of the > Discrimination of Language. ... S: It's not the language but the meaning that has significance, I'd say. I wrote that "when a word 'vedanaa' is heard, immediately there is understanding of its meaning. The same could be said of 'feeling' if there is right understanding of the characteristic of 'feeling'. Better not to cling to any language, I'd suggest. .... > For some, just the sound of, say, the word Dhamma might lead to > certain experiences - might be condition for the arising of moments of > joy or calm - that not all would have. I'm not sure what this would > 'be' exactly, if anything... ... S: Only if there is right understanding of what is meant by 'Dhamma'. For example, sound is dhamma. There can be calm now if there is understanding that only sound is heard. One world at a time appearing... This is a good topic. I'll look forward to any further feedback and discussion. [See also "Patisambhidha" in U.P.] Metta, Sarah ========= #84639 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts sarahprocter... Hi Alex, I saw you were going away, but hope you see this on return. I'll keep it brief in case not... --- Alex wrote: > > S: What does this mean? Are the sanna and vedana accompanying a > citta (vinnana) with anger passive? What about those accompanying > lobha?. What about those accompanying the development of wisdom or > the path factors? > > .... > > I am talking using sutta analysis. As I understand it, it is volition > that "wills". Sanna & vedana are "resultant perceptions". ... S: Sanna and vedana accompany all cittas. This means they maybe kusala, akusala, vipaka (result) or kiriya cittas. .... > > >rupa > > > is known, And sankhara khanda is what actually "wills" (but this > > > willing is conditioned of course and isn't a self). > > ... > > S: OK, not bad! What exactly do you understand sankhara khandha to > refer to? Do all the cetasikas 'will'? > > .... > > > > I don't know much about Abh analysis, so I can't say much about its > view. I guess only certain cetasikas such as 3 w/u roots, cetana, > manasikara and perhaps sati "wills". > > However as I understand the suttas, it is Sankhara Khanda that wills. ... Sankhara khandha refers to the 50 cetasikas that are not sanna and vedana. However, often it is specifically cetana (sankhara in D.O.) that is referred to. Cetana 'wills' its accompanying cetasikas and the citta at moments of kusala and akusala. Manasikara and sati have different functions. Looking forward to more of this discussion on your return. Why not tell us a little about your trips/retreats and reflections on dhamma/practice? Metta, Sarah ======= #84640 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 3:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi TG > TG: The Suttas say that the Elements, Aggregates should be seen as -- these > things. Is there something regarding the "true nature" of the elements that > is beyond -- conditioned, impermanent, afflicting, nonself? There are different ways of describing what it means for something to be "conditioned, impermanent, afflicting, nonself". Different similes and metaphors are used for persons with different predispositions. They are not intended to indicate anything beyond those characteristics, as far as I know. > When we discuss some issue of "a dhamma" such as "its firmness;" then I > think we are dealing with the "false facade" of elements and succumbing to a > conventional delusional perspective not at all indicative of "true nature." OK, but I'm not sure where you get the idea of the "firmness of a dhamma" from. This is not something I would consider was to be discussed in this context. To my understanding, "true nature" is just a reference to one or other of the characteristics (general or specific). > Granted ... at a more subtle level than normal human perspectives...but > nevertheless, it is still delusion. Truly seeing/experiencing nature results in > turning away from it, not identifying aspects of it. "Truly seeing/experiencing" dhammas involves directly experiencing their characteristics. It is because of the characteristics of being conditioned, impermanent, afflicting and nonself that dhammas are not worth grasping at. [Here you introduce "nature" as a synonym of (I presume) "dhammas". That is going in another direction ;-))] > Understanding elements allows the mind to realize they are hollow and empty. > It does not lead to seeing them as "ultimate realities with their own > characteristics." Well, "hollow" and "empty" would be characteristics that pertain. What is your issue about the term "characteristic"? Do you have the same problem with the Pali term "sabhava"? > TG: I get this from the Suttas and what I would think is a pretty low > threshold of interpretation. "A murderer with raised sword," a pit of burning > charcoals," "the description of hell states," etc. Dart, thorn, murderer, > tumor, disease, etc. It all fits together doesn't it? Its motivation that leads > the mind to detachment. I would agree that these descriptions are graphic and are designed to instil a sense of urgency in the mind of the listener. But the gaining of the appropriate wisdom leading to release remains a case of direct experiencing of presently arisen dhammas. Mere reflection on these descriptions cannot lead to detachment; only seeing dhammas as they truly are can bring this. > Where is the necessity for inferential > knowledge (of the kind you refer to) as part of insight development? ...................................................................... > > > TG: Its throughout the Suttas. Its even throughout the Satipatthana Sutta. > Its got to do with analysis, with understanding. Obviously none of this -- > the Suttas, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, can mean a thing without it. Sorry, TG, but I don't see why your interpretation should be preferred to the commentarial one ;-)) What is it that you find so unlikely about the commentarial view? Jon #84641 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 4:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi TG > Rupas that are directly known at the present moment become past rupas > the next moment, and were merely rupas-to-be (future rupas) the previous > moment. But as more and more presently arisen rupas are directly known > by ever-developing insight, there comes a point at which it can be said, > based on that direct experience, that all rupas that have ever been or > that ever will be experienced exhibit the same general rupa characteristic. > > So it is still a matter of insight into presently arisen dhammas, as I > understand the traditional explanation. > ............................................................. > > > TG: OK, the "lovefest" is over. LOL LOL. But what, specifically, don't you agree with here, and why? Jon #84642 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 4:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for the detailed explanation, and my apologies for not appreciating your earlier humerous (but cryptic!) comment ;-)) I have no problem with coined terminology, as long as I can relate the chosen expression to the terms used in the texts ;-)) You have defined an "aggregation" as a collection of dhammas that hang together due to patternings of characteristics and interrelationships of various sorts. The prime example of an aggregation is the aggregation known as a "person" or "sentient being" which you describe as a namarupic stream (a stream of cittas, their objects, and their associated cetasikas) hanging together by virtue of kammic relations. A couple of questions/comments arising from your post: 1. I wonder if you are not just restating the conventional idea of a person or individual in the terminology of paramattha dhammas. The term "aggregation" as defined seems to provide a ready answer to the question, "What is a person?" (Answer: a person is a namarupic stream, an aggregation of cittas, cetasikas and rupas). But when the Buddha spoke of dhammas, he was pointing to something that lies beyond the world as ordinarily perceived. He was not deconstructing individuals into dhammas. 2. What is the practical implication, in terms of the development of insight, of discussing/seeing things in terms of aggregations? Jon PS BTW, I would not see the khandhas as a description of collections of dhammas, but as a way of classifying dhammas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > ... > No, I was just being "cutely" humorous, for what I thought was good > reason, but which wasn't appreciated. > The serious answer is that, as I've explained, the 'aggregation' > terminology is strictly mine, but I do think it was fairly clearly defined and > defended (or explained). The Buddha certainly discussed many collections of > dhammas, most prominently the aggregates, and I have been simply pointing to those > collections of dhammas that "hang together" due to patternings of > characteristics and interrelationships of various sorts, relationships especially > including kammic relations for those streams of namas and rupas most often referred > to as "persons", and, more generally, "sentient beings". When the Buddha > spoke of people being heir to "their" kamma, that is an example of why a > namarupic stream (a stream of cittas, their objects, and their associated cetasikas) > is not just a grab-bag collection of dhammas, but is a prime example of what > I call an "aggregation". > In any case, I take your mentioned interest in whether suttas explicitly > identify certain collections in a way that shouts "aggregation! > agrregation!" to be an ironic means on your part of posing a question to which you > already have your answer, and your actually saying to me "This is just your idea, > not the Buddha's, not Dhamma, and not of interest." And my reply of "Uh, huh" > was my way of saying that "Yes, I realize that you consider this > illegitimate." But not wanting to get into a fight about my personal terminology, which I > actually think isn't very bad, I simple replied "uh, huh" to acknowledge > your non-appreciation without "mixing it up". I hope this less brief response > clarifies the matter, Jon. > > With metta, > Howard #84643 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 4:19 am Subject: Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II jonoabb Hi Alex Thanks for coming in on this thread. > > I don't understand what kind of "contrary analysis" you could have > in > > mind. You yourself concede that there is no actual mention of > jhana in > > the sutta passage. So its supposed role is something that is > assumed or > > imputed by you. So how could the passage possibly substantiate the > role > > of jhana as a general proposition? > > > 8 Jhanas are mentioned in MN26. Alara Had mastered 7, Udakka > Ramaputta 8. > > > in MN25, MN111 and others there is mention of 9 (8 + nirodha) jhanas > as a step by step training for blinding Mara forever. Well there is copious mention of jhana throughout the suttas. But what we are looking for are statements by the Buddha as to whether or not its attainment is a prerequisite to either (a) the development of insight, or (b) the attainment of enlightenment (at one or other of the 4 levels of enlightenment). So simply giving references to suttas where there is mention of jhana does not advance the discussion ;-)) > Again, Samma-Samadhi is the crown of Buddhist practice, that is why > it is placed last and 7 previous factors are ornaments. I have never heard samma-samadhi described as the crown of Buddhist practice. Where does this idea come from? Are you saying that samma-samadhi is more important than right view (panna)? > Samma-Samadhi > helps right view by supplying more experiential data to become more > liberating. Would you mind giving an example of what you mean here? Thanks. > "Suppose that a wild deer is living in wilderness glen. Carefree it > walks, carefree it stands, carefree it sits, carefree it lies down. > Why is that? Because it has gone beyond the hunter's range. 5 In the > same way, a monk � quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn > from unskillful qualities � enters & remains in the first jhana: > rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed > thought & evaluation. This monk is said to have blinded Mara. > Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to > the Evil One. 6 What this passage says is that a person who has entered jhana is invisible to Mara for the duration of the jhana. This is the same as saying that the hindrances are suppressed. But the effect is only temporary. > "Then again the monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the > cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with > discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. This monk > is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's > vision and has become invisible to the Evil One. Having crossed over, > he is unattached in the world. Carefree he walks, carefree he stands, > carefree he sits, carefree he lies down. Why is that? Because he has > gone beyond the Evil One's range." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html And this passage talks about the person who has attained jhana and whose mental fermentations have been completely ended because of seeing with discernment (insight). It does not establish the need for jhana in order for insight to arise or enlightenment to be attained. Jon #84644 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 4:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II jonoabb Hi James > > So how could the passage possibly substantiate > the role > > of jhana as a general proposition? > > James: Because we have to determine what it is that made the Buddha > describe his two former jhana teachers as "those with little dust in > their eyes." What is it about them that would give them that > appellation by the Buddha? Did they wear the best loincloths? Did > they eat the best diet? Could they recite the most Vedic texts? > What is it about them??? I believe that it is safe to assume that > what it was about them was their achievement in jhana. That is the > most outstanding feature those two teachers had. In my view, the most outstanding feature of those two teachers was that they were "[persons] with little dust in their eyes". This means that they had developed insight to a high degree. I would assume that this is attributable to their having developed insight in former lives. However, as the teaching on insight was not current at the time of their death before the Buddha's enlightenment, any insight previously accumulated would have remained latent. The need for the development of insight over countless lifetimes during the dispensation of multiple Buddhas is well documented in the texts. > Jon, you don't > provide any alternative theory. You just state that the sutta > doesn't specifically state jhana so it can't be jhana. Correction. I stated that the sutta doesn't specifically state jhana, so therefore the sutta couldn't be cited as substantiating that it is jhana (which is what you were saying earlier). > James: I am just conversing with you. I am not on a soapbox > preaching about jhana to all members. If other members want to > learn about jhana they should do some reseach. The fact is, there are no such suttas to quote ;-)) Jon #84645 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dynamics of Impermanence ... was ... Direct knowledge and Inference sarahprocter... Hi TG, I'm not sure how this'll work ....I intend to intersperse lines from the sutta you quoted at the end of your message (see below my sign-off) to discuss the points you make at the beginning of your reply: --- TGrand458@... wrote: > Thanks Sarah for posting this. This highlights the dynamic and > continuous > alterations/changes that are always occurring in relation to > conditionality. > > > Let's break it down... what is the arising of "a state"? The arising > of "a > state" (what some call "a dhamma") is the is the coming together of the > > necessary forces that form a formation and that is identifiable by > perception. .... S: "In dependence on eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise." So here, the text is referring to eye-consciousness. Eye-consciousness is a dhamma (you call it a state). It arises dependent of eye and form. (You refer to these as forces above). Yes, they are necessary conditions for eye-consciousness to be formed. The knowledge of the conditioned nature of dhammas can only come about through the development of insight, not through perception (sanna). .... > When this "arising" is occurring, the "state" that we will eventually > think of > as "arising" is not yet completely matured into the formation we will > "identify." This "arising" is a continuous dynamic change taking > place. This > "change" is really just reconfigurations of conditional > structures/forces. This > happens all the time with all formations/conditions. .... S: "Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?" So the eye-consciousness is falling away as soon as it has arisen. So too are the eye-base and the visible object (which you refer to as the conditional structures/forces here). .... >When the formation matures and is the "state" that we identify, the >Buddha called it "changing while persisting." S: "The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is called eye-contact." The sutta is referring to the extraordinary coming together or meeting of the ayatanas. Whichever words are used, the dhammas which arise are impermanent, changing and falling away instantly. .... Thanks for all your other comments. As you rightly say "this highlights the dynamic and continuous alterations/changes that are always occurring in relation to conditionality". I would probably just refine this to say: "this highlights the dynamic and continuous alterations/changes that are always occurring in dhammas due to their conditioned nature." Metta, Sarah > “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, > monks, > does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence > on eye > and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, > changing, > becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. > > Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming > > otherwise. > “Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The > cause > and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, > > changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen > in > dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be > permanent? > “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is > called > eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming > otherwise. > The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also > impermanent, > changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in > dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be > permanent? > “Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one > perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, > impermanent, changing, > becoming otherwise. > [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, > nose-consciousness, > tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the > same > manner and finishes with...] > “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in > dependence on > a dyad.â€? > (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1172) > #84646 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 4/6/2008 3:23:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: > Howard: > When we open our eyes and look, say at a field in which there is grass, > and trees, and a rock, and the sky above, and birds in the trees, and we are > attending in particular to the rock, we are not seeing the "rupas which make > up the rock" - we are seeing *the entire scene*. It is that entire scene that > is the eye-door rupa of the moment that is our object of consciousness. What > we see, the visual content of consciousness, is the eye-door rupa we > observe, and it does not exist other than in its being seen, and it is not a > property of a rock. > I any case, eye-door rupas are sights, with each being an object-content > of consciousness and dependent on consciousness. When there is no seeing, > there is no sight. There is no visible object (or sight) that is unseen. Unseen > sights residing in some rupa repository are figments of the imagination. Sukin: Yes, the idea of "unseen sights" is just thinking, on the other hand only the presently arisen `visible object' can be the object of insight. The understanding developed through insight, arises over and over to know the kind of reality, in this case "rupa" as distinct from "nama", as conditioned in particular ways, and as anicca, dukkha and anatta, at the end of which doubt arises no more. In the meantime I believe, there is a correct way and incorrect way of thinking about the matter. You Howard, say that thinking in terms of visible object (your `sights') which is not being experienced is wrong. If you stick to your `sights' instead of `visible object', I can understand why you would logically conclude this. However I think the use of `sight' to be in fact misleading to those who want to understand the nature of the particular "rupa". Though I do understand why you would choose this term, namely it harmonizes with and supports your general position about rupa being "object-content". And this it seems to me, to originate from your phenomenalist perspective? ================================= Yes, not believing in sights (or eye-door rupas) independent of seeing does harmonize with my phenomenalist perspective, but I also believe that this was exactly what the Buddha was teaching (in part) in the Kalaka Sutta. Moreover, the notion of an eye-door rupa (or sight) that exists on its own, independent of seeing, is an absurdity to me. I find the idea meaningless, and I believe it stems from everyday thinking about trees, cars, and buildings as being things that exist on their own and are seen (or not); I think it is an extrapolation from erroneous, conventional notions. With metta, Howard #84647 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and TG) - I'd like to butt in with a couple (probably over-technical) points: In a message dated 4/6/2008 7:02:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG > Rupas that are directly known at the present moment become past rupas > the next moment, and were merely rupas-to-be (future rupas) the previous > moment. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: If we want to be extra-fastidious, it might be more literally correct to say that the presently existent rupa will quickly cease and will then, no longer existing, be conceptualized and recalled as a "past rupa." And earlier on, the present rupa was non-existent but, at some point the requisite conditions arose for it to arise. ------------------------------------------------------- But as more and more presently arisen rupas are directly known > by ever-developing insight, there comes a point at which it can be said, > based on that direct experience, that all rupas that have ever been or > that ever will be experienced exhibit the same general rupa characteristic. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That sounds fine to me. Of course, seeing this requires comparison of the present rupa and various no-longer-existing but previously observed rupas (recently and in the far past), and this, of course, requires memory and thinking. ------------------------------------------------------- > > So it is still a matter of insight into presently arisen dhammas, as I > understand the traditional explanation. > ............................................................. > > > TG: OK, the "lovefest" is over. LOL LOL. But what, specifically, don't you agree with here, and why? Jon =============================== With metta, Howard #84648 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 1:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/6/2008 7:09:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Thanks for the detailed explanation, and my apologies for not appreciating your earlier humerous (but cryptic!) comment ;-)) I have no problem with coined terminology, as long as I can relate the chosen expression to the terms used in the texts ;-)) You have defined an "aggregation" as a collection of dhammas that hang together due to patternings of characteristics and interrelationships of various sorts. The prime example of an aggregation is the aggregation known as a "person" or "sentient being" which you describe as a namarupic stream (a stream of cittas, their objects, and their associated cetasikas) hanging together by virtue of kammic relations. A couple of questions/comments arising from your post: 1. I wonder if you are not just restating the conventional idea of a person or individual in the terminology of paramattha dhammas. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Rather than saying that I'm restating it, I would sooner say that along the lines of the chariot simile I am laying bare the actual nature of it, distinguishing it both from an arbitrary collection of dhammas on the one hand, and from an in-dividual phenomenon on the other. -------------------------------------------------------------- The term "aggregation" as defined seems to provide a ready answer to the question, "What is a person?" (Answer: a person is a namarupic stream, an aggregation of cittas, cetasikas and rupas). But when the Buddha spoke of dhammas, he was pointing to something that lies beyond the world as ordinarily perceived. He was not deconstructing individuals into dhammas. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see that as untrue. He was exactly engaged in deconstruction to disabuse us of thinking of people as unitary entities having self, identity, and own-being. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. What is the practical implication, in terms of the development of insight, of discussing/seeing things in terms of aggregations? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The cultivation of a middle-way perspective that is neither realist nor nihilist. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon PS BTW, I would not see the khandhas as a description of collections of dhammas, but as a way of classifying dhammas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, consider the meaning of the word 'classify'. ================================== With metta, Howard #84649 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re:e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! moellerdieter Hi Sarah, please pass as well my heartliest wishes to Nina on this auspious occasion . Her lasting energy and effort for the benefit of Abhidhamma understanding is an outstanding example for us youngsters.. I hope you all may enjoy this special day in the City of Angels.. with Metta Dieter #84650 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! sarahprocter... Hi Dieter and all, I'll make sure all these kind messages are brought to Nina's attention when I see her on Tuesday, the day we all head off for Kaeng Krajan in the countryside. Metta, Sarah p.s James, I apologise for the very cryptic nature of my notes. After Han's clarifications, if there's anything else you'd like me to elaborate on, please ask. --- Dieter Möller wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > please pass as well my heartliest wishes to Nina on this auspious > occasion . > Her lasting energy and effort for the benefit of Abhidhamma > understanding is an outstanding example for us youngsters.. > I hope you all may enjoy this special day in the City of Angels.. > > with Metta Dieter #84651 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) sarahprocter... Dear Connie, --- connie wrote: > "Come" might mean "I give you permission". Far as I'm concerned, she > was a already a bhikkhunii anyway, being an Arahat. "Come" might mean > "Live longer". Maybe it meant "I'll walk part way with you". I think > it meant "Go". .... S: I wonder what you would have written if I hadn't asked for simple English, lol! ... > #82867 - > << Similarly, they of two sorts (4) as having received full > ordination from the Teacher and as having received full ordination from > the Order. Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii received the full ordination from > the Teacher through the acceptance of the [eight] important rules, and > because she received the full ordination in that way, she is called one > who received the full ordination from the Teacher. > All the others received the full ordination from the Order. >> ... S: Exactly. So the 'ehi' in this case was not any ordination... ... > and > << They are also of two sorts (5) through a single ordination or > through a double ordination. In regard to that, aside from > Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii, those 500 Sakyan women who departed [from > household life] together with Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii received the full > ordination through a single ordination from the Order of Bhikkhus, the > other had full ordination by both Orders through the double ordination. .... S: Surely here 'the other' should read 'the others' referring to those other bhikkhunis other than MP Gotamii and the 500 with her. After these, both orders of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis had to be involved in the ordination of women......?? Metta, Sarah ========== #84652 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > S: OK, so can we agree that now there are only a succession of > cittas > > which we refer to as S. or J.? > > James: What about a body? Don't you have a body? :-) I know I have > a body. :-) .... S: Or rather all kinds of rupas known as a body:-) .... > > > .... > > > James: My parents are sensed throught the five senses and > cognized > > > through the mind. I don't know what else you may mean. > > .... > > S: And what exactly is sensed through each of those senses? And > what > > exactly is cognized through the mind? > > James: My parents. .... S: Are your parents sensed through eye-sense or is it just visible object? Are your parents sensed through ear-sense or is it just sound? I agree that 'parents' are cognized through the mind. This is why 'parents' are ideas or 'designations' as Mike would say about all sorts of different sense objects. I know I can rely on you to point out any difficulty with this:-) Metta, Sarah ========= #84653 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > S: "There has to be the hearing and intellectual considering of > dhammas first (except for the Buddha who would only have cinta and > bhavana)..." > > Scott: Does this mean that the 'hearing' and the 'intellectual > considering' must be accompanied by pa~n~naa in the moment? ... S: In an absolute sense, the hearing just refers to a moment of hearing consciousness. No pa~n~naa at such a moment. The intellectual considering can be said to refer to yoniso manasikaara. Now there is, of course, yoniso manasikaara whenever wholesome cittas arise. This can be with or without pa~n~naa. Usually cinta maya panna would refer to panna based on wise considering with panna, but I've heard that even this depends on the context. .... >In other > words, what does 'with wisdom' mean in terms of the sequence of > arising and falling away? .... S: Sorry, I'm suddenly feeling tired and can't get your meaning. Pls would you clarify. Thx for all the other comments about 'TG's thesis'. All understood, but he's already responded, so having butted in, I'll leave you guys to go back to the drawing board and further dissect that thesis:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #84654 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear Sarah: Thanks for the reply: S: "In an absolute sense, the hearing just refers to a moment of hearing consciousness. No pa~n~naa at such a moment. The intellectual considering can be said to refer to yoniso manasikaara. Now there is, of course, yoniso manasikaara whenever wholesome cittas arise. This can be with or without pa~n~naa. Usually cinta maya panna would refer to panna based on wise considering with panna, but I've heard that even this depends on the context." Scott: This begins to clarify, sorry for my soporifically cryptic question. ;-) I'll have to look more closely at the citta-viithi and those moments where pa~n~naa can arise. For example, moment of hearing would be vipaaka (?) - is it possible for vipaaka-citta to be accompanied by pa~n~naa? You suggest not. Now its for me to study some more... Sincerely, Scott. #84655 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear TG, Thanks for the reply: TG: "...Its with 'non-direct analytical wisdom.'..." Scott: What is 'non-direct analytical wisdom'? Have you coined this phrase? Can you please define this term and show where in the suttas this is mentioned? Sincerely, Scott. #84656 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 8:37 am Subject: Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Sukin and all, Sukin: "When a worldling flips open a page to read what is written on the other side of it, this is as sensible as when an Ariyan does the same." Larry: Perhaps the idea is that an aryan has no desire to see what is on the other side. Incidentally, the Kalaka Sutta is specifically about the Buddha, explaining the meaning of "thus" in "Thus-gone-one". The syntax in this sutta is very strange. I wonder if you could pass around the following to see what the Pali experts over there can make of it: da.t.thaa da.t.thabba'm di.t.ta'm na ma~n~nati Thanisaro Bhikkhu has "does not construe an [object as] seen". B. ~Naanananda has "does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight". The commentary has the sense that "the Tathaagatha does not entertain any cravings, conceits, or views, thinking: 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.' " Maybe Connie and Scott could take a shot at it too. Larry #84657 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dynamics of Impermanence ... was ... Direct knowledge and Inference TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 4/6/2008 5:42:18 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, I'm not sure how this'll work ....I intend to intersperse lines from the sutta you quoted at the end of your message (see below my sign-off) to discuss the points you make at the beginning of your reply: --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > Thanks Sarah for posting this. This highlights the dynamic and > continuous > alterations/ alterations/changes that are always occurring i > conditionality. > > > Let's break it down... what is the arising of "a state"? The arising > of "a > state" (what some call "a dhamma") is the is the coming together of the > > necessary forces that form a formation and that is identifiable by > perception. .... S: "In dependence on eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise." So here, the text is referring to eye-consciousness. Eye-consciousness is a dhamma (you call it a state). ........................................................ NEW TG: "a dhamma" or "a state" can both be wrong in the sense of potentially adding superfluous meaning(s) to the elements being discussed. This is particularly noticeable when they become viewed in a "static" or "with their own essence" way. Both outlooks break the "impermanent" and "nonself" sensibilities needed to detach the mind. For ease of communication we say "dhamma" or "state," but we need to keep in mind that this is just a way of communication, and not a description implying some-things "ultimate Reality." ........................................................... It arises dependent of eye and form. (You refer to these as forces above). ..................................................................... NEW TG: A "force" is merely anything that interacts or potentially interacts with anything else. Indeed, all conditional states are forces. .................................................................... Yes, they are necessary conditions for eye-consciousness to be formed. The knowledge of the conditioned nature of dhammas can only come about through the development of insight, not through perception (sanna). ............................................................... New TG: This I would just flatly disagree with. "Perception" is part of the process that develops insight...when rightly applied/considered. Therefore, "perception" is part of developing insight. ............................................................... .... > When this "arising" is occurring, the "state" that we will eventually > think of > as "arising" is not yet completely matured into the formation we will > "identify." This "arising" is a continuous dynamic change taking > place. This > "change" is really just reconfigurations of conditional > structures/forces. This > happens all the time with all formations/conditio ha .... S: "Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?" So the eye-consciousness is falling away as soon as it has arisen. So too are the eye-base and the visible object (which you refer to as the conditional structures/forces here). ......................................................... NEW TG: I agree with this comment. But I suspect you are seeing it more "statically" then I. All phenomena are continuously "falling away." It is only "our outlook" that thinks of "things/dhammas/states" as arising or being present. You know what Sarah, my last comment is a "commentarial point of view" as found in the Visuddhimagga. You see... I'm not all evil. LOL Or was that the one commentary comment you didn't care for too much? :-) ............................................................... .... >When the formation matures and is the "state" that we identify, the >Buddha called it "changing while persisting." S: "The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is called eye-contact.c The sutta is referring to the extraordinary coming together or meeting of the ayatanas. Whichever words are used, the dhammas which arise are impermanent, changing and falling away instantly. ...................................................................... NEW TG: Falling away instantly? Dear dear dear. Here we have a problem. Because you are trapped with this outlook of seeing things as "having their own characteristics," you think any change means instant falling away of that "state with its own characteristic" which also means -- "the thing with its own essence." By thinking "falling away instantly" you are missing a key and crucial Dependent Arising principle. "Things" don't "fall away" of their own accord! Things (phenomena) alter in accordance to conditional forces/impacts. As phenomena are continuously being affected by interaction with "other" phenomena, phenomena are continuously alter in accordance thereof. The truth is... "no-thing" ever arises in the first place because "no-thing" exists apart from conditional structures. Although there is continuous and instantaneous change, the ramifications of THAT change is dependent of conditional interactions. The "firmness" of a desk doesn't just "instantaneously" change when a "rupa moment" has expired. That firmness of the desk changes in accordance to conditions. It is gradually changing all the time in accordance to the conditions impacting it. If I change the conditions of the "desks" firmness, by throwing it in a fire, it will change much faster in accordance with those conditions. If I leave it in a room undisturbed, the firmness may last for centuries with very little change. Phenomena alter in accordance to the alteration of "supporting conditions." Hence -- "When this is not, that is not. By the falling away of this, that falls away." (The Buddha) Phenomena are conditionally structured, and conditionally and continuously altering in accordance to those conditions which are dynamic. BTW, one of the best ways to study the dynamics of conditions is to study the Four Great Elements. Abhidhamma and commentaries were very helpful to me there! However, the commentaries only give the clues to figuring out those dynamics. They need to be contemplated and experienced ...beyond mere reading of the commentaries. OMGoodness, this is the second time in this one post I have praised commentaries. Please, keep this on the QT. ;-) ..................................................... .... Thanks for all your other comments. As you rightly say "this highlights the dynamic and continuous alterations/the dynamic and continuous alteration in relation to conditionality"in relation to conditionality". I would pr "this highlights the dynamic and continuous alterations/"this highlights always occurring in dhammas due to their conditioned nature." ......................................................... NEW TG: Just when you were starting to make a beautiful statement you went and added "dhammas" to it. :-( Ahhhh yessss.... the attachment to "dhammas" is very strong in this one Darth Vader! LOL TG OUT Metta, Sarah > “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, > monks, > does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence > on eye > and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, > changing, > becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. > > Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming > > otherwise. > “Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The > cause > and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, > > changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen > in > dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be > permanent? > “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is > called > eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming > otherwise. > The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also > impermanent, > changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in > dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be > permanent? > “Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one > perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, > impermanent, changing, > becoming otherwise. > [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, > nose-consciousness, > tongue-consciousnes tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind > same > manner and finishes with...] > “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in > dependence on > a dyad.â€Â? > (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1172) > #84658 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 4/6/2008 4:11:21 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: HI TG, --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > > Hi Sarah > > > Pretty good comments! Even I wouldn't disagree with them too much. > ;-) .... S: Now that makes me nervous, lol! Btw,before I forget, I appreciated your comments to Colette in #84577. As you said so well, "If we are trapped in the quagmire of ignorance, then who are we to say what is good or bad...because we wouldn't really know. IMO, people will never be purified from the outside in." Sometimes in these discussions, we forget about some of the basics which we agree on:-). ................................................. NEW TG: Thank you Sarah. .............................................. ... > Understanding what is presently occurring is very important as I always > > contend. On this aspect, we agree. But I am not as obsessed as you or > others on > "just that" because there are other aspects of the Buddha's teaching > that > support and lead to detachment. But awareness of present changes in > the 5 > aggregates or elements is very very important. .... S: I'd just suggest here that before any changes in the 5 aggregates can be known, the aggregates themselves have to be clearly understood. ....................................................... The aggregates are just "break downs" of significant human experience. They are not actually "things of themselves" to understand as separate realities. That said, the "break downs" are needed (or at least helpful) factors to analyze the conditional circumstances and ramifications we face. Clearly understanding something is far different from "clearly having a view about something." .......................................................... So, visible object is rupa khandha, but is there any awareness of it? .... > However, imbuing that present experience with a theory of -- dhammas as > -- > ultimate realities with their own characteristics -- is the type of > "programming" (view imprinting) that actually does not allow for insight > to see things > as they really are. .... S: Does visible object have a characteristic which is different from that of sound? Is the visible object now appearing the same as the one a moment ago? That's all it means. .............................................. NEW TG: OK, I was going to comment but I guess its a rhetorical statement so I'm off the hook. LOL ......................................................... ... >Which, I believe, is one reason the Buddha never > taught > such a thing. ... S: He certainly taught about the different doorways and the different objects appearing through them. Visible object can not be experienced through the ear-door, for example, because v.o. is not sound. .............................................. NEW TG: I thought when the Buddha taught about "doorways" he was describing the Gates of Hell, not Abhidhamma. LOL Now that you mention it, I do see the connection! LOL TG OUT #84659 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 4/6/2008 4:59:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG > TG: The Suttas say that the Elements, Aggregates should be seen as -- these > things. Is there something regarding the "true nature" of the elements that > is beyond -- conditioned, impermanent, afflicting, nonself? There are different ways of describing what it means for something to be "conditioned, impermanent, afflicting, nonself". Different similes and metaphors are used for persons with different predispositions. They are not intended to indicate anything beyond those characteristics, as far as I know. > When we discuss some issue of "a dhamma" such as "its firmness;" then I > think we are dealing with the "false facade" of elements and succumbing to a > conventional delusional perspective not at all indicative of "true nature." OK, but I'm not sure where you get the idea of the "firmness of a dhamma" from. This is not something I would consider was to be discussed in this context. To my understanding, "true nature" is just a reference to one or other of the characteristics (general or specific). > Granted ... at a more subtle level than normal human perspectives.perspe > nevertheless, it is still delusion. Truly seeing/experiencing nature results in > turning away from it, not identifying aspects of it. "Truly seeing/experiencing"Truly seeing/experiencing" dhammas their characteristics. It is because of the characteristics of being conditioned, impermanent, afflicting and nonself that dhammas are not worth grasping at. ................................................ NEW TG: Well, so far we are close in everything you've discussed. I'd feel much better if the above statement replaced "their characteristics" with "qualities." There is no "thing of itself" to have "its own characteristics." Also, the Buddha's teachings, though highlighting direct experiencing, did not at all discount indirect experience...i.e., thinking, contemplating and so on. I believe the Buddha presented his teachings with a balance ... that by over-emphasizing the "direct" ... disrupts that balance and leads to false viewpoints and conclusions as to what the Buddha taught. This potentially leads to a false practice. This potentially leads to a non-liberation path. ......................................................... [Here you introduce "nature" as a synonym of (I presume) "dhammas". That is going in another direction ;-))] ..................................................... NEW TG: Sorry if "nature" bothers you. I didn't invent the term and I doubt I'm the first to use it in reference to understanding the truth about ... dare I say it ... nature. :-) Since I view the use of "dhammas" to be consistently in conflict with the truth of nature, I'd prefer that the purity of "nature" remain untarnished by that term. ................................................ > Understanding elements allows the mind to realize they are hollow and empty. > It does not lead to seeing them as "ultimate realities with their own > characteristics. c Well, "hollow" and "empty" would be characteristics that pertain. What is your issue about the term "characteristic"What is your same problem with the Pali term "sabhava"? ............................................................. NEW TG: As I understand it, that term (sabhava) is not used in the Four Great Nikayas. The only reference I am aware of its use in the Nikayas is in the Patisambhidamagga ... where it is denied. I'm surprised that you folks want to keep bringing up the fact that the "crux" of your arguments and contentions are essentially a "non-Sutta" issue. Doesn't that increase the likelihood that the commentary has "screwed up"? .......................................................... > TG: I get this from the Suttas and what I would think is a pretty low > threshold of interpretation. "A murderer with raised sword," a pit of burning > charcoals," "the description of hell states," etc. Dart, thorn, murderer, > tumor, disease, etc. It all fits together doesn't it? Its motivation that leads > the mind to detachment. I would agree that these descriptions are graphic and are designed to instil a sense of urgency in the mind of the listener. But the gaining of the appropriate wisdom leading to release remains a case of direct experiencing of presently arisen dhammas. Mere reflection on these descriptions cannot lead to detachment; only seeing dhammas as they truly are can bring this. ........................................................ NEW TG: Re: your last two statements, I have spent the last several months posting contradiction after contradiction to these types of views. It is just too narrow and one sided a view. It does not hold up to the overwhelming evidence in the Suttas and to scrutiny of the Suttas.. Granted, understanding through direct experience is very very important. However, even though you may experience something and be directly mindful, and I might experience something and be directly mindful, we might draw very different conclusions about what that experience entailed. For example, I might view it as "alterations in accordance to conditions." You may view is as "dhammas with their own characteristics arising and immediately disappearing." Direct experience does not by itself mean we see correctly. The content of that experience needs to also be understood by conceptual understanding of conditionality principles. By mutual support, direct experience and conceptual understanding of conditionality principles can develop into an intuitive insightful experience. This is not to say that direct experiencing/mindfulness and conceptual thinking coincide simultaneously. Rather, they mutually generate support by testing one after the other. At the culmination, it becomes intuitive insightfullness. ....................................................... > Where is the necessity for inferential > knowledge (of the kind you refer to) as part of insight development? ................................................ NEW TG: Explained above. ........................................... ...................................................................... > > > TG: Its throughout the Suttas. Its even throughout the Satipatthana Sutta. > Its got to do with analysis, with understanding. Obviously none of this -- > the Suttas, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, can mean a thing without it. Sorry, TG, but I don't see why your interpretation should be preferred to the commentarial one ;-)) ................................................................ NEW TG: Sorry Jon. I don't see why your commentarial interpretive outlook should override the Suttas. ;-)) ............................................................... What is it that you find so unlikely about the commentarial view? ................................................................. NEW TG: It's substantialist leanings ... which inculcate incorrect outlooks regarding conditionality principles ... including but not limited to harboring a subtle form of self view into "dhammas with their own characteristics." TG OUT #84660 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 2:16 pm Subject: Generous Glad Giving! bhikkhu0 Friends: Generosity is The first mental Perfection: And what is the treasure of generosity? When a disciple of the Noble Ones whose mentality is all cleared of disgracing miserliness, living at home, is freely generous & open-handed, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to every request &, is enjoying the giving of any alms. Such is this treasure called generosity. AN VII 6 Just as a filled pot, which is overturned pours out all its water, leaving nothing back, even & exactly so should one give to those in need. whether low, middle or high, like the overturned pot, holding nothing back…!!! Jataka Nidana [128-129] The Generosity of Giving, The Kindness in Speech, The Benefit of Service, The Impartiality treating all Alike, These 4 threads of sympathy upholds this world like the axle do the cart. AN II 32 Giving food, one gives & later gets strength Giving clothes, one gives & later gets beauty Giving light, one gives & later gets vision Giving transportation, one gives & later gets ease. Giving shelter one gives all, Yet one who instructs in the True Dhamma - The supreme Teaching of the Buddhas - Such one gives the quite divine ambrosia! SN I 32 These are these five rewards of generosity: One is liked and charming to people at large, One is admired & respected by wise people, One's good reputation is spread wide about, One does not neglect a householder's true duties, and with the break-up of the body - at the moment of death - one reappears in a happy destination, in the plane of the divine worlds! AN V.35 There are these two kinds of gifts: material gifts & gifts of Dhamma. The supreme gift is that of Dhamma. There are these two kinds of sharing: material sharing & sharing of Dhamma. The supreme sharing is that of Dhamma. There are these two kinds of help: Material help & help with the Dhamma. This is the supreme of the two: help with this subtle Dhamma … It 98 The gift of Dhamma exceeds all other gifts. Dhammapada 354 The Bodhisatta once as king Sivi gave both his eyes to a beggar who was Sakka the king deity in disguise, who desired to test him. He remembered "While I was wishing to give, while I was giving and after this giving there was neither contrariety nor opposition in my mind as it was for the purpose of awakening itself! Neither were these eyes nor the rest of myself disagreeable to me. Omniscience was dear to me, therefore I gave both my eyes." The Basket of Conduct Cariyapitaka I-8 Full story: Sivi Jataka no. 499. The Bodhisatta once as the Wise Hare gave his roasted body as alms by jumping into a fire: He remembered: "There came a beggar and asked for food. Myself I gave so that he might eat. In alms-giving there was none equal to me. In alms I had thereby reached the absolute ultimate perfection." From then & the rest of this world-cycle the moon will display a characteristic 'hare-in-the-moon' sign! Sasa-Jataka no. 316 Giving of things, treasures, external possessions, job, position, wife, & child is the first perfection of giving. Giving the offer of one's organs, limbs, & senses is the second higher perfection of giving. Giving the sacrifice of one's life is the ultimate perfection of giving. The clarifier of sweet meaning 89 (Commentary on Buddhavamsa) Madhuratthavilasini [59] Venerable Buddhadatta: 5th century. Generosity is the first mental perfection (parami): Clinging creates internal panic and social tension. Giving creates internal elation and social harmony... What is gladly given returns more than thousandfold! Generous Glad Giving! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84661 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > In my view, the most outstanding feature of those two teachers was > that they were "[persons] with little dust in their eyes". This means > that they had developed insight to a high degree. I would assume that > this is attributable to their having developed insight in former > lives. James: So, since they were jhana teachers then you would say that the practice of jhana is the result of insight accumulated over many lifetimes? Additionally, aren't you assuming an even greater aspect than I am? I am looking at the available evidence and you are calling up something which couldn't possibly be known to you. However, as the teaching on insight was not current at the > time of their death before the Buddha's enlightenment, any insight > previously accumulated would have remained latent. James: "Latent Insight" is a new one for me. Could you point to any texts which explain this? > > The need for the development of insight over countless lifetimes > during the dispensation of multiple Buddhas is well documented in the > texts. James: That development is needed to become a Buddha, not to become enlightened. > > > Jon, you don't > > provide any alternative theory. You just state that the sutta > > doesn't specifically state jhana so it can't be jhana. > > Correction. I stated that the sutta doesn't specifically state jhana, > so therefore the sutta couldn't be cited as substantiating that it is > jhana (which is what you were saying earlier). James: Well, now you are using unknowable lives as substantiating an alternative claim. It seems as if you will go to any lengths to avoid jhana. Do you have a jhana phobia of some sort? > > > James: I am just conversing with you. I am not on a soapbox > > preaching about jhana to all members. If other members want to > > learn about jhana they should do some reseach. > > The fact is, there are no such suttas to quote ;-)) James: Yes there are; I just won't quote them for you anymore. It's obvious to me that you have some sort of jhana phobia. > > Jon > Metta, James #84662 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:e-card from Bkk - Nina's 80th today (1)! buddhatrue Hi Sarah (and Han), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > p.s James, I apologise for the very cryptic nature of my notes. After > Han's clarifications, if there's anything else you'd like me to elaborate > on, please ask. No need to apologize. I was just surprised that Han, a down-to-earth person, raised such seemingly out-of-this-world points. :-) I will read his more detailed posts with interest. Metta, James #84663 From: han tun Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:48 pm Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (2) hantun1 At the Foundation on 5th April (2) Dear All, I am trying to elaborate on some points that were discussed at the Foundation on 5th April 2008. I will be grateful to other members, who were present there, to correct me if there are any mistakes in my reporting. (2) Haarita Jaataka (no. 431) In the Perfections Corner, when the chapter on the Perfection of Truthfulness was presented, the Haarita Jaataka (no. 431) was cited as an exemplary story for the accumulation of the perfection of truthfulness. But I was not happy with the story. I consider it as a poor choice. I did not learn anything from the story, nor did it instill in me an aspiration to practice truthfulness to perfection. The gist of the story: the recluse Haarita (Bodhisatta) came to the city of Varaanasii from the Himaalaya, and the king took care of him providing with food and shelter for twelve years. Later on the king went away to pacify a conflict at the frontier, and during his absence the recluse had an affair with the queen. His misconduct was rumoured throughout the whole city and the king’s ministers reported this in a letter to the king. When the king came back to the city, he asked the queen whether the rumour was true. The queen answered that it was true. Next, the king asked the recluse, and the recluse answered that it was true. Now, in the story, this admitting to the affair was taken as the Truthfulness! To me, it is clear that the recluse had no choice but to admit. The whole city and the ministers heard about this, the queen had admitted it. So the recluse had to admit. I do not see anything praise-worthy about this. I related the story at the discussion at the Foundation. At that point, RobertK reminded me that the king did not believe the rumour although the queen said that it was true, and if the recluse had denied the king would have believed the recluse. But the recluse chose to speak the truth. This was the Truthfulness. It was rather hard to believe, but it was true. It was mentioned in the story exactly what RobertK had said. Still I could not take the story as a good example of the Perfection of Truthfulness. There was also another point that bothered me. In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article on Right Speech (Samma Vacca), it was mentioned: “It is said that in the course of his long training for enlightenment over many lives, a bodhisatta can break all the moral precepts except the pledge to speak the truth.” What bothered me was: Is telling lies worse than killing, or stealing, or adultery? Will we condone a person for his killing, or stealing, or adultery, if he speaks the truth? Ajahn Sujin and Nina said something which was not quite clear to me. But I think Nina had said the same thing that she had written to me. So to get the correct opinion of Nina, I will quote the following from the DSG post. N: The Buddha penetrated the truth of all dhammas and in all aspects at the time he became a Sammasambuddha. As a Bodhisatta he had to accumulate the perfection of truthfulness to the highest degree in order to become the sammaasmabuddha in his last life. There are many aspect to truthfulness. It includes, as we discussed before, to act in accordance with one's speech. And also: to always speak the truth, never to deviate from true speech. He had to be a sincere seeker of the truth, how could he tell a lie? We can learn from the Harita Jataka. Even the Bodhisatta had his weaknesses. But still, he could develop right understanding of realities from life to life so that he could become a Buddha. For us, ordinary people, this should be encouraging. Even though full of weak points, it is still possible to develop right understanding, also of akusala dhammas, so that once enlightenment can be attained. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/79446 With all these discussions, I still think that Haarita Jaataka was a poor choice to highlight the Perfection of Truthfulness. I did not mention at the discussion, but I had earlier posted at DSG another story which I think is a better one: Mahaa Sutasoma Jaataka (no. 537). Those who are interested may click on the following link to read this story. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/79757 With metta, Han #84664 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 5:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > > S: OK, so can we agree that now there are only a succession of > > cittas > > > which we refer to as S. or J.? > > > > James: What about a body? Don't you have a body? :-) I know I have > > a body. :-) > .... > S: Or rather all kinds of rupas known as a body:-) James: Well, this depends on how you define "rupa". If you define rupa as sense phenomenon, then I suppose you can say that there are all sorts known as a body. If you define rupa as matter, then there is just one type (or four elements). But I don't know where this tete-a-tete is getting us. > .... > > > > > .... > > > > James: My parents are sensed throught the five senses and > > cognized > > > > through the mind. I don't know what else you may mean. > > > .... > > > S: And what exactly is sensed through each of those senses? And > > what > > > exactly is cognized through the mind? > > > > James: My parents. > .... > S: Are your parents sensed through eye-sense or is it just visible object? > Are your parents sensed through ear-sense or is it just sound? > I agree that 'parents' are cognized through the mind. This is why > 'parents' are ideas or 'designations' as Mike would say about all sorts of > different sense objects. James: As the Buddha taught in the Sabba Sutta, the All includes what is cognized through the mind as well as what is sensed through he senses. The senses can only sense one thing at a time, like the proverbial blind men feeling the elephant can only feel one part of the elephant at a time. However, the mind is able to put all of the information from the senses together to form a whole picture of the reality. The problem isn't that the mind forms such whole pictures of reality (because enlightened people "see" reality in the same way) the problem is when the mind's delusions adds layers of discursive thought and craving to these pictures of reality. Denying the reality isn't going to stop this process of delusion. > > I know I can rely on you to point out any difficulty with this:-) > James: Not sure what that means, but I pointed out the difficulty. Hope you are satisfied that I met your expectations. :-) > Metta, > > Sarah Metta, James #84665 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (2) m_nease Hi Dr. Han, han tun wrote: > With all these discussions, I still think that Haarita > Jaataka was a poor choice to highlight the Perfection > of Truthfulness. First let me say that I have the greatest respect for your posts--their sincerity, friendliness, and other traits too many to mention. That said, may I offer this? Over the years I've found that every time I've taken exception to a citation from the Paa.li texts, I've eventually found that the exception has been due to an opinion I've held contrary to the texts. I've found this very instructive--over time. This I take to be straightening of views. Just thought I'd mention it. Respectfully, mike #84666 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (2) buddhatrue Hi Han, I agree with everything you point out here: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > It was rather hard to believe, but it was true. It was > mentioned in the story exactly what RobertK had said. > Still I could not take the story as a good example of > the Perfection of Truthfulness. James: Yeah, I agree. To only tell the truth after you are caught is not the greatest example of truthfulness. That would make the former governor of NY a pillar of truthfulness. :-) > > There was also another point that bothered me. In > Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on Right Speech (Samma Vacca), > it was mentioned: "It is said that in the course of > his long training for enlightenment over many lives, a > bodhisatta can break all the moral precepts except the > pledge to speak the truth." > > What bothered me was: Is telling lies worse than > killing, or stealing, or adultery? Will we condone a > person for his killing, or stealing, or adultery, if > he speaks the truth? James: I also agree here. Telling lies is not the worst evil to be committed. As the Buddha taught: "Bhikkhus, I say that for an individual who transgresses in one thing, there is no evil deed whatsoever he would not do. What is that one thing? It is this, bhikkhus: deliberately telling a lie." There is no evil that cannot be done By a person who deliberately lies, Who transgresses in one thing, Taking no account of the next world. James: So, on a scale, telling a lie is the lowest evil deed to be done. However, telling a lie becomes a slippery slope and lying leads to more terrible crimes: like killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. Metta, James #84667 From: han tun Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (2) hantun1 Dear Mike, Thank you very much for your interest in my posts, and for your kind words about me. But I am not sure what you mean by the following: [That said, may I offer this? Over the years I've found that every time I've taken exception to a citation from the Paa.li texts, I've eventually found that the exception has been due to an opinion I've held contrary to the texts. I've found this very instructive- -over time. This I take to be straightening of views.] Is my consideration of the Haarita Jaataka as a poor choice to highlight the Perfection of Truthfulness, due to the opinion I have held contrary to the text? You may be correct, I do not know. I will think about it. Respectfully, Han --- "m. nease" wrote: > That said, may I offer this? Over the years I've > found that every time I've taken exception to a > citation from the Paa.li texts, I've > eventually found that the exception has been due to > an opinion I've held contrary to the texts. I've > found this very instructive--over time. > This I take to be straightening of views. > Just thought I'd mention it. #84668 From: han tun Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 10:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (2) hantun1 Dear James, I am glad and I feel encouraged to know that you agreed with my points. I always value your opinion. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Han, > > I agree with everything you point out here: > #84669 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2008 8:53 pm Subject: Most Mighty is Morality! bhikkhu0 Friends: Morality is the Second Mental Perfection: Avoiding all Harm; Doing only Good; Purifying the Mind; This is the True Dhamma of all the Buddhas! Dhammapada 183 Morality is the foundation, the initiator & the origin of all, that is fine, good & very beautiful... One Must therefore purify morality. Theragatha 612 Clean morality cultivated to purity brings all success! Theragatha 608 Morality is a mighty Power! Morality is a forceful Weapon! Morality is a supreme Jewel! Morality is a marvellous Protection! Theragatha 614 Harmless towards all living beings, Speaking only kind & wise truths, Taking nothing not freely given, Enjoying only one's own partner, Never abusing drinks or drugs. Having given up & left all behind the five harmful actions, such One truly possess right moral... AN III 205-6 Ananda once asked the Buddha: What, Venerable Sir, is the rewarding advantage of morality? Freedom from regret, Ananda. And what is the advantage of freedom from regret? Joy that produces bliss, Ananda. Bliss then generates happiness. Happiness enables concentration. Concentration facilitates vision and knowledge. Vision and knowledge brings disillusion & detachment Disillusion & detachment induces direct knowledge of Certain & Complete Mental Release, Ananda�� AN X.1 Intention always comes first. Intention is of all states the primer. By intention are all things initiated. By construction of mind are all phenomena formed. So - if with good intention one thinks, speaks or acts: Joy & pleasure surely follows one like a never-leaving shadow However!!! - if with evil intention one thinks, speaks or acts: Pain certainly follows one, like the wheel follows the car. Dhammapada 1+2 Both the moral & immoral doings; Both the good & the Bad actions; That human beings do here; These are truly only their own possession...!!! These, they take along with them, when they die & go, These actions are what follows them, like the shadow, that never ever leaves... So do only what is admirable & advantageous, as an accumulating investment for the future life. Good prior doings are the only support & help for any being, when they re-arise in the next world�� SN III 4 Here and now the good-doer rejoices... Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of good, reaps only Joy, pleasure and satisfaction ... So both here and there, the wise with merit well done & stored, enjoys the purity of prior actions. Dhammapada 15 Here and now the bad-doer suffers... Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of wrong & evil, reaps only pain, despair and regret ... So both here and there, the fool with wrong views & bad behaviour, suffers agony as the inevitable effect of prior evil action. Dhammapada 16 As the yak-ox watch her tail even onto death, without breaking through, when caught in thorns, guard your doings as your own life, by avoiding all overstepping of this fine line, limiting right from wrong. The Basket of Behaviour, Cariyapitaka The Bodhisatta once as the Naga serpent King Sankhapala guarded his precepts of moral habit, even when tortured: Though pierced with sharp bamboo stakes and hacked with hunting knives, I raged no anger against these hunters, as this was my final perfection of Morality! Sankhapala Jataka no. 524 The 5 precious precepts (pañca-sila): I accept the training rule of avoiding all killing of breathing beings. I accept the training rule of not to taking anything, that is not given. I accept the training rule of abstaining from any sexual misconduct. I accept the training rule of desisting from all incorrect speech. I accept the training rule of shun drinks & drugs causing carelessness. True Buddhists undertake these precious precepts also here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm These are timeless laws of only Good, which all the mighty Seers of the past have fully followed & made their Way! This Virtue of Morality is like Rock. A Solid Foundation for all Good States! Immorality creates regret, and thus destroys Joy... Purity creates calm, and thus the subtle concentration, which is necessary for gaining all higher understanding! Only higher Understanding sets completely Free... More on this basic first cause of all Good: Morality (SÄ«la)! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Sila_1_to_5.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Happy_Habbit.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/What_is_Virtue.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Best_Protection.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Five_Basics.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Best_Buddhist_Praxis.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sila_Contemplation.htm Most Mighty is Morality! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84670 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:49 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (1) jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Jon and all, > > I will be absent for quite somet time. I am going somewhere today, so > I may not catch up with all the posts. Thanks for letting us know. Do get in touch again once you're back, and I'll reply to this and your other posts to me then. Jon #84671 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) jonoabb Hi TG > ....................................................... > However, when the term "insight" is used it refers, to my > understanding, to panna of a certain level, namely, direct > understanding of a presently arisen dhamma. At least, that is how > most folks here use the term, I believe. > ....................................................... > > > TG: Yea, there you go. That's the heart of the matter. You see, when I > think of insight, I think of "seeing more deeply into nature than normal." > This certainly includes deep direct understanding, but does not preclude deep > indirect understanding. That's my point in a nut-shell. And it is met with > huge resistance I can assure you. LOL Well I think of "insight" as a translation of the Pali "vipassana", which I understand to be a particular level of panna (understanding). Is that how you are using the term also? To my understanding, "vipassana" is the direct experience of any presently arisen dhamma (visible object, for example) by consciousness accompanied by the appropriate level of panna. To help the discussion along, it'd be helpful if you could give an example of a moment of vipassana, as you understand it, that would fall outside the direct experience of a presently arisen dhamma. Are you perhaps saying it would include: - objects other than presently arisen dhammas, or - knowledge about a presently arisen dhamma other than its true nature/characteristic, or both of these? > IMO, the way I think about the matter is in accordance to the way the Buddha > presents it... I.E. -- a broad spectrum of insight, not just a narrow > "presence only" viewpoint. The importance is, that the obsession on "presence > only" has two drawbacks... 1) A lot of important insight fodder is negated. > 2) It tends to misdirect understanding by overly "substantiating" the > present. (The proof is in the "Ultimate Realities" pudding.) OK, this is helpful, but I need to ask for some further elaboration so that I can understand where you're coming from. As regards (1), could you please give some examples of the kind of "insight fodder" you have in mind. As regards (2), what would be an example of awareness of a presently arising dhamma (which you agree is at least part of the insight picture) that does not "overly substantiate" the present? > ...................................................... > Hoping this helps clarify our differences. > ...................................................... > > > TG: From this post, I don't see much difference. :-) Well we can't have this, so I've tried to create a few differences anyway ;-)) Jon #84672 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) jonoabb Hi Mike > I think this discrepancy can be at least ameliorated if 'designation' > is substituted for 'concept'. Aren't they synonymous in this context? > > In other words, if 'cars' are (re)cognized as designations rather > than as concepts (which people often take for mere figments) this > might make more sense. > > In other words (sorry if this is long-winded) 'designation' may refer > to multiple dhammas rather than to mere concepts--I think. I'm with you all the way up to this last sentence, which I'm still trying to figure out. Is it a matter of 'car' as 'designation' and 'car' as 'concept'? I'm not sure I see any distinction. > Of course, by neither name can they be the bases of insight, by my > reading of the texts. This is the certainly how I see it. Jon #84673 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi Howard > If we want to be extra-fastidious, it might be more literally correct to > say that the presently existent rupa will quickly cease and will then, no > longer existing, be conceptualized and recalled as a "past rupa." And earlier > on, the present rupa was non-existent but, at some point the requisite > conditions arose for it to arise. > ------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but in the context I think what is being pointed to is the truth that rupas have only ever been, and will only ever be, rupas, etc. > But as more and more presently arisen rupas are directly known > > by ever-developing insight, there comes a point at which it can be > said, > > based on that direct experience, that all rupas that have ever been or > > that ever will be experienced exhibit the same general rupa > characteristic. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That sounds fine to me. Of course, seeing this requires comparison of > the present rupa and various no-longer-existing but previously observed rupas > (recently and in the far past), and this, of course, requires memory and > thinking. > ------------------------------------------------------- Well this would depend on how the mental factor that is panna operates. We really don't have any idea how it functions at higher leves, and can only postulate based on our present experience/level of panna. Jon #84674 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 1:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard > A couple of questions/comments arising from your post: > 1. I wonder if you are not just restating the conventional idea of a > person or individual in the terminology of paramattha dhammas. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Rather than saying that I'm restating it, I would sooner say that along > the lines of the chariot simile I am laying bare the actual nature of it, > distinguishing it both from an arbitrary collection of dhammas on the one hand, > and from an in-dividual phenomenon on the other. > -------------------------------------------------------------- If by "it" you are referring to the conventional idea of a person or individual, then it has no "actual nature" to be laid bare. I think this was the point of the chariot simile. > But when the Buddha > spoke of dhammas, he was pointing to something that lies beyond the > world as ordinarily perceived. He was not deconstructing individuals > into dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see that as untrue. He was exactly engaged in deconstruction to > disabuse us of thinking of people as unitary entities having self, identity, and > own-being. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Agreed that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, in absolute terms there is no unitary entity that is an individual. But neither is there a composite entity that is an individual. So it is not a matter of no longer thinking of individuals as unitary entities but instead thinking of them as composite entities. > 2. What is the practical implication, in terms of the development of > insight, of discussing/seeing things in terms of aggregations? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The cultivation of a middle-way perspective that is neither realist nor > nihilist. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- (Is 'realist' here a typo? You perhaps meant 'eternalist', 'substantialist' or some such.) If the concept of an "aggregation" would useful in some (as yet unspecified!) way in helping us develop a correct perception of the world, we would have to ask why there is no reference to it in the texts. Jon #84675 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/7/2008 4:04:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Howard: > That sounds fine to me. Of course, seeing this requires comparison of > the present rupa and various no-longer-existing but previously observed rupas > (recently and in the far past), and this, of course, requires memory and > thinking. > ------------------------------------------------------- Well this would depend on how the mental factor that is panna operates. We really don't have any idea how it functions at higher leves, and can only postulate based on our present experience/level of panna. =============================== However it operates, to whatever extent it examines what is not in existence, it must be supported by recollection (or, for possible future phenomena, projection) - unless, of course, time is illusion & there is only a "transcendent, timeless now," which opens up quite the Pandora's box especially as regards questions of determinism and conditionality. With metta, Howard #84676 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/7/2008 4:14:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > A couple of questions/comments arising from your post: > 1. I wonder if you are not just restating the conventional idea of a > person or individual in the terminology of paramattha dhammas. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Rather than saying that I'm restating it, I would sooner say that along > the lines of the chariot simile I am laying bare the actual nature of it, > distinguishing it both from an arbitrary collection of dhammas on the one hand, > and from an in-dividual phenomenon on the other. > -------------------------------------------------------------- If by "it" you are referring to the conventional idea of a person or individual, then it has no "actual nature" to be laid bare. I think this was the point of the chariot simile. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do *not* think so. I think the point was showing by analogy the most obvious central aspect of the emptiness of compounded dhammas - most specifically persons: their dependence on components and the impact of relational matters on functionality and identity. They *do* have a nature - that of being properly (functionally) compounded of parts upon which they are utterly dependent. and being compounded, not singular, existents. The goal of the chariot metaphor was that of discouraging grasping at what is *truly* nonexistent and a product of false conceptualization - namely an alleged compounded dhamma, a mere aggregation, that is yet a thing-of-its-own, a singular entity. The point was not to show that there are no persons, but to lay bare the fact that there are no persons independent of their parts (in proper mutual relation). The person as a singular reality is nothing more than a designation, for there is only an aggregation of parts-in-relation, and the use of a single name corrupts our perspective when it suggests to us an in-dividual. The Dhamma doesn't teach that persons are fictions, but that they are empty of own-being and complexly dependent. As singular, in-dividuals, however, they ARE fictions, and it is THAT that I see as the point of the metaphor. As an aside: After the, very central, compositional nature of compounded dhammas as an aspect of their empty nature, there follows in importance the emptiness of the dhammas of which they are composed, these being constantly changing and other-dependent. --------------------------------------------------------------- > But when the Buddha > spoke of dhammas, he was pointing to something that lies beyond the > world as ordinarily perceived. He was not deconstructing individuals > into dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see that as untrue. He was exactly engaged in deconstruction to > disabuse us of thinking of people as unitary entities having self, identity, and > own-being. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Agreed that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, in absolute terms there is no unitary entity that is an individual. But neither is there a composite entity that is an individual. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Of course. An aggregation cannot be an in-dividual. It is, by its very nature, not singular but composite. (I think that 'entity' terminology is best voided, BTW.) --------------------------------------------------------------- So it is not a matter of no longer thinking of individuals as unitary entities but instead thinking of them as composite entities. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The foregoing sentence seems odd. Isn't the 'not' a mistake? If you would remove that and also replace the use of 'individual' and the latter use of 'entity', I would agree with it. I would sooner say "It is a matter of no longer thinking of persons as unitary entities but instead thinking of them as composites." ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 2. What is the practical implication, in terms of the development of > insight, of discussing/seeing things in terms of aggregations? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The cultivation of a middle-way perspective that is neither realist nor > nihilist. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- (Is 'realist' here a typo? You perhaps meant 'eternalist', 'substantialist' or some such.) ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I meant what I said, because I am investing 'real' with a sense of self-existence. ------------------------------------------------------------ If the concept of an "aggregation" would useful in some (as yet unspecified!) way in helping us develop a correct perception of the world, we would have to ask why there is no reference to it in the texts. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You're looking for that exact word, Jon?! That's silly. It is a neologism whose meaning I provided. I don't intend to get into a repetition of all my explanations of the terminology at this point. If you dislike the terminology, well, just don't use it. I don't like your use of "realities," but I don't keep on arguing about it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon =============================== With metta, Howard #84677 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 9:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' onco111 Hi Ken, The birthday celebration sounds like a wonderful occasion for a wonderful woman. I'm glad you are able to be there. Is this your first trip to Thailand? I very much appreciate your second review of what I wrote so long ago. It's so easy for people to let ego take center stage and lash out with personal attacks when challenged. You deftly saw through the peripheral issues and weeds that had grown and brought the discussion back to the original question, viz. Is wisdom (i.e., panya regarding paramattha dhammas as anicca, anatta, and dukkha) exclusive to the Buddhist tradition? We agree that deep, liberating insight is exclusively Buddhist, but I have no doubt that lesser insights can be developed outside the dispensation. These lesser insights don't lead to deeper and deeper and (eventually liberating) insight. This is because in reviewing the insights after they have arisen, there is rush to fall back on familiar conceptualizations of the witnessed reality. For example, after the insight that dhammas are beyond our control, the perceived anatta gets described as "God in control". [Of course, the vast majority of "God in control" descriptions are just parrotings of the doctrine devoid of understanding.] The "God in control" doctrine properly understood can be a great vehicle for taking some of the bite out of clinging to Self, but ultimately it is a stumbling block in the path to liberation. This is just a superficial treatment of a deep and important topic. I raise the issue primarily because I think it is so easy to get hung up on words and conceptualizations that we lose sight of the reality. When someone uses the word "paramattha dhamma", what phenomena are they really describing? If someone had a moment of insight into paramattha dhammas but didn't have a raft of Pali terms (or Buddhist terms in general) to describe the experience, how would they describe it? Some may say, "Absurd! It cannot be! No one can even a tiny glimpse into reality without first building a Buddhist conceptual model!" The first inclination would be to describe the most prominent characteristics: no control (anatta), ephemeral (anicca), not worth clinging to (dukkha). These three characteristics are so clear and vivid and striking that the description will inevitably focus on one or more of these characteristics. After moving from the insight back to a reflective state, the reflex is to fall back on our vast tool chest of familiar concepts: "It is very clear that I have no control. Who does?" And God is conceptualized. And so on. Lesser insight is attained but is not described in a way that conduces to full liberation. You may altogether reject the possibility of any insight outside the dispensation, and that's fine. I argue that it is very real (that mundane insight is not exclusive), and it is easy to see that if you keep your eyes and ears and mind wide open to the possibility and look to realities rather than models. Why would I do this? 1. It is an exercise in considering the distinction between concept and reality, something that I think is critical; 2. It can help blunt religious bigotry; 3. In my understanding, the models of reality that we construct lag behind our understanding. We may read about and talk about paramattha dhamma this and anatta that, but if it's not rooted in insight, it is useless theorizing. No amount of prescriptive thinking and conceptualization helps at all. But if we hear a description that rings true with a clear moment of insight, the description helps keep us close to further insights. If not, then it does not. -Dan #84678 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (2) m_nease Hi Han, han tun wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > Thank you very much for your interest in my posts, and > for your kind words about me. > > But I am not sure what you mean by the following: > [That said, may I offer this? Over the years I've > found that every time I've taken exception to a > citation from the Paa.li texts, I've eventually found > that the exception has been due to an opinion I've > held contrary to the texts. I've found this very > instructive- -over time. This I take to be > straightening of views.] > > Is my consideration of the Haarita Jaataka as a poor > choice to highlight the Perfection of Truthfulness, > due to the opinion I have held contrary to the text? > You may be correct, I do not know. I will think about > it. In all honesty, my comments were meant generally rather than specifically and referred to my own experience, not to yours. I don't and wouldn't presume to suggest that you hold an opinion contrary to the texts, even though I can see that my ill-considered comments gave that impression. I retract them with apologies! Sincerely, mike #84679 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? walterhorn Hi, Sarah. Somewhat strangely, I managed to once again miss your perceptive coments until long after you posted them! I want to again thank you for your generous and thoughtful response. You make a very interesting point about the interconnections between discussions of freedom and the nature of "the self." I have a couple of comments. Where you have said, "There is no Walto." I might semi-agree that there isn't much of one. By that I mean that it could be the case that all I/Walto is is a bundle of feelings, impressions, thoughts, etc. cohering in some particular type of way. I don't think I'd want to entirely agree that there is no Walto at all, however, since it is surely the case that SOMETHING changed when I was born and will again change when I die. Or put another way, when my wife asks one of my daughters, "Is dad around?"-- It isn't yet ALWAYS the case that the correct answer is 'Nope.' So, it seems to me that only if one means something very particular by 'self' (or 'person' or 'real self')--something substance-like that persists through time--will it be true to say that there is no self. If, however, one doesn't take a self to be so very much, I'm not sure what the harm is in saying that whatever it is, it is never uncompelled, but is sometimes nevertheless free. That, at any rate, is all I have meant by the compatibility of free will and determinism. I hope that makes some kind of sense. (One shouldn't expect too much of a non-entity!) Again, many thanks for your helpful comments. I hope whatever blinders have somehow kept me from seeing them in the past until they had aged nearly a week, will have now fallen harmlessly away! All best, Walto #84680 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) m_nease Retraction #2: Hi Jon, jonoabb wrote: > > Hi Mike > >> I think this discrepancy can be at least ameliorated if 'designation' >> is substituted for 'concept'. Aren't they synonymous in this context? >> >> In other words, if 'cars' are (re)cognized as designations rather >> than as concepts (which people often take for mere figments) this >> might make more sense. >> >> In other words (sorry if this is long-winded) 'designation' may refer >> to multiple dhammas rather than to mere concepts--I think.> > > I'm with you all the way up to this last sentence, which I'm still > trying to figure out. Is it a matter of 'car' as 'designation' and > 'car' as 'concept'? I'm not sure I see any distinction. You're absolutely right in my opinion. Even though I do think it's useful at times to use 'designation' rather than 'concept' for pa.n.natti, this wasn't one of those times. Using it as I did above crosses the line of "reifying"(!) what is conceptual--a big mistake! Your comments below from a more recent post are correct as I see them, whether we're talking about cars or "namarupic streams" (both unreal): > Agreed that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, in absolute > terms there is no unitary entity that is an individual. > But neither is there a composite entity that is an individual. > So it is not a matter of no longer thinking of individuals as unitary > entities but instead thinking of them as composite entities. Nicely put. I was definitely veering off course--thanks for the correction. mike #84681 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 2:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) walterhorn Mike, Jon and all, Jon wrote: > > Agreed that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, in absolute > > terms there is no unitary entity that is an individual. > > > But neither is there a composite entity that is an individual. > > > So it is not a matter of no longer thinking of individuals as unitary > > entities but instead thinking of them as composite entities. To which Mike, responded: > Nicely put. I was definitely veering off course--thanks for the correction. I'm not sure what was meant by "individual" here. If by "individual" we mean something like "unitary entity" then, certainly, composites are not individual, simply because they are, by definition, not unitary. But is "individual" being used to connote something other than "unitary entity" here? If so, what? Would it be possible to give an example of some individual thing that is neither unitary nor composite, please? Am I neither composite nor unitary? Is my computer keyboard? Thanks. Best, Walto #84682 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (2) hantun1 Dear Mike, > Mike: In all honesty, my comments were meant generally rather than specifically and referred to my own experience, not to yours. I don't and wouldn't presume to suggest that you hold an opinion contrary to the texts, even though I can see that my ill-considered comments gave that impression. I retract them with apologies! Han: I must also apologize to you for making you retract your comments. It was not your fault, but mine. My poor command of English language had given me that wrong impression. I have an open mind, Mike, and I always respect the comments made by my Dhamma friends, because I know that they are well-intended for my benefit. I sincerely request you not to let this episode discourage you to put in your comments on my posts in the future. Respectfully, Han #84683 From: "colette" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 7:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Good Morning Jon, You have perfect timing for the first paragraph of your reply: > > Can I ask a few questions to clear up some discrepencies which create > > the misinterpretations and potentials for WRONG VIEW(s)? > > > > I've read the STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS since it's terminology related > > the process of thought as a stream or river where it is always > > flowing. > > Just to be clear, the generally understood meaning of "stream of > consciousness" would, in dhamma terms, be simply various moments of > thinking. They would not be regarded as a stream since they are not > contiguous (obviously there would be moments of sense-door > consciousness arising in between all the time). > colette: "Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia, plural synesthesiae or synaesthesiae)—from the Ancient Greek σύν (syn), meaning "with," and αἴσθησις (aisthēsis), meaning "sensation"'—is a neurologically-based phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway. In one common form of synesthesia, known as grapheme → color synesthesia, letters or numbers are perceived as inherently colored, while in ordinal linguistic personification, numbers, days of the week and months of the year evoke personalities. In spatial-sequence, or number form synesthesia, numbers, months of the year, and/or days of the week elicit precise locations in space (for example, 1980 may be "farther away" than 1990), or may have a (three-dimensional) view of a year as a map (clockwise or counterclockwise)." [this is a partial definition taken from Wikipedia] So, with this said, THEN I refer to WRONG VIEW and how we, as sentient beings, DID NOT EXPERIENCE the exact same stimulus that the Buddha experienced when the Buddha manifested this "concept". We futher our misinterpetations and misdirections by crystalizing a single definition of the "concept" and thus imprisoning the Buddha far worse than the Chinese ever did or currently do in the form of Tibet. The turmoil that may result from these vain attempts to constrain, to 'pigeon-hole', the Buddha may just be a CAUSATION OF KARMA. I am also saying that all consciousnesses are connected together into a unified whole (a main pieve that I had when the Bush family was attempting to use the corpse of Terri Shiavo, in Florida, to legislate what consciousness is and is not, which is a communist behavioral characteristic i.e. "carrying pictures of Chairman Moa") The misinterpetation and misdirections are multifaceted within the individual HOWEVER as long as the individual openly and willfully subscribes to the "concepts" of C.G.Jung through his "Herd Instinct" or any socialogolical study of group behavior, the individual will sacrifice their individuality, their "self", to the group so that the group can then manifest the individual i.e. mass production of barbie & ken dolls, CLONES. ---------------------------------- > > I wouldn't mind watching KenH grill you but I don't think he has the > > bar-b to do the grilling with, yet. Got any shrimp or prawns? Maybe > > some callimari? > > We'll find out later today ;-)) colette: hopefully we will. thanx for the reply. toodles, colette #84684 From: "colette" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 8:14 am Subject: Talking behind my back? ;)) ksheri3 Sarah, What's this then? That somehow you agree with what was said to me and forget to give it cognitive recognition, creation of karma, while missing my points entirely? .... > S: Now that makes me nervous, lol! > > Btw,before I forget, I appreciated your comments to Colette in <....> TG has a worthy concept of the inability of any person to say what is good or bad and what is not good or bad. That is substantial and worthy of credit. And I agreed with him that we will never know. The only way to know anything is to experience it, no? I've been clinically dead before, in April 1978 thus my 30 year anniversery of only being given hatred is almost upon me, so I've got a little experience there, no it's not a hallucination, it is documented scientific truths, you most certainly can go to my dad's insurance company, protection raquet, for his 1978 Caddilac that paid the bill for the car I trashed before you even bother asking for the hospital records. Now that we're on somewhat of a level playing field, why were TG's comments of greater value than my comments or attempts to straighten out a "crooked road" or is that a "crooked path"? toodles, colette <.....> #84685 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 3:29 pm Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) hantun1 Dear All, I am trying to elaborate on some points that were discussed at the Foundation on 5th April 2008. I will be grateful to other members, who were present there, to correct me if there are any mistakes in my reporting. (3) Selection of the Perfections To get the complete picture of this topic, it will be necessary to go back to the “background” of previous discussions at the DSG forum. Background: When I was presenting the Predominant Investigation (Viimamsaadhipati), under Patthaana Series, I quoted AN 8.2 Pa~n~na sutta, which highlighted the eight causes and conditions for obtaining the wisdom fundamental to the holy life when it has not been obtained and for bringing about the increase, maturation and fulfillment by development of the wisdom that has already been obtained. At the end of my post, I added that if a person follows these requisite conditions, I am sure he will be able to develop the Predominant investigation (viimamsaadhipati). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84107 But Nina did not agree that the condition of conascent predominance of investigation is to be developed. Nina wrote: [I am not inclined to think that especially the condition of conascent predominance of investigation is to be developed, because sometimes, as we have seen, this one operates, sometimes another one. When we intend to develop kusala and understanding, it does not matter whether chanda is predominant, viriya, citta or vimamsa. These conditions just operate without anybody intending to develop a particular one.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84120 I asked Nina whether it also means that we do not have to develop the Perfection of Wisdom as such? If we develop kusala and understanding, the Perfection of Wisdom may develop as the case may be, without our intending to develop the Perfection of Wisdom? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84124 Nina replied: [We have the intention (cetanaa and chanda, desire-to-do) to develop all kinds of kusala because we see the value of kusala, and this is conditioned by many factors, also stemming from the past, maybe past lives. This intention is kusala dhamma, not ours. Kusala, including, pa~n~naa can be a perfection when we see the benefit of having less defilements. We can develop kusala without expecting a gain for ourselves. If we develop all kinds of kusala in this way, we can say that all perfections develop together. We do not select one perfection such as patience or pa~n~naa, we think we have to develop. All perfections can be developed together wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm, piiti.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84142 I replied: [At the moment, I still cannot get used to the idea that we do not select one perfection such as patience or pa~n~naa, we think we have to develop. Yes, all perfections can be developed together, but not to the same degree for all ten perfections in one’s life-time. Out of ten perfections that one develops together, one perfection is bound to come up with the highest degree over other perfections. For example, on page 182 of the book, “The Perfections”, the Bodhisatta (Lomahamsa) thought “I shall develop the perfection of equanimity to the highest degree.” Here, the Bodhisatta’s selection of perfection of equanimity over other perfections was clearly indicated.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84151 To which Nina replied that [It is good so long as we do not see it as 'I do. I select', but understand that there are conditions for doing such or such.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84160 So at the end, it boils down to the anatta doctrine. No one can select any perfection. It will depend on the accumulations and conditions! ------------------------------ I raised this issue at the Foundation and asked whether a person can select any particular perfection that he wishes to develop in this life. The Group seemed to have the same opinion as Nina. Jon asked me to give an example how one wishes to develop any particular perfection. I took myself as an example, and I said that I am by nature short-tempered. So I feel that I must try to develop the perfection of patience. Ajahn Sujin asked me whether I have selected this moment to arise? She said it is only thinking. I said it is more than thinking, and there is the involvement of action, or the lack of it. Before I practiced patience, if someone abused me verbally, I most probably would abuse back verbally. Now, I will try not to say anything, and take his abuses with patience. But what I was saying about “thinking” might be different from Ajahn Sujin’s idea of “thinking.” I might have been speaking completely on the wrong track. Perhaps Nina or Sarah can explain Ajahn Sujin’s opinion on this issue. Meanwhile, it may be useful if members can give their opinion on whether one can “select” a particular perfection to develop. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #84686 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) m_nease Hi Walto, Very glad to see you're still around. Walter Horn wrote: > Jon wrote: > >> > Agreed that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, in absolute >> > terms there is no unitary entity that is an individual. >> >> > But neither is there a composite entity that is an individual. >> >> > So it is not a matter of no longer thinking of individuals as > unitary >> > entities but instead thinking of them as composite entities. > > To which Mike, responded: > >> Nicely put. I was definitely veering off course--thanks for the > correction. > > I'm not sure what was meant by "individual" here. If by "individual" > we mean something like "unitary entity" then, certainly, composites > are not individual, simply because they are, by definition, not > unitary. But is "individual" being used to connote something other > than "unitary entity" here? If so, what? > > Would it be possible to give an example of some individual thing that > is neither unitary nor composite, please? Not that I know of--not sure--nibbaana, maybe? > Am I neither composite nor > unitary? Is my computer keyboard? Thanks. My two cents' worth: 'I' is a concept. Whether we call it unitary or composite doesn't really matter. Because it's a concept it can't be the basis of insight, according to the texts. The bases of insight (more specifically of mindfulness, potentially leading to insight) are matter, feelings, consciousness(es) and mental factors. This list includes a fair few things (dhammas) which--I think--could be called unitary. Certainly not composite except in the sense that they all occur only in the company of certain other 'universal' dhammas if I'm not mistaken. 'I' is none of the above, whether unitary or composite--it's a concept either way as well as a 'perversion of perception (sa~n~naa vipallaasa)', namely 'self perception (atta sa~n~naa)'. The same pretty much goes for your (or my) computer keyboard as I see it. I'll leave it at that before I put my foot into my mouth--if I haven't done already... mike #84687 From: "connie" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 5:31 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (119) nichiconn Dear Friends, Continuing ch.1 of "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment": If someone does not know that forgiving is a perfection he will not forgive someone else who has done him wrong. If we do not forgive others how can we attain enlightenment and eradicate defilements? If we consider this it may be a condition for the gift of freedom from fear. This is a way of generosity higher than the giving of material things, aamisa daana. If we cannot forgive someone we do not like, it means also that we cannot develop other kinds of kusala with regard to this person. If we do not forgive him or if we are still angry with him, we cannot be generous to him, we cannot even give him material things. Neither can we give him the gift of Dhamma, Dhamma daana, in helping him with Dhamma discussion, or advise him as to what is beneficial in life and what is not beneficial. The gift of freedom from fear is a condition for the perfection of morality, siila paaramii, to develop; it is the condition for abstinence from wrong action and speech. If we do not forgive someone else, our conduct will not be that of a friend and thus kusala cannot develop. How could we then cross over to the further shore, namely, the eradication of defilements? This shows us that our consideration of the nature of kusala in daily life should be very refined. A person who develops pa~n~naa that can realize the four noble Truths, should know the nature of his citta; he should know when he is mentally ill and has no moral strength. If that is the case, how could he travel the extremely long road that is the eightfold Path? He should consider the nature of his citta, so that he can gain strength of citta by means of the perfections. He may know that the Path is satipa.t.thaana, the development of understanding of the characteristics of realities; but sati does not arise if the perfections are not strong enough for the realization of the four noble Truths. We all should develop the ten perfections with pa~n~naa, also when we practise generosity in our daily life. We should know the truth, we should know the difference between giving without pa~n~naa and giving with pa~n~naa, such as in the case of the Bodhisatta who gave with pa~n~naa. In this way we can consider and understand the perfection of truthfulness, sincerity for kusala, so that we can follow in the the footsteps of the Bodhisatta who developed the perfections during each life. He did not develop in one life just the perfection of morality, and in another life just the perfection of renunciation, but he developed all ten perfections, without exception, during each life. ..to be continued, connie #84688 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 8:45 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) buddhatrue Hi Han, Again, I am enjoying your detailed summary of the Bangkok discussion: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Meanwhile, it may be useful if members can give their > opinion on whether one can "select" a particular > perfection to develop. Yes, one can select a particular perfection to develop. Through mindfulness, one can determine where weaknesses most frequently occur in one's mindstream and make a concentrated effort to correct those weaknesses. This is Right Effort as taught by the Buddha. KS and her followers have a mystical approach to this subject. They try to give their mystical approch scholarly sounding names like "accumulations", but it is still just mystical. It is the same as wu-wei "non-doing" in Zen and Taoism. The idea is that we are already awakened and that any effort to become awakened only compounds the problem or ignorance. In other words, we just need to realize our awakened nature- no effort is involved. One should trust panna (wisdom) to allow this to occur. This approach only has merit for the most advanced practitioners. When the mind is highly purified already, it doesn't do any good to keep trying to purify it in a gross manner. In other words, when the knife is sharp you don't have to keep sharpening and sharpening it- you can just sit back and let it do its work. But, for those just beginning the path or still have much work to do, this approach doesn't work. There isn't enough panna to do anything. The knife is dull and useless. So, I say that you can chose to develop a perfection until it seems time that such choosing isn't appropriate anymore. Trust your instincts in this regard (or the guidance of a personal teacher). Metta, James #84689 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 7, 2008 9:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) hantun1 Dear James, Thank you very much for your comments. In particular, I take note of your following remarks: [Yes, one can select a particular perfection to develop. Through mindfulness, one can determine where weaknesses most frequently occur in one's mindstream and make a concentrated effort to correct those weaknesses. This is Right Effort as taught by the Buddha.] and [So, I say that you can chose to develop a perfection until it seems time that such choosing isn't appropriate anymore. Trust your instincts in this regard (or the guidance of a personal teacher).] I also like your simile of sharpening of the knife. ------------------------------ I know my own limitations, and I have spelt it out in my message to Nina (which I had not included in my last post fearing it might become too long). I had written: [As I see it there are three inter-connected issues: (1) All perfections can be developed together, and all perfections are interrelated and they support one another. (2) We do not select one perfection such as patience or pa~n~naa, we think we have to develop. In other words, we do not select which one we wish to develop. (3) It is good so long as we do not see it as 'I do. I select', but understand that there are conditions for doing such or such. ---------- I have no problem with no. (1). With no. (2), I think we should have a choice which perfection we wish to develop, like Lomahamsa had thought “I shall develop the perfection of equanimity to the highest degree.” With no. (3), it is the anatta doctrine all over again. Being just a puthujjana, I for one, may not be that advanced to consider that there is no “I” who do or who select.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84165 Respectfully, Han #84690 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 2:31 am Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) philofillet Hi James, Han and all I really appreciated the below, James. > This approach only has merit for the most advanced practitioners. > When the mind is highly purified already, it doesn't do any good to > keep trying to purify it in a gross manner. In other words, when > the knife is sharp you don't have to keep sharpening and sharpening > it- you can just sit back and let it do its work. But, for those > just beginning the path or still have much work to do, this approach > doesn't work. There isn't enough panna to do anything. The knife > is dull and useless. I wouldn't agree with you that "accumulations" is a mystical term. I think it's true that different people are born with different accumulated tendencies. Well, it's laid out explicitly in Vism. at least. So it could be that some people are born with greater resilience to objects, if you will - less natural tendency to be swept away by gross defilements. So some of A.S's students might simply fail to appreciate what it is like to be swept away again and again, and how the notion of wrong view of clinging-to-self involved in such things as choosing a perfection to concentrate on is not a concern at all when one is dealing with much grosser, more destructive forms of wrong view. They just don't know what it's like. That's quite possible. For exzample, I was having coffee with a co-worker a couple of years ago and mentionned a flirtatious relationship I was having with one of the female teachers. And I talked about the 7 year itch, how people married for awhile naturally get tempted to cheat on their wives. And I was very interested to see that this guy sincerely didn't know what I was talking about! There *are* men who don't think about cheating on their wives!!! (I suspect Jon might be one of them, for example.) And this reminded me that I am basically a dog who was fortunate enough to be born human for a change, and aiming to be born human again is just fine, thank you. On the other hand, it is true that people might be over-estimating the power of their panna. There is a very good sutta in Anguttara Nikaya in which the Buddha says that there are three kinds of mentalities. Like a festering sore, like a flash of lightning and like a diamond. The diamond is arahat, if I recall, and the flash of lightning the other kinds of ariyan. In any case, ariyan. The rest of us have minds like festering wounds that are set to burst forth in despicable behaviour at the slightest opportunity. So all this talk of detachment from self-view from the beginning etc could perhaps be a kind of dangerous wishful thinking, and overestimation of this wonderful panna that works its way. Perhaps! Stress on perhaps, I am not casting aspersion, just throwing that out there.... Anyways, thanks for the above. I will reflect on which perfection I am most in need of practicing with more intentional vigour. (Actually, I don't think in terms of "perfection" - it seems good enough to me to say "wholesome behaviour.") Metta, Phil #84691 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 5:01 am Subject: Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Regarding: "...da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m di.t.ta.m na ma~n~nati..." Scott: I think Nina clarified that the verb is 'dassati'. An earlier post by Jim Anderson gives the following: "According to PED under 'dassati' (see end of article) and 'dassita' (shown, made visible), the latter is a causative past participle and is related to the causative verb 'dasseti'. The verbal root is 'dis' out of which many different forms are derived: pass- (vipassanaaa), dakkh-, dass-, da.t.th-. dit.t.h-, diss- which can be rather confusing." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24250 Scott: The PTS PED: "da.t.thabba (to be regarded as)"; "dissati (to be seen, to appear)"; "also a ger. form di.t.thaa". di.t.thaa - "1. seen...nt. di.t.tha.m a vision...Since sight is the principal sense of perception as well as of apperception (cp. cakkhu), that which is seen is the chief representation of any sense -- impression, & di.t.tha combd with suta (heard) and muta (sensed by means of smell, taste & touch), to which vi~n~naata (apperceived by the mind) is often joined, gives a complete analysis of that which comprises all means of cognition & recognition...2. known, understood ...3. (adj.) visible, determined by sight, in conn. with dhamma meaning the visible order of things, the world of sensation, this world..." "Ma~n~nati...1. to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem...2. to know, to be convinced, to be sure...3. to imagine, to be proud (of), to be conceited, to boast..." L: "Perhaps the idea is that an aryan has no desire to see what is on the other side...Thanisaro Bhikkhu has "does not construe an [object as] seen". B. ~Naanananda has "does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight". The commentary has the sense that "the Tathaagatha does not entertain any cravings, conceits, or views, thinking: 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.'" Scott: I'm interested in the way in which 'view' and 'seen' come together. When the arahat 'sees' there would seem to be no becoming caught up in any accompanying imagination or thinking about what is seen. Or, perhaps, only seeing. Sincerely, Scott. #84692 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 3:42 am Subject: Withdrawal Wins! bhikkhu0 Friends: Withdrawal is the Third Mental Perfection: Withdrawal is Removal of Misery Withdrawal is Extraction of Disease. Withdrawal is Pulling out the splinter of Pain. Withdrawal is Retraction from Danger. Withdrawal is Renunciation of Ill. Withdrawal is Letting Go of what is Burning. Withdrawal is Turning Away from what is Sorrow. Withdrawal is Seclusion from what is Grief. Withdrawal is Clearing of Captivating Illusions. Withdrawal is Waking Up from Enthralling Trance. Withdrawal is Freedom from Enslaving Addiction. Withdrawal is Protection of what is Entrapping. Withdrawal is Giving Up what is Detrimental. Withdrawal is Discharge of what is Infested. Withdrawal is Breaking out of the Prison. Withdrawal is Release from all Suffering... Withdraw, as the man newly freed from prison does not at all wish himself back in prison! The Basket of Conduct, Cariyapitaka Infatuated with lust, impassioned & obsessed, they are caught in their own self-created net, like a spider, which spins it's own web! Cutting through the Noble Friend withdraw & go free, Without longing, without greed, leaving all misery behind. Dhammapada 347 Blissful is solitude for the contented, learned & knower of True Dhamma. Blissful is harmlessness towards all breathing beings without exception. Blissful is freedom from all urge of sensual slavery whatsoever. Yet, supreme bliss, is the withdrawal from the abysmal conceit “I amâ€?!’ Udana – Inspiration: II – 1 The Bodhisatta once as the King Culasutasoma gave up his whole kingdom. Knowing this withdrawal to be an advantageous victory, he remembered: A mighty kingdom I possessed, as if it was dropped into my hands... Yet all this tantalizing luxury, I let fall & go without any even a slight trace of longing nor clinging. This was my perfection of Withdrawal. Jataka no. 525 Lust, I say, is a great flood; a whirlpool sucking one down, a constant yearning, seeking a hold, continually active; difficult to cross is such morass of sensual desire... A sage does not deviate from good, but remains steady! A recluse stands on firm ground, when secluded; When withdrawn from all, truly he is calmed & silenced! Having directly touched the Dhamma, he is independent! He behaves right & does not envy anyone anywhere... He who has left behind all pleasure arised from sensing, an attachment difficult to cut, is freed of both depression & longing, since he has cut across the great flood, and is released. Sutta Nipata IV.15 Any being, that cools down all desires & greedy lusts, by being alert & ever aware of the inherent danger, by directing attention only to these disgusting aspects of all phenomena, such one withdraw from craving and thereby wears down & breaks the chains of the inner prison. Dhammapada 350 If one gains an infinite ease by leaving a minor pleasure, the clever one should swap the luminous for that is a trifling sensual pleasure, by withdrawing from this trivial boredom. Dhammapada 290 The one who has reached the sublime end all perfected, is fearless, freed of craving, desireless and detached.. Such one has broken the chains of being and is certainly withdrawing into the final phase, wearing his last frame... Dhammapada 351 The household life is a cramped way, choked with dust. To leave it, is like coming out into the free space of open air! It is not easy for one who lives at home, to live the Noble life completely perfect and pure, bright as mother-of-pearl. Surely I will now shave off my hair & go forth into homelessness. Only Misery Arises. Only Misery Ceases. Nothing good is thus lost by withdrawing from it all. Nothing is Worth Clinging to! Withdrawal Therefore Wins! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84693 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Scott, Scott: "I think Nina clarified that the verb is 'dassati'. An earlier post by Jim Anderson gives the following:..." Larry: I couldn't follow what was being discussed, but I think it was from a different sutta. Would it be possible for you to find the Pali for this sutta? I believe there is a difference between the Burmese and the Sinhala versions. Given which ever version you can find, how would you translate it? Here is B. ~Naanananda's note: 'Thus, monks, a tathaagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight;1 1. The Comm. takes the words 'da.t.thaa da.t.thabba'm' in the text to mean: 'having seen, should be known' and explains the following words 'di.t.ta'm na ma~n~nati' as a separate phrase meaning that the Tathaagata does not entertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.' It applies the same mode of explanation throughout. "It is perhaps more plausible to explain da.t.thaa or di.t.thaa (vl. in Burmese MSS; see A. 25 fn. 3) as an ablative form of the past participle giving the sense: 'as apart from sight'; and da.t.thabba'm di.t.tha'm taken together would mean: 'a visible thing'. So also the other three corresponding terms: suttaa, mutaa and vi~n~naataa. The Buddha Jayanthi Tipitaka Series (No. 19, Sinhalese script) recognizes this reading but follows the Comm. in rendering them as absolutives. The Chattha Sangiiti Pitaka edition (Burmese script) as well as the P.T.S. edition, has the absolutive form: sutvaa, mutvaa and vi~n~natvaa -- which is probably a re-correction following the commentarial explanation." Scott: "I'm interested in the way in which 'view' and 'seen' come together. When the arahat 'sees' there would seem to be no becoming caught up in any accompanying imagination or thinking about what is seen. Or, perhaps, only seeing." Larry: Maybe so. My guess is, if the Buddha sees the visible data of a tree he does not conceive that visible data as a tree in the same way as he does not conceive his own appearance as me or mine. But he still recognizes a tree and Ananda and anyone else he knows. Larry #84694 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 6:01 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) buddhatrue Hi Phil (and Han), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > > Hi James, Han and all > > I really appreciated the below, James. James: Thank you. Glad to see you back :-). > > I wouldn't agree with you that "accumulations" is a mystical term. > I think it's true that different people are born with different > accumulated tendencies. James: I also believe that people are born with different accumulations and tendencies. "Mystical" doesn't mean false or untrue, here is the meaning of mystical from dictionary.com: mys·ti·cal (mĭs'tĭ-kəl) adj. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses. James: Since we don't know our own accumulations or the accumulations of others, basing Buddhist practice on accumulations is a mystical approach. It is using something which cannot be directly known by us. Granted, mysticism does have its place in Buddhism, but I believe that KS gives it far too much weight. For example, to say that one is not capable of achieving jhana unless he/she has the right accumulations is a purely mystical outlook. How is one to possibly know these accumulations? I don't see the Buddha basing his teaching on mysticism. The Noble Eightfold Path is very practical and is designed for anyone to follow. Well, it's laid out explicitly in Vism. at > least. So it could be that some people are born with greater > resilience to objects, if you will - less natural tendency to be > swept away by gross defilements. So some of A.S's students might > simply fail to appreciate what it is like to be swept away again and > again, and how the notion of wrong view of clinging-to-self involved > in such things as choosing a perfection to concentrate on is not a > concern at all when one is dealing with much grosser, more > destructive forms of wrong view. They just don't know what it's > like. James: They have to know what that's like. If they are unenlightend they have to know what it is like to be overpowered by unwholesome mind states. We all know what that's like. But not everyone knows what's happening at those moments and why it's happening. That's quite possible. For exzample, I was having coffee with > a co-worker a couple of years ago and mentionned a flirtatious > relationship I was having with one of the female teachers. And I > talked about the 7 year itch, how people married for awhile > naturally get tempted to cheat on their wives. And I was very > interested to see that this guy sincerely didn't know what I was > talking about! There *are* men who don't think about cheating on > their wives!!! James: I don't know but I doubt it. There are different levels of "thinking about cheating" and sexual misconduct is extremely widespread. Some passively think, some actively think, some plan, and some do. (I suspect Jon might be one of them, for example.) > And this reminded me that I am basically a dog who was fortunate > enough to be born human for a change, and aiming to be born human > again is just fine, thank you. James: I wouldn't be so self critical. Just take note of any unwholesome mind states and then move on. Dwelling too long on the unwholesome, or giving it too much importance or power (ie "I am basically a dog"), will just make that mind state grow. Keep your mind toward the positive. :-) > > On the other hand, it is true that people might be over- estimating > the power of their panna. There is a very good sutta in Anguttara > Nikaya in which the Buddha says that there are three kinds of > mentalities. Like a festering sore, like a flash of lightning and > like a diamond. The diamond is arahat, if I recall, and the flash of > lightning the other kinds of ariyan. In any case, ariyan. The rest > of us have minds like festering wounds that are set to burst forth > in despicable behaviour at the slightest opportunity. So all this > talk of detachment from self-view from the beginning etc could > perhaps be a kind of dangerous wishful thinking, and overestimation > of this wonderful panna that works its way. James: Right. I see the mystical approach of depending on panna to do everything on its own as a type of blindness. They are just depending on something which isn't there. Perhaps! Stress on > perhaps, I am not casting aspersion, just throwing that out there.... > > Anyways, thanks for the above. I will reflect on which perfection > I am most in need of practicing with more intentional vigour. > (Actually, I don't think in terms of "perfection" - it seems good > enough to me to say "wholesome behaviour.") James: I think it is good to pick a perfection, and be specific, to work on. All of the perfections are connected as they come from a pure mind, so if you develop one you develop them all. However, you still need to pick one at a time to focus on or you can't develop any of them. (For example, Han works on the perfection of patience because he feels he doesn't have enough patience; I choose to work on the perfection of Good Will (Metta) because I don't think I have enough metta toward people as I don't trust or like many people...which I'm sure others can see my lack of good will more clearly as opposed to Han's supposed lack of patience ;-)) > > Metta, > > Phil > Metta, James #84695 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 7:55 pm Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (4) hantun1 Dear All, This topic I am about to write was just my wild imagination, which does not have any significance. I am writing this just to make my reporting complete. You may skip it, if you like. (4) Conditions Some time back, a friend of mine pulled my legs by asking whether one Condition can condition another Condition. At first, I said, “no.” But on second thought, I wondered whether the Object Condition can condition the Root Condition. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed feasible to me. Why? The six roots of the Root Condition are cetasikas. Cetasikas cannot arise without the simultaneous arising of cittas. And citta cannot arise without an object. So, I thought Object Condition can condition Root Condition. I raised this issue at the Foundation and I was immediately fired by the Group. Sarah’s note on this topic tells it all! - Object condition conditioning root condition? We have to understand what object condition is. It just refers to the object - it's the condition by way of being the object, nothing else. We can't refer to it conditioning another condition. Understand sound now that is heard. That's all - object condition. By understanding realities, we begin to understand the Patthana, not the other way. My wildest imagination was shattered for good! The case closed! Respectfully, Han #84696 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 8, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) philofillet Hi James and all > > James: Thank you. Glad to see you back :-). For better or worse (worse when it comes to working on my novel, much worse) my desktop is now connected to the internet as well as the main computer that Naomi needs to use so much for her business, and which we were bickering over a bit. I suspect I'll hang out more at e-sangha for the time being because it is ok to be a complete bookstore buddhist there without having one's comforting beliefs scrutinized too fiercely. Comforting beliefs are an important part of the path, because they energize us and give us more determination to avoid evil and do good in very conventional ways, which is where we must start. Sarah and others deny that they get emotional comfort from the Dhamma - I suspect they are in denial on this point. Again, just a suspicion that I throw out for their consideration in a friendly way. :) > > So it could be that some people are born with greater > > resilience to objects, if you will - less natural tendency to be > > swept away by gross defilements. So some of A.S's students might > > simply fail to appreciate what it is like to be swept away again > and > > again, and how the notion of wrong view of clinging-to-self > involved > > in such things as choosing a perfection to concentrate on is not a > > concern at all when one is dealing with much grosser, more > > destructive forms of wrong view. They just don't know what it's > > like. > > James: They have to know what that's like. If they are unenlightend > they have to know what it is like to be overpowered by unwholesome > mind states. We all know what that's like. But not everyone knows > what's happening at those moments and why it's happening. "We all know what that's like." OK, that's a good reminder. But I guess I disagree because that is just what Sarah says, that we all know what it's like to behave in an unwholesome way. I think that some of us are more vulnerable than others because of the differing ways our mindstreams flow because of past life accumulations. I think it is denying one of the incredibly beautiful aspects of the Dhamma to deny that the Buddha teaches to different people in different ways according to their accumulations. Acharn Sujin probably knows this, but for some reason when told about someone who is worried about transgression, she recommends a very deep, panna oriented approach. ("It has already fallen away" she says in one recorded talk of transgressions that haven't occured yet, and that, in my opinion, is very wrong view.) This deep approach is found in the quote I posted some months ago, from Robert K about how we become less and less interested in whether there is kusala or akusala and the emphasis shifts to the anattaness of it all and every moment is "perfectly instructive." A dangerous approach, in my opinion, because, as you say, panna that penetrates to that sort of liberating degree is not there for us. >> > And this reminded me that I am basically a dog who was fortunate > > enough to be born human for a change, and aiming to be born human > > again is just fine, thank you. > > James: I wouldn't be so self critical. Just take note of any > unwholesome mind states and then move on. Dwelling too long on the > unwholesome, or giving it too much importance or power (ie "I am > basically a dog"), will just make that mind state grow. Keep your > mind toward the positive. :-) Ph: Oh, don't get me wrong. This is very positive. I am grateful for this human birth and know how rare it is - there must have been good khamma there for it to have come to be. But I am also aware how rare it is to be repeated. Reflecting on myself as a dog is not such a bad idea, I think. More realistic than self-ciritical, I think. And of course I do appreciate anatta to the degree that tells me that stopping unwholesome deeds in body, mind and speech is not something that is going to happen by din of intense resolution. The accumulated akusala is very powerful and there is no phil at the commmand center that can stop it from arising. But no way on god's green earth am I going to let concern about the sakkaya dithi that is eradicated by ariyans get in the way of applying the various remedies and preventive practices that the Buddha most definitely teaches to people like me. > > > > > On the other hand, it is true that people might be over- > estimating > > the power of their panna. There is a very good sutta in Anguttara > > Nikaya in which the Buddha says that there are three kinds of > > mentalities. Like a festering sore, like a flash of lightning and > > like a diamond. The diamond is arahat, if I recall, and the flash > of > > lightning the other kinds of ariyan. In any case, ariyan. The rest > > of us have minds like festering wounds that are set to burst forth > > in despicable behaviour at the slightest opportunity. So all this > > talk of detachment from self-view from the beginning etc could > > perhaps be a kind of dangerous wishful thinking, and > overestimation > > of this wonderful panna that works its way. > > James: Right. I see the mystical approach of depending on panna to > do everything on its own as a type of blindness. They are just > depending on something which isn't there. Ph: Well, it is certainly good to study Abhidhamma and develop a sound understanding of what I would call Buddhist theory. And in Buddhist theory panna is there working its way. As you said, for people of advanced attainments. For me, studying Abhidhamma is a way of developing respect for the Buddha and the sangha of arahants in whom understanding was developed to an incredible degree. And that intellectual understanding of Buddhist theory is in someway very valuable, I sense - but I don't know quite how yet. I still think there is a possibility that A.S and her students are completely correct in everything they say and that we are the deluded ones. Absolutely possible. >> James: I think it is good to pick a perfection, and be specific, to > work on. All of the perfections are connected as they come from a > pure mind, so if you develop one you develop them all. However, you > still need to pick one at a time to focus on or you can't develop > any of them. (For example, Han works on the perfection of patience > because he feels he doesn't have enough patience; I choose to work > on the perfection of Good Will (Metta) because I don't think I have > enough metta toward people as I don't trust or like many > people...which I'm sure others can see my lack of good will more > clearly as opposed to Han's supposed lack of patience ;-)) > Hmm. I think I will work on metta as well. I am actually, quite nicely. I've developed the habit when walking to the station (about 30 minutes) of just constantly wishing well to the people I come across. It just becomes a habit of mind that I believe spreads and permeates ones daily life. Never actually do mettta meditation, though, except for a really little bit at the beginning and end of my meditation. Nice touching bases with you, James, and all. I'm sure I've written something that people will want to respond to, but as usual I offer you the last word. Just popping by. Now out again for awhile.... Metta, Phil #84697 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 4:29 am Subject: Understanding is the Chief! bhikkhu0 Friends: Understanding is the Fourth Mental Perfection: Understanding penetrates, illuminates and guides right. Concentration is the proximate cause of Understanding. Understanding is the proximate cause of Equanimity. Understanding is the manifestation of Concentration. Only understanding comprehends the meaning & essence. Understanding purifies the other mental perfections: Energy acquires right purpose only, when guided by Understanding. Only fortified by Understanding, is determination unshakeable. Only Understanding can patiently tolerate other beings abuse. Only Understanding induce indifference towards gain & loss. Only Understanding can secure both own and other's welfare. Just as red sandalwood is reckoned as the best of all scented woods, even & exactly so is the ability to understand reckoned the supreme among all the 7 mental qualities, that are the links to self-awakening, by leading to enlightenment. SN V 48-55 Indriya-samyutta And of what kind, friends, is this evaluating ability of Understanding ? In this, friends, the Noble learner is possessed of direct knowledge about the arising and ceasing of all phenomena, which is a Noble insight, a penetrating & ultimate understanding, that gradually realizes and leads to the utter elimination of all Misery... The Noble learner comprehends, as it really is: Thus is Misery. The Noble learner comprehends, as it really is: Thus is the Cause of Misery. The Noble learner comprehends, as it really is: Thus is the End of Misery. The Noble learner comprehends, as it really is: Thus is the Way to end Misery. This, friends, is the discriminating ability of Understanding ... SN V 48-10 Indriya-samyutta Of minor importance, is the loss of family and wealth... Catastrophic among losses is the loss of Understanding. Of minor consequence, is the increase of family and wealth. Supreme among gains is the increase of comprehension... Therefore, friends, you must train yourself to win that! AN I 14-5 When the Noble friend avoid ignorant persons, but instead cultivates, frequents and honours persons who comprehend, teach and review the effects of profound knowledge, then is the ability to understand refined in these three aspects... When the Noble friend is thus leaving ignorance all behind, there is development of the ability to Understand. When the Noble friend is developing the ability to understand, then ignorance is left all behind. Thus Mutual is this enhancement. Path of Discrimination A learned man, who due to his great understanding, despises those of little learning, is like a blind man walking around with a lamp in his high hand... Theragatha 1026 Happy indeed are those possessing nothing... Those who have won Understanding, clinging to nothing. While those attached to family, friends & property, both possessed & obsessed - are as tied to torture... !!! Udana II 6 What sort of person is released by Understanding (Panna-Vimutti) ? Here a person without experiencing all the 8 stages of absorption, anyway eliminates all mental fermentations completely, after having perceived them through insight. Such person is said to be released by Understanding. Designation of Human Types 31 Buddha once said: Just as the great Ocean slopes down gradually, deepens gradually, inclines gradually, and not abruptly like an abyss, even so Paharada, is this teaching and discipline: a gradual training (anupubba-sikkha), a gradual practice (anupubba-kiriya), a gradual progress (anupubba-patipada); One does not suddenly penetrate to the highest Understanding... Anguttara Nikaya II 47 Asking Questions logically leads to Understanding: As a Bhikkhu walking for alms beg from both low, middle and high folks, if one search & ask both slightly, moderately and highly wise teachers, then the insight of the Buddhas shall come to shine inside! The Basket of Conduct, Cariyapitaka Understanding is the Chief! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84698 From: han tun Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 3:43 pm Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (5) hantun1 Dear All, I am trying to elaborate on some points that were discussed at the Foundation on 5th April 2008. I will be grateful to other members, who were present there, to correct me if there are any mistakes in my reporting. (5) Guarding of the sense doors. When I was putting up my theory of Object Condition conditioning Root Condition, I had also emphasized the importance of objects in our daily life. Various sense-objects are entering through the six sense doors throughout the entire waking hours, which lead to the arising of kusala cittas and akusala cittas. Therefore, the objects are very important and it becomes necessary to guard the six sense doors. When I was thus emphasizing on the importance of the objects, Sukin reminded me that it is not the objects that matter, but it is important to see them with understanding (pa~n~naa). Sukin was right. I was so obsessed with the objects I overlooked the basics. In SN 35.98 Samvara sutta: Restraint, the Buddha said: Quote: [“And how, bhikkhus, is there non-restraint? There are, bhikkhus, forms cognizable by the eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu seeks delight in them, welcomes them, and remains holding to them, he should understand this thus: ‘I am declining away from wholesome states. For this has been called decline by the Blessed One.’” “And how, bhikkhus, is there restraint? There are, bhikkhus, forms cognizable by the eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu does not seek delight in them, does not welcome them, and does not remain holding to them, he should understand this thus: ‘I am not declining away from wholesome states. For this has been called non-decline by the Blessed One.’”] End Quote. The objects are the same in both the cases, but in the first case it leads to decline and in the second case it leads to non-decline. ------------------------------ Then our discussions touched upon “sati” and “satipatthaana.” Guarding of sense doors is the function of sati. But there is a distinction between sati and satipatthaana. Sati may be just awareness without accompanying understanding (pa~n~naa). But satipatthaana is accompanied by understanding (pa~n~naa). It is to see the realities as they are, the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, and the specific characteristics of paramattha dhammas. Most importantly, it is to realize that dhammas arise due to conditions and there is no person involved. It is anatta. With this interpretation of satipatthaana, I read MN 10 Satipatthaana Sutta. Under the contemplation of the body – mindfulness of breathing, the understanding of breathing in long and breathing out long, up to breathing in and breathing out tranquillizing the bodily formations, is not satipatthaana yet. Only when it comes to the passage under the sub-heading of (insight), then it is the satipatthaana. Quote: “In this way he abides contemplating the body as a body internally, or he abides contemplating the body as a body externally, or he abides contemplating the body as a body both internally and externally. Or else he abides contemplating in the body its arising factors, or he abides contemplating in the body its vanishing factors, or he abides contemplating in the body both its arising and vanishing factors. Or else mindfulness that ‘there is a body’ is simply established in him to the extent necessary for bare knowledge and mindfulness. And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body.] End Quote. This insight portion is also mentioned in Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary: Quote: [After each contemplation it is shown how it finally leads to insight-knowledge: "Thus with regard to his own body he contemplates the body, with regard to the bodies of others he contemplates the body, with regard to both he contemplates the body. He beholds how the body arises and how it passes away, beholds the arising and passing away of the body. 'A body is there' (but no living being, no individual, no woman, no man, no self, nothing that belongs to a self; neither a person, nor anything belonging to a person; Com.): thus he has established his attentiveness as far as it serves his knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives independent, unattached to anything in the world.'' In the same way he contemplates feeling, mind and mind-objects.] End Quote. http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/satipatthaana.htm This interpretation of satipatthaana is quite new for me. Previously, I thought the process of establishing four foundations of mindfulness is satipatthaana, even at the beginning stages. But now, according to Ajahn Sujin and the Group, the word ‘satipatthaana’ can be used only when the insight is reached. [Nina and Sarah, please correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation.] Respectfully, Han #84699 From: "connie" Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 7:27 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Sarah, --- connie wrote: > "Come" meant "Go". ... S: I wonder what you would have written if I hadn't asked for simple English, lol! .. C: Conditions being what they were, what choice did I have? Reminds me of a long lost friend who once told me asking/imagining What If/Might've was a waste of time... better to just face What Is/Was. But back to business: > #82867 - > << They are also of two sorts (5) through a single ordination or > through a double ordination. In regard to that, aside from > Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii, those 500 Sakyan women who departed [from > household life] together with Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii received the full > ordination through a single ordination from the Order of Bhikkhus, the > other had full ordination by both Orders through the double ordination. ... S: Surely here 'the other' should read 'the others' referring to those other bhikkhunis other than MP Gotamii and the 500 with her. After these,both orders of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis had to be involved in the ordination of women......?? ========== C: Yep, "others", sorry, another of my many typos, I'm sure. I'd look it up, but most of my books are downstairs - off limits for the time being as Mom's got me on a short leash until the doctor says I can put weight on my leg again. And yes, I agree that other than those first 501, a bhikkhunii first had to be accepted by the bhikkhunii and then by the bhikkhu orders. Also, somewhere along the line, I believe it was laid down that there would have to be at least 5 fully ordained bhikkhuniis to represent the bhikkhunii order & that the novice would have to have practiced 6 (?) precepts for 2 years before asking for the full ordination from both sides. peace, connie #84700 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 7:28 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (5) philofillet HI Han and all > > When I was thus emphasizing on the importance of the > objects, Sukin reminded me that it is not the objects > that matter, but it is important to see them with > understanding (pa~n~naa). Sukin was right. I was so > obsessed with the objects I overlooked the basics. > Pleae reflect more on this point, Han. In SN 35 there are many shadings of sense door restraint, many angles, many approaches that the Buddha taught with an understanding of the differing degrees of resilience we have/there is. I have heard Nina say that guarding the sense doors happens only when the citta is accompanied by panna. If this were the case, we would be in big, big trouble. Guarding the sense doors cannot and is not such a rare occurance. For just one example, does the tortoise that keeps its head tucked in in that sutta see things with panna? No, there is an attitude of care towards *all* objects, that are seen as "village raiding bandits." We don't keep an open attidtude towards village raiding bandits, seeking to understand them. There are times the barriers must be put up. This is not done by averting the eyes and so on. (Of course there are times for that.) It is done by a general and ongoing sense of heedfulness. At other times, the Buddha invites us to let the sense doors wander, if you will (the six animals) and here there is more understanding of objects involved, I imagine, more open examination of them. But the mind has to be tied to that post, to mindfulness in the body, which is neglected by A.S as she and others rely on their wonderful panna into objects. We do not have understanding of objects that provides protection from them. And there is a protective aspect to guarding the sense doors, obviously. It should be mostly about protection, not understanding. Understanding is developed within the shelter of properly guarded sense doors. Sorry if my tone is harsh. It concerns me that you are falling under the sway of the panna pushers! Just a short visit back here has me feeling irritated again, so it is obviously not time for me to return to DSG yet, so sorry if I don't reply. My intolerance and thickness, that's all. Metta, Phil #84701 From: "connie" Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nichiconn Dear Larry, I'm going to beg off on the Pali (da.t.thaa da.t.thabba'm di.t.ta'm na ma~n~nati - Kalaka S.) but look forward to anything Sukin might come back with from the experts. To me, this not construing, craving, conceiving, etc. just reminds me that arahats might speak conventionally but are confused the way I am - one thing to parrot that there are only nama- and rupa-dhammas but another to really know it. peace, connie #84702 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Connie, How about a word or two about the grammar? da.t.thaa da.t.thabba'm di.t.ta'm na ma~n~nati On the face of it it looks like three varieties of "to see". Can you give a literal translation to each word? Are there any clues in the rest of it: the unseen, to-be-seen, and seer? When you see something what do you construe? Larry #84703 From: "colette" Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 10:47 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) ksheri3 Hi James, It's late and I've read several posts that hold huge amounts of value I just can't comment because of the noise the keyboard makes. I want to say concerning your reply to Han: DELICIOUS! Well said even your arguments to KS were crafted nicely without any tinge of harshness. No bitterness. I'll reply tomorrow. toodles, colette #84704 From: "colette" Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' ksheri3 SCRAMBLED BRAINS, no? toodles, colette #84705 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:17 am Subject: Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for the reply: L: "...Would it be possible for you to find the Pali for this sutta? I believe there is a difference between the Burmese and the Sinhala versions. Given which ever version you can find, how would you translate it?" Scott: I'm a beginner with the Paa.li. This is from: http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/index.html The Paa.li is from the Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka Series. The passage in particular is between the **. (Kaa.lakaaraamasutta.m) (Eva.m me suta.m:) eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa saakete viharati kaa.lakaaraame. Tatra kho bhagavaa bhikkhuu aamantesi bhikkhavoti. Bhadanteti te bhikkhuu bhagavato paccassosu.m. Bhagavaa etadavoca: ya.m bhikkhave sadevakassa lokassa samaarakassa sabrahmakassa sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya di.t.tha.m suta.m muta.m vi~n~naata.m patta.m pariyesita.m anuvicarita.m manasaa, tamaha.m jaanaami. Ya.m bhikkhave sadevakassa lokassa samaarakassa sabrahmakassa sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya di.t.tha.m suta.m muta.m vi~n~naata.m patta.m pariyesita.m anuvicarita.m manasaa, tamaha.m abbha~n~naasi.m. Ta.m tathaagatassa vidita.m. Ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Ya.m bhikkhave sadevakassa lokassa samaarakassa sabrahmakassa sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya di.t.tha.m suta.m muta.m vi~n~naata.m patta.m pariyesita.m anuvicarita.m manasaa, tamaha.m jaanaamiiti vadeyya.m, ta.m mama assa musaa. Ya.m bhikkhave sadevakassa lokassa samaarakassa sabrahmakassa sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya di.t.tha.m suta.m muta.m vi~n~naata.m patta.m pariyesita.m anuvicarita.m manasaa, tamaha.m jaanaami ca na ca jaanaamiiti vadeyya.m, tampassa taadisameva. Tamaha.m neva jaanaami na najaanaamiiti vadeyya.m, ta.m mama assa kali. ** Iti kho bhikkhave tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati. Adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati. Da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati. Da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati. Sutaa sotabba.m suta.m na ma~n~ati. Asuta.m na ma~n~nati. Sotabba na ma~n~nati. Sotaara.m na ma~n~nati. Mutaa motabba.m muta.m na ma~n~nati. Amuta.m na ma~n~nati. Motabba.m na ma~n~nati. Motaara.m na ma~n~nati. Vi~n~naataa vi~n~aatabba.m vi~n~naata.m na ma~n~nati. Avi~n~naata.m na ma~n~nati. Vi~n~naatabba.m na ma~n~nati. Vi~n~naataara.m na ma~n~nati. ** Iti kho bhikkhave tathaagato di.t.thasutamutavi~n~naatabbesu dhammesu taadiiyeva taadii. Tamhaa ca pana taaditamhaa a~n~no taadii uttaritaro vaa pa.niitataro vaa natthiiti vadaamiiti. Ya.m ki~nci di.tt.tha.m va suta.m muta.m vaa Ajjhosita.m saccamuta.m paresa.m, Na tesu taadii saya sa.mvutesu Sacca.m musaa vaapi para.m daheyya.m. Eta.m ca salla.m pa.tigacca disvaa Ajjhositaa yattha pajaa visattaa, Jaanaami passaami tatheva eta.m Ajjhosita.m natthi tathaagataananti. L: "Here is B. ~Naanananda's note: 'Thus, monks, a tathaagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight;1" "Iti kho bhikkhave tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati." Scott: I'm not proficient enough to offer a reliable translation. A guess would be: Thus, monks, for a tataagata, no conceiving follows the seen, it is only seeing. Larry: "...My guess is, if the Buddha sees the visible data of a tree he does not conceive that visible data as a tree in the same way as he does not conceive his own appearance as me or mine. But he still recognizes a tree and Ananda and anyone else he knows." Scott: Yeah, most likely. From the fact of his teaching it appears that his cognitive faculties and ability to communicate conventionally remained in tact. His not conceiving in regard to the objects of the senses was likely an ongoing and automatic process. I don't know. Sincerely, Scott. #84706 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Han & all, We're all back in Bangkok now after 3 lovely days in the countryside, 3 hours south west of Bangkok. The very large park where we were staying was full of colouful blooms, exotic birds and greenery. We stayed in bungalows and each day would meet for breakfast, followed by dhamma discussions in the garden of our host's bungalow. All very relaxed. Lovely lunches out by the sea or reservoir overlooking the Burmese hills, followed by a siesta or a cool down in the pool and then more discussion and delicious Thai fruits and other food. [I hope Sukin uses some discretion when he posts his pics!! Sukin, why not add some comments about the discussions this time?] Of course, whatever topics were raised, the discussions always came back to the understanding of present dhammas such as seeing and visible object:-). Han, delighted to read your series....please expect delays in any of our responses, especially Nina's. Phil, great as usual to see you around, remembering our discussions:-)). --- Phil wrote: > Sarah and others > deny that they get emotional comfort from the Dhamma - I suspect > they are in denial on this point. Again, just a suspicion that I > throw out for their consideration in a friendly way. :) .... S: I think that what I suggested before was that I don't look for emotional comfort from the Dhamma or think about emotional comfort as being something I find from the Dhamma. Perhaps you can elaborate on just what you mean to help me see if there's any denial here:-)). For example, Would this be any different from attachment? Is it just more clinging to oneself and one's well-being? .... > > James: They have to know what that's like. If they are > unenlightend > > they have to know what it is like to be overpowered by unwholesome > > mind states. We all know what that's like. But not everyone > knows > > what's happening at those moments and why it's happening. .... S: And there isn't always the wisdom and courage to really face up to such unwholesome mental states. .... > > "We all know what that's like." OK, that's a good reminder. But I > guess I disagree because that is just what Sarah says, that we all > know what it's like to behave in an unwholesome way. .... S: OK, so you disagree with James's helpful comments because you think they agree with ones I've made!! Too tired to work this one out:) Look forward to catching up tomorrow, before several further days of discussions starting on Saturday at the Foundation. Metta, Sarah ========== #84707 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:49 am Subject: Perfections Corner (120) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.1 continues: Now I shall deal with generosity that goes together with sincerity, with the perfection of truthfulness, and in this context we should reflect on the generosity of the Bodhisatta. The "Paramattha Diipanii", the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct" (Cariyaapi.taka, of the Khuddhaka Nikaaya) explains about three kinds of daana paarami, perfection of generosity: the giving of material things (aamisadaana), the giving of fearlessness (abhayadaana) and the giving of the Dhamma (dhammadaana). We read about the giving of external objects: "When the Great Man gives an external object, he gives whatever is needed to whomever stands in need of it; and knowing by himself that someone is in need of something, he gives it even unasked, much more when asked." A person who is ready to give something useful to someone else when he sees that he is in need, has a refined understanding of the performance of kusala. As soon as he has seen that another person is in need of something, the citta accompanied by compassion arises, and he gives immediately, he does not wait to be asked. Further on we read in the Commentary: "He gives only when there is something to be given." He does not trouble himself nor feel disturbed when at times he wishes to give but he does not have anything he can give. The Bodhisatta gives only when he has something he can give. We read: "When there are things to be given he gives what people like to have, not what they do not want." When other people are in need of something, he gives it away, provided there is something to be given. connie #84708 From: han tun Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:06 pm Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (6) hantun1 Dear All, I am trying to elaborate on some points that were discussed at the Foundation on 5th April 2008. The next topic is (6) Abyaakataa dhammas This topic is just for my academic interest. You can skip it, if you like. In the study of Patthaana, there are three states: kusalaa dhammaa (wholesome states), akusalaa dhammaa (unwholesome states), and abyaakataa dhammaa (indeterminate states). And they can relate to one another in the following nine ways. (1) Preceding kusalaa dhammaa related to subsequent kusalaaa dhamma. (2) Preceding kusalaa dhammaa related to subsequent akusalaaa dhamma. (3) Preceding kusalaa dhammaa related to subsequent abyaakataa dhammaa. (4) Preceding akusalaa dhammaa related to subsequent akusalaa dhammaa. (5) Preceding akusalaa dhammaa related to subsequent kusalaa dhammaa. (6) Preceding akusalaa dhammaa related to subsequent abyaakataa dhammaa. (7) Preceding abyaakataa dhammaa related to subsequent abyaakataa dhammaa. (8) Preceding abyaakataa dhammaa related to subsequent kusalaa dhamma. (9) Preceding abyaakataa dhammaa related to subsequent akusalaa dhammaa. Out of the above nine ways, I am currently interested in (7) Preceding abyaakataa dhammaa related to subsequent abyaakataa dhammaa, and I am looking for examples. What is abyaakataa dhamma? It means indeterminate, i.e., neither determined as kammically wholesome nor as unwholesome. They are kammically neutral. It consists of vipaaka cittas (resultant consciousness), kiriya cittas (functional consciousness), ruupa, and Nibbana. I found this relationship between one abyaakataa dhamma and another abyaakataa dhamma in Proximity condition (anantara-paccaya), Contiguity condition (samanantara-paccaya), Decisive support condition (upanissaya-paccaya), and Repetition condition (aasevana-paccaya). [In Repetition condition it becomes preceding kiriyaabyaakataa relating to subsequent kiriyaabyaakataa.] -------------------- Examples: With the contributions by Ajahn Sujin and the Group I have collected the following examples: (1) Under Proximity condition (anantara-paccaya) and Contiguity condition (samanantara-paccaya), examples are (a) patisandhi citta (vipaaka citta) relating to the first bhavanga citta (vipaaka citta), and (b) sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness), which is vipaaka citta relating to santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness), which is also vipaaka citta. In these examples there is no time gap and the conditioning is immediate. (2) Under Repetition condition (aasevana-paccaya), an example could be one kiriya citta to subsequent kiriya cittas of an Arahant. (3) Under Pakatuupanissaya of Decisive support condition (upanissaya-paccaya), there can be a time gap, which may be as long as to extend to the previous lives. RobertK gave an example of listening to dhamma talks (ear consciousness which is vipaaka citta) which may eventually lead to the realization of Nibbana, which is abyaakataa dhamma. Sarah said something about the last citta of an arahant. [Nina had written in her book about Pakatuupanissaya as follows: The natural decisive support-condition is very wide, it comprises also vipaaka which conditions akusala citta or kusala citta, or vipaaka which conditions vipaaka. Vipaaka conditions kusala citta when one, for example, suffers bodily pain and is reminded by it that life is short and that one therefore should not delay the development of right understanding. Vipaaka conditions akusala citta when one has aversion towards pain. Body-consciousness which is kusala vipaaka can condition body-consciousness which is akusala vipaaka by natural decisive support-condition. When it is hot outside one may use air-conditioning and this may cause bodily well-being. But then the temperature inside may become too cold and one suffers bodily discomfort or catches a cold. Akusala vipaaka can condition kusala vipaaka by natural decisive support-condition. When we are sick we may have to follow a painful therapy in order to get cured and then there is akusala vipaaka through the bodysense, but as a result there will be bodily well-being again.] Based on the above passage, Sarah mentioned about painful therapy or bitter medicine leading to bodily well-being. I mentioned about the use of air-conditioning as mentioned above. When I mentioned about the use of air-conditioning, Ajahn Sujin said something, which was recorded by Sarah as follows: [Turning on the air-con, unpleasant and pleasant bodily feelings. Which conditions? Lots of thinking about situations. If not sense experiencing, then it's thinking (not counting other cittas such as sampaticchana, santirana etc).] To me, Nina’s writing was very clear, but I could not understand what Ajahn Sujin was saying. Perhaps, Sarah may elaborate on Ajahn Sujin’s comments. Respectfully, Han #84709 From: "colette" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) ksheri3 Sarah, What is this thing called "emotional comfort" that you believe Phil is so concerned with? You'll have to define them both please, emotional and comfort! Do you generally cognize for your emotional state of consciousness? Do you have a state of consciousness with the emotional? In Buddhism, I suspect a very foriegn subject for someone like yourself, there's a practice called Meditation but since you are so consumed by the exhaltation of emotions and/or the emotional it may take you several thousands of lifetimes to even begin to reach a state of calm. You may care to look into that ugly foriegn philosophy called buddhism though. Sorry, you're in Hong Kong, no, and Hong Kong is pretty much imprisoned by the Communist Chinese and Chairman Moa or is that Deng..., thus you must be a devotee of those Zen characters or is that those Confuscious characters maybe you're an addict of the I Ching through Loa Zi but just try to look into the basic, fundamental concepts of Buddhism to start with and try to de- program yourself from all those post hypnotic suggestions you were conditioned with throughout you life. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, Han & all, > > We're all back in Bangkok now after 3 lovely days in the countryside, 3 > hours south west of Bangkok. <....> #84710 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:27 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) buddhatrue Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi James, > > It's late and I've read several posts that hold huge amounts of value > I just can't comment because of the noise the keyboard makes. James: It must be difficult to live under such strict confines. You must really be able to sympathize with how the Tibetans feel. > > I want to say concerning your reply to Han: DELICIOUS! Well said even > your arguments to KS were crafted nicely without any tinge of > harshness. No bitterness. James: Thank you. It comes and goes. :-) > > I'll reply tomorrow. > > toodles, > colette Metta, James #84711 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, Han & all, > > We're all back in Bangkok now after 3 lovely days in the countryside, 3 > hours south west of Bangkok. The very large park where we were staying was > full of colouful blooms, exotic birds and greenery. We stayed in bungalows > and each day would meet for breakfast, followed by dhamma discussions in > the garden of our host's bungalow. All very relaxed. Lovely lunches out by > the sea or reservoir overlooking the Burmese hills, followed by a siesta > or a cool down in the pool and then more discussion and delicious Thai > fruits and other food. James: Well, so much for the restriction of sense pleasures. ;-)) > > [I hope Sukin uses some discretion when he posts his pics!! James: No Sukin! I just have to see Sarah in her bikini!! ;-)) Sukin, why not > add some comments about the discussions this time?] > > Of course, whatever topics were raised, the discussions always came back > to the understanding of present dhammas such as seeing and visible > object:-). James: Yeah, you always just talk and talk about the same thing. Why bother? You should stop talking and start meditating! > > Han, delighted to read your series....please expect delays in any of our > responses, especially Nina's. > > Phil, great as usual to see you around, remembering our discussions:-)). > --- Phil wrote: > > Sarah and others > > deny that they get emotional comfort from the Dhamma - I suspect > > they are in denial on this point. Again, just a suspicion that I > > throw out for their consideration in a friendly way. :) > .... > S: I think that what I suggested before was that I don't look for > emotional comfort from the Dhamma or think about emotional comfort as > being something I find from the Dhamma. > > Perhaps you can elaborate on just what you mean to help me see if there's > any denial here:-)). For example, Would this be any different from > attachment? Is it just more clinging to oneself and one's well- being? James: I'm not sure what Phil meant here by "emotional comfort" when he wrote to me. When I hear that phrase I think of things like "comfort food", watching favorite movies, curling up by the fire with a cup of coffee, laughing with friends, etc. Things which make you feel comfortable and at ease. I wouldn't say that the Dhamma is very good at providing these types of fuzzy, feel-good types of feelings. Even the bliss of jhana only comes about through painful sitting for long periods of time, so I wouldn't call that "emotional comfort". However, lounging by the pool in exotic locales in your bikini eating tropical fruits and delicious foods, while discussing the Dhamma, is one way to incorporate "emotional comfort" with the Dhamma. :-) Metta, James #84712 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Scott, Thanks very much for finding this sutta. It was actually quite helpful to see the whole passage in pali. And reassuring to see that it was what was in the translation notes. Iti kho bhikkhave tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati. Adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati. Da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati. Da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati. How about this: Thus bhikkhus, a Tathagatha, having seen what is to be seen, does not construe a seen. Does not construe an unseen. Does not construe a to be seen. Does not construe a seer. "Construe" being something like "form an opinion about" or "interpret" in conformity with the line: "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such, among the self-fettered, wouldn't further claim to be true or even false." By not construing a seen I don't think he is saying there is no seen because of the line "having seen what is to be seen". Also he has already said: "whatever in the cosmos, with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos, with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established." "That do I know ... that do I directly know ... that has been realized ... but in the Tathagata it has not been established." In other words, it has not been grasped as "my view", the ground that I stand on. Larry #84713 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:23 am Subject: Enthusiastic Energy! bhikkhu0 Friends: Energy is the Fifth Mental Perfection: Energy means enthusiasm Energy means effort Energy means exertion Energy means interest Energy means endeavour Energy means eagerness Energy means initiative Energy means intensity Energy means action Energy means force Energy means power Energy means drive Energy means hyper Energy means keenness Energy means devotion Energy means dedication Energy means determination Energy means commitment Energy means enjoyment Energy pave the way for success in all & any project ... Energy is thereby instrumental for all the perfections!!! Without Energy no achievement can ever be accomplished.. The proximate cause for Energy is a sense of urgency!!! The characteristic of Energy is Striving, it's function is Effort, and the manifestation of Energy is Endurance. The blessed Buddha said about the perfection of Energy: Get up! Sit up! Of what use are your dreams ? How can you sleep, when mentally sick, stabbed by the arrow of urge & craving. Sutta Nipata 331 Get up! Sit up! Push on your training, until reaching sole peace! Don't let the king of death -Mara- see you sloppy & thus delude & dominate you like a stringed toy doll... Sutta Nipata 332 Possessed of Energy & Endurance be always Earnest in your training. The clever One is not satisfied before the goal of ending all misery, is wholly achieved. Theragatha 585 It is too cold, it is too hot..., It is too early, it is too late! Such bad excuses, make one give up the training & miss one more precious opportunity... DN 31 This straight Way has now been clearly shown: Don’t hesitate, walk forward & do not turn around. Urge yourself to advance further by your own Energy, only thus will you obviously approach & attain NibbÄ?na! Theragatha 637 The effort to prevent & to eliminate evil, to develop & to maintain good: These are the 4 right efforts, taught by the Buddha. AN II 17 And what, friends, is feeding the Energy Link to Enlightenment, not yet arisen, & food too for boosting of any present Energy ? 1: The element of initial initiative, 2: The element of launching into action, 3: The element of persistent endurance. Systematic attention to these 3 aspects, is feeding the yet unarisen Energy Link to Awakening, & food too for boosting of any already present Energy. Samyutta Nikaya XLVI 51 Bojjhanga-samyutta At such times, friends, when the mind is Slow, Sluggish, and Heavy: Then it is the Right Occasion: for cultivating the Investigation-by-curiosity enlightenment-factor, for cultivating the Energy-of-Enthusiasm enlightenment-factor, for cultivating the Rapture-of-Joy enlightenment-factor... Why is it so ? When the mind is slow, sluggish, and heavy, it is Easily Raised Up by exactly these 3 mental qualities. Suppose, friends, that a man wants a fire to blaze up, and he put on dry grass, dry wood sticks and blow it with dry hot air and do not cover it with any dust, would that man then see his fire blaze up ? Certainly So, Lord... SN V, 46. Bojjhanga-samyutta When Moggallana where sitting nodding in the jungle night: Well then, Moggallana, whatever experience you had in mind when drowsiness demoralized you down, don't attend to that experience, don't follow it. Remember instead the Dhamma, as you have heard & memorized it, reflect on & examine it! Then raise up & repeat aloud the details of Dhamma, as you have learnt it! Then pull both your earlobes and rub your limbs with both your hands.! Then get up from your seat, and after washing your eyes with cold water, look around & upward in all directions and identify the major stars & planets! Then attend to the experience of inner light, resolve on the clear perception of daytime, by night as by day, and by day as by night! By means of an Awareness thus open, unhindered & vivid, develop the bright mind. It's possible, that by doing this, you will shake off your lethargy... But if by doing this you don't shake off your laziness, then continually noting what is both in front & behind set of a distance to meditate walking back & forth, your senses inwardly settled, while your mind is not getting lost outwards. It is possible that by doing this you will finally shake off all your mental sluggishness... Anguttara Nikaya VII 58 Born as the Brahmin Mahajanaka, the Bodhisatta was once, aboard a sinking ship far from shore. All the crew were in great panic...!!! The Bodhisatta though ate his belly full of sugar & ghee, oiled his clothes and swam continuously for 7 days towards the shore, until he was rescued by an ocean guarding female devata. Later he remembered: "Even far out at sea, where many men were lost, yet still unruffled by worry was my mind. Just kept swimming: This was my perfection of Energy." Mahajanaka-Jataka no. 539 More on Energy (viriya): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Energy_Viriya.htm Enthusiastic is Energy! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84714 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi TG Just a thought on some general comments in your last post to me about direct experience vs indirect understanding/conceptual thinking: > Granted, understanding through direct experience is very very important. > However, even though you may experience something and be directly mindful, and > I might experience something and be directly mindful, we might draw very > different conclusions about what that experience entailed. For example, I might > view it as "alterations in accordance to conditions." You may view is as > "dhammas with their own characteristics arising and immediately disappearing." > > > Direct experience does not by itself mean we see correctly. The content of > that experience needs to also be understood by conceptual understanding of > conditionality principles. By mutual support, direct experience and conceptual > understanding of conditionality principles can develop into an intuitive > insightful experience. > > > This is not to say that direct experiencing/mindfulness and conceptual > thinking coincide simultaneously. Rather, they mutually generate support by > testing one after the other. At the culmination, it becomes intuitive > insightfullness. Since we now have the common ground of sutta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna (which you brought up in an earlier post), would you care to restate the above 2 or 3 paragraphs in those terms, or in terms of pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha? That should make it easier to narrow our differences (if any) ;-)) Jon #84715 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for the further comments and discussion, which I'll respond to a soon as I can get around to it. In the meantime, below is a translation of the chariot simile I found from a search of the internet. If anyone has access to the Bodhi version from CDB, I'd be interested to see it. Jon The Chariot Simile, from S.i,135 (Bhikkhuní Samyutta 10) [Mára the Evil One:] By whom is this creature formed? Who is the creature's maker? Who is the arisen creature? Who is the creature that ceases? [Vajirá the nun:] Why do you refer to 'the creature', Mára, are you involved in (wrong) view? This is a pile of pure determinations; there is, here, no creature to be found. Just as for an assemblage of parts there is the term 'a chariot', So, when there are the aggregates, convention says 'a creature'. It is merely suffering that comes into being, suffering that stands and disappears, Nothing apart from suffering comes into being, nothing other than suffering ceases. (http://nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm) > If by "it" you are referring to the conventional idea of a person or > individual, then it has no "actual nature" to be laid bare. I think > this was the point of the chariot simile. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I do *not* think so. I think the point was showing by analogy the most > obvious central aspect of the emptiness of compounded dhammas - most > specifically persons: their dependence on components and the impact of relational > matters on functionality and identity. They *do* have a nature - that of being > properly (functionally) compounded of parts upon which they are utterly > dependent. and being compounded, not singular, existents. > The goal of the chariot metaphor was that of discouraging grasping at > what is *truly* nonexistent and a product of false conceptualization - namely > an alleged compounded dhamma, a mere aggregation, that is yet a > thing-of-its-own, a singular entity. The point was not to show that there are no persons, > but to lay bare the fact that there are no persons independent of their parts > (in proper mutual relation). The person as a singular reality is nothing more > than a designation, for there is only an aggregation of parts-in-relation, > and the use of a single name corrupts our perspective when it suggests to us > an in-dividual. The Dhamma doesn't teach that persons are fictions, but that > they are empty of own-being and complexly dependent. As singular, > in-dividuals, however, they ARE fictions, and it is THAT that I see as the point of the > metaphor. > As an aside: After the, very central, compositional nature of compounded > dhammas as an aspect of their empty nature, there follows in importance the > emptiness of the dhammas of which they are composed, these being constantly > changing and other-dependent. #84716 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi TG > NEW TG: Well, so far we are close in everything you've discussed. I'd feel > much better if the above statement replaced "their characteristics" with > "qualities." There is no "thing of itself" to have "its own characteristics." I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between "characteristics" and "qualities". Would you mind elaborating? In any event, there is the Pali term "lakkhana" that appears throughout the suttas, usually translated as "characteristic". Do you have any problem with that Pali term or its English translation? > Also, the Buddha's teachings, though highlighting direct experiencing, did > not at all discount indirect experience...i.e., thinking, contemplating and so on Well it depends what you mean by "thinking, contemplating and so on". I have already indicated that there is no argument from me as to the importance of intellectual understanding (the pariyatti of pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha), and also the sutta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna classification. Is that what you are referring to, or are you advancing something further? > I believe the Buddha presented his teachings with a balance ... that by > over-emphasizing the "direct" ... disrupts that balance and leads to false > viewpoints and conclusions as to what the Buddha taught. This potentially > leads to a false practice. This potentially leads to a non-liberation path. Yes, any wrong understanding would lead to wrong practice; no argument about that. But how could there be an excess of right understanding lead to wrong understanding? I'm not aware of any mention in the texts of a "balance" between intellectual and direct understanding. Where does this idea come from? In any event, it has always been emphasised here that intellectual understanding, and reflection on what has been heard and understood, is a necessary part of the develoment of the path. Are you referring to anything beyond that? > NEW TG: Sorry if "nature" bothers you. I didn't invent the term and I > doubt I'm the first to use it in reference to understanding the truth about ... > dare I say it ... nature. :-) Since I view the use of "dhammas" to be > consistently in conflict with the truth of nature, I'd prefer that the purity of > "nature" remain untarnished by that term. You've lost me here. "Dhammas" is the Buddha's choice of term. The English "nature" seems an odd choice for its equivalent. Is this choice based on linguistic considerations or is it chosen for its (convenient) doctrinal implications? Anyway, what exactly do you mean by "nature"? I think it's one of those terms that means different things to different people. > NEW TG: As I understand it, that term (sabhava) is not used in the Four > Great Nikayas. The only reference I am aware of its use in the Nikayas is in > the Patisambhidamagga ... where it is denied. > > > I'm surprised that you folks want to keep bringing up the fact that the > "crux" of your arguments and contentions are essentially a "non-Sutta" issue. > > > Doesn't that increase the likelihood that the commentary has "screwed up"? OK, forget about sabhava. Let's just talk about "characteristic" ("lakkhana"). This is the sutta term used to refer to collectively to anicca, dukkha and anatta. These are characteristics of dhammas. Any problem with this? > NEW TG: Sorry Jon. I don't see why your commentarial interpretive outlook > should override the Suttas. > ;-)) Well I don't see the commentaries as contradicting the suttas. Do you have any specific instances in mind? > ............................................................... > What is it that you find so unlikely about the commentarial view? > ................................................................. > > > NEW TG: It's substantialist leanings ... which inculcate incorrect outlooks > regarding conditionality principles ... including but not limited to > harboring a subtle form of self view into "dhammas with their own characteristics." Well "dhammas" and "characteristics" [of dhammas] are certainly found in the suttas. So I don't see where the "substantialist leanings" come in. What specifically are the "incorrect outlooks regarding conditionality principles" you have in mind? Jon #84717 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II jonoabb Hi James > James: "Latent Insight" is a new one for me. Could you point to any > texts which explain this? While I'm looking for textual references, let me explain that, to my understanding, all tendencies that arise from moment to moment, whether wholesome or unwholesome, are accumulated in the succeeding moment of consciousness and thereafter lie latent except when there is occasion for them to manifest. In this respect, moments of insight that have occurred in the past are no different from any other wholesome or unwholesome mental factor. They differ only in the sense that insight knowledge accumulated in previous lives cannot arise in a subsequent lifetime unless and until the teaching on insight/the Four Noble Truths has been heard and understood in that subsequent lifetime (the only exception to this general rule being a Buddha). So the 2 teachers of the Buddha could have accumulated much insight in previous lifetimes, but it could not have arisen in the lifetime of the Buddha until after his enlightenment because until then there was no part of the teaching to be found. By that time, of course, the 2 teachers had died and been reborn in the arupa-brahma realm where there is no ear-sense arising and hence no chance to hear the newly (re-)discovered teaching. > James: It seems as if you will go to any lengths to > avoid jhana. Do you have a jhana phobia of some sort? I am simply disagreeing with the assumptions you are making about how the 2 teachers came to be persons with little dust in their eyes. If that makes me jhana-phobic in your eyes, then so be it ;-)) > > The fact is, there are no such suttas to quote ;-)) > > James: Yes there are; I just won't quote them for you anymore. I don't think there are. Jon #84718 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:11 am Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) jonoabb Hi Phil Another of your eloquent and amusing posts: a clever mixture of reminiscences and pithy statements of doctrine! I hope you don't mind if I limit my comments to a doctrinal matter ;-)) What you are saying here in effect is that the fact of having gross unwholesome tendencies such as might condition breaches of the precepts from time to time calls for a practice that emphasises fortifying oneself against temptation rather than understanding presently arisen dhammas. I've probably asked this before, but why should the two be mutually exclusive? In what sense does a concern with maintaining good sila preclude the development of awareness of a presently arising dhamma, as you see it? And does it sound right that it should? Jon > I wouldn't agree with you that "accumulations" is a mystical term. > I think it's true that different people are born with different > accumulated tendencies. Well, it's laid out explicitly in Vism. at > least. So it could be that some people are born with greater > resilience to objects, if you will - less natural tendency to be > swept away by gross defilements. So some of A.S's students might > simply fail to appreciate what it is like to be swept away again and > again, and how the notion of wrong view of clinging-to-self involved > in such things as choosing a perfection to concentrate on is not a > concern at all when one is dealing with much grosser, more > destructive forms of wrong view. They just don't know what it's > like. That's quite possible. > ... #84719 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi Howard > However it operates, to whatever extent it examines what is not in > existence, it must be supported by recollection (or, for possible future > phenomena, projection) - unless, of course, time is illusion & there is only a > "transcendent, timeless now," which opens up quite the Pandora's box especially as > regards questions of determinism and conditionality. Yes, but insofar as the object of panna is a presently arising dhamma, the extent of what the panna may know about that dhamma is unlimited. Jon #84720 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard > I would sooner say "It is a matter of no longer thinking of persons as > unitary entities but instead thinking of them as composites." The meaning I get from the Chariot simile is that when the 5 khandhas arise, they are perceived conventionally as a person, whereas in reality there *is no* "person" to be found. This I think is different from the idea that a person should be seen not as a unitary entity but as a composite instead. But regardless of one's view as to that difference, on either reading the development of insight would still be the coming to know dhammas (the khandhas) as dhammas, wouldn't you say? Jon [From the Chariot simile:] Why do you refer to 'the creature', Mára, are you involved in (wrong) view? This is a pile of pure determinations; there is, here, no creature to be found. Just as for an assemblage of parts there is the term 'a chariot', So, when there are the aggregates, convention says 'a creature'. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: ... > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > If by "it" you are referring to the conventional idea of a person or > individual, then it has no "actual nature" to be laid bare. I think > this was the point of the chariot simile. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I do *not* think so. I think the point was showing by analogy the most > obvious central aspect of the emptiness of compounded dhammas - most > specifically persons: their dependence on components and the impact of relational > matters on functionality and identity. They *do* have a nature - that of being > properly (functionally) compounded of parts upon which they are utterly > dependent. and being compounded, not singular, existents. > The goal of the chariot metaphor was that of discouraging grasping at > what is *truly* nonexistent and a product of false conceptualization - namely > an alleged compounded dhamma, a mere aggregation, that is yet a > thing-of-its-own, a singular entity. The point was not to show that there are no persons, > but to lay bare the fact that there are no persons independent of their parts > (in proper mutual relation). The person as a singular reality is nothing more > than a designation, for there is only an aggregation of parts-in-relation, > and the use of a single name corrupts our perspective when it suggests to us > an in-dividual. The Dhamma doesn't teach that persons are fictions, but that > they are empty of own-being and complexly dependent. As singular, > in-dividuals, however, they ARE fictions, and it is THAT that I see as the point of the > metaphor. #84721 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Hi James, (Sukin & Phil), --- buddhatrue wrote: >>> Lovely > lunches out by > > the sea or reservoir overlooking the Burmese hills, followed by a > siesta > > or a cool down in the pool and then more discussion and delicious > Thai > > fruits and other food. > > James: Well, so much for the restriction of sense pleasures. ;-)) .... S: ;-)) .... > > [I hope Sukin uses some discretion when he posts his pics!! > > James: No Sukin! I just have to see Sarah in her bikini!! ;-)) .... S: Fortunately for me, I chose the siesta option ;-)) .....> > > Of course, whatever topics were raised, the discussions always > came back > > to the understanding of present dhammas such as seeing and visible > > object:-). > > James: Yeah, you always just talk and talk about the same thing. > Why bother? You should stop talking and start meditating! .... S: You may get a surprise if Sukin decides not to take the 'discretion option':-)). As you didn't like my long cryptic notes from the discussions in Bkk which touched on dozens of different topics (none of which made sense to you), this time I chose the easy route and just gave a one-liner to cover the hours and hours of discussion;-). .... > > --- Phil wrote: > > > Sarah and others > > > deny that they get emotional comfort from the Dhamma - I suspect > > > they are in denial on this point. Again, just a suspicion that I > > > throw out for their consideration in a friendly way. :) > > .... > > S: > > Perhaps you can elaborate on just what you mean to help me see if > there's > > any denial here:-)). For example, Would this be any different from > > attachment? Is it just more clinging to oneself and one's well- > being? > > James: I'm not sure what Phil meant here by "emotional comfort" when > he wrote to me. When I hear that phrase I think of things > like "comfort food", watching favorite movies, curling up by the > fire with a cup of coffee, laughing with friends, etc. Things which > make you feel comfortable and at ease. I wouldn't say that the > Dhamma is very good at providing these types of fuzzy, feel-good > types of feelings. .... S: You're in danger of agreeing with me again, James. Phil will therefore definitely disagree with you:-)). .... >Even the bliss of jhana only comes about through > painful sitting for long periods of time, so I wouldn't call > that "emotional comfort". However, lounging by the pool in exotic > locales in your bikini eating tropical fruits and delicious foods, > while discussing the Dhamma, is one way to incorporate "emotional > comfort" with the Dhamma. :-) .... S: ;-) You get the idea!! Metta, Sarah ========= #84722 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (1) sarahprocter... Dear Han, Great summaries! --- han tun wrote: > At the Foundation on 5th April (1) <...> > (1) Byaadhi (sickness) > Ajahn Sujin replied that sickness is unpleasant > feeling. She emphasized on “feeling.” ... S: In other words, the unpleasant bodily feeling or painful feeling accompanying bodily experience. It's dukkha dukkha which is often referred to in the texts by way of unpleasant feeling. ... >I said other > factors that are already included as dukkha sacca are > also feelings like separation from loved ones. ... S: Yes, this is unpleasant feeling too. Different concepts pointing to feelings which we find so important. This is why they are a separate khandha - many different feelings, but all vedana khandha. ... >Why > then is sickness not considered same category as > separation for loved ones, for example? .... S: I think just different concepts pointing to the 5 upadana khandhas. If you'd like me to help raise further questions on this in our discussion tomorrow, I'm happy to do so. Metta, Sarah p.s Is the Patthana series taking a break? ======== #84723 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Scott: This begins to clarify, sorry for my soporifically cryptic > question. ;-) > > I'll have to look more closely at the citta-viithi and those moments > where pa~n~naa can arise. ... S: In brief, only with the javana cittas. .... >For example, moment of hearing would be > vipaaka (?) .... S: Yes. .... >- is it possible for vipaaka-citta to be accompanied by > pa~n~naa? You suggest not. Now its for me to study some more... ... S: We have to be specific about which vipaka cittas we are talking about. In this context, we were talking about moments of hearing consciousness and I said there was no panna with these. Only the 7 universal cetasikas arises with them. With other kinds of vipaka citta, such as bhavanga cittas, it's another matter. How's your study going? Metta, Sarah ======== #84724 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > James: What about a body? Don't you have a body? :-) I know I > have > > > a body. :-) > > .... > > S: Or rather all kinds of rupas known as a body:-) > > James: Well, this depends on how you define "rupa". If you define > rupa as sense phenomenon, then I suppose you can say that there are > all sorts known as a body. If you define rupa as matter, then there > is just one type (or four elements). ... S: In this case it is the rupas conditioned by kamma which make up the so-called body. Rupas are different elements which don't experience anything, i.e the 4 great elements and all the other elements which are depend on these. In the case of kamma-produced rupas, these include rupas such as the sense-bases,life-force (jivitindriya), heart-base (haddaya-vatthu), masculinity rupa or femininity rupa. All these rupas are arising and falling away all the time. ... But I don't know where this > tete-a-tete is getting us. ..... S: We're getting at what leads us to the conclusion that there's a body, a James and a Sarah:-). ... > > S: Are your parents sensed through eye-sense or is it just visible > object? > > Are your parents sensed through ear-sense or is it just sound? > > I agree that 'parents' are cognized through the mind. This is why > > 'parents' are ideas or 'designations' as Mike would say about all > sorts of > > different sense objects. > > James: As the Buddha taught in the Sabba Sutta, the All includes > what is cognized through the mind as well as what is sensed through > he senses. ... S: I think that if you check carefully (such as in U.P. under 'Sabba Sutta':-)), you'll find that what is translated as 'ideas' is actually dhammaayatana, which refers here to all mental factors and all rupas other than the 5 sense-bases and those experienced through the senses, i.e the subtle rupas. .... >The senses can only sense one thing at a time, like the > proverbial blind men feeling the elephant can only feel one part of > the elephant at a time. ... S: Yes. ... >However, the mind is able to put all of the > information from the senses together to form a whole picture of the > reality. ... S: The 'picutre' is the image or idea about those dhammas. .... >The problem isn't that the mind forms such whole pictures > of reality (because enlightened people "see" reality in the same > way) the problem is when the mind's delusions adds layers of > discursive thought and craving to these pictures of reality. .... S: I agree that enlightened people, even arahants still think about realities experienced through the senses. The object of thinking is not a reality, however. I agree also that the problem is the delusion and craving to 'those pictures' and the realities themselves. .... > Denying the reality isn't going to stop this process of delusion. ... S: No denial of thinking. ... > > I know I can rely on you to point out any difficulty with this:-) > > > > James: Not sure what that means, but I pointed out the difficulty. > Hope you are satisfied that I met your expectations. :-) ... S: :-) Metta, Sarah ======== #84725 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? sarahprocter... Hi Walto,(Ken H & all), --- Walter Horn wrote: > Somewhat strangely, I managed to once again miss your perceptive > coments until long after you posted them! I want to again thank you > for your generous and thoughtful response. ... S: Thank you for your kind words too. I'm usually slow in responding, so it's perfectly understandable if you've given up checking for a reply. (I warn you though that Jon's even slower:-)). ... > > You make a very interesting point about the interconnections between > discussions of freedom and the nature of "the self." ... S: In brief, I think that ideas of freedom or lack of it tend to go with an idea of self. The topic of determinism came up in a discussion we had in Thailand the other day. I'll ask Ken H to report back on it, but in brief, he also suggested that such an idea goes along with an idea of self. ... > Where you have said, "There is no Walto." I might semi-agree that > there isn't much of one. By that I mean that it could be the case > that all I/Walto is is a bundle of feelings, impressions, thoughts, > etc. cohering in some particular type of way. ... S: I'm not sure that there is even such a bundle.... Again, Ken H will be happy to pick up this thread when he has a chance, I'm sure. ... >I don't think I'd want > to entirely agree that there is no Walto at all, however, since it is > surely the case that SOMETHING changed when I was born and will again > change when I die. .... S: Wouldn't that be just a change in the citta (consciousness),like now? .... >Or put another way, when my wife asks one of my > daughters, "Is dad around?"-- It isn't yet ALWAYS the case that the > correct answer is 'Nope.' .... S: They could always answer that there are some cittas (somewhere - that's optional) rising and falling away:-). Call them 'dad' if they like. ... > > So, it seems to me that only if one means something very particular > by 'self' (or 'person' or 'real self')--something substance-like that > persists through time--will it be true to say that there is no self. .... S: I think that an idea of 'atta' can be very subtle indeed. Whenever there is any idea of something lasting or existing at all, such as my finger typing, the key-board or the cup near by. Actually, much more subtle than that. .... > If, however, one doesn't take a self to be so very much, I'm not sure > what the harm is in saying that whatever it is, it is never > uncompelled, but is sometimes nevertheless free. That, at any rate, > is all I have meant by the compatibility of free will and determinism. .... S: I think you neatly point to a link between an idea of atta (even if not 'to be so very much')and ideas of free will and determinism. If instead there is some consideration of just cittas, cetasikas and rupas which arise and fall away by conditions, then I think there isn't any idea of such concepts at such a time. Does that make any sense? ... > > I hope that makes some kind of sense. (One shouldn't expect too much > of a non-entity!) .... S: True! The only sense can be made by cittas arising with understanding!! .... >Again, many thanks for your helpful comments. I > hope whatever blinders have somehow kept me from seeing them in the > past until they had aged nearly a week, will have now fallen > harmlessly away! .... S: Well, the list is much quieter now, so perhaps that will help:-). In any case, the blinders involved in missing posts has nothing to do with the more serious blinder of ignorance (moha). Metta, Sarah ======== #84726 From: Sukinder Date: Fri May 2, 2008 2:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sukinderpal Hi Sarah and James (*Larry), I've uploaded just a few of the photos taken. ============= [I hope Sukin uses some discretion when he posts his pics!! Sukin, why not add some comments about the discussions this time?] You'll see that I've followed your advice. I've decided to send that particular picture to James' private mailbox and leave it to him to decide if it should be put into the DSG Photo section. :-) Regarding comments about the discussions, as I've often said before, I can't be relied upon to recall enough of them to write a report on. :-( *Larry, I had forgotten about your request, but judging from Scott's and Connie's response, it seems that it was too technical for me anyway to even be able to formulate the question. I think Sarah would have seen the post and would ask Nina about it as well as try to respond to it herself, I think... Metta, Sukin > > #84727 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Talking behind my back? ;)) sarahprocter... Hi Colette,(& TG), --- colette > Now that we're on somewhat of a level playing field, why were TG's > comments of greater value than my comments or attempts to straighten > out a "crooked road" or is that a "crooked path"? ... S: I just said I like (or agree with) some of his comments, such as: TG:>If we are trapped in the quagmire of ignorance, then who are we to say what is good or bad...because we wouldn't really know. IMO, people will never be purified from the outside in. It works the other way...from the inside out. Yet there are good people the try to solve problems from either or both directions. Buddhism is the only thing I do where I figure I might do some higher good for others, even if just a couple of others. Throughout most of society, its not recognized as something that is important, but for myself, I think its THE most important thing for both myself and others. <...> It is attachment that causes suffering.< .... S: I have many long discussions with TG in which we disagree on some aspects, so I was glad to point out some areas where we agree. I think that we're in danger of entirely missing the Buddha's message if we are pre-occupied with social injustices, politics, past traumatic experiences, anniversaries of 'being given hatred' and so on. TG was pointing to the real problems in life: ignorance and attachment. Metta, Sarah ========== #84728 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) jonoabb Hi Mike > I do think it's useful at times to use 'designation' rather than 'concept' for pa.n.natti ... I agree. Thinking in terms of 'designation' helps us appreciate the 'no-thing-ness' of concepts! Your comments > below from a more recent post are correct as I see them, whether we're talking about cars or "namarupic streams" (both unreal): Yes. Or we could say, both are only designations ;-) Nice to see your comments, as always, Mike. Jon #84729 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Dear Han (James, Phil & all), --- han tun wrote: > Ajahn Sujin asked me whether I have selected this > moment to arise? She said it is only thinking. I said > it is more than thinking, and there is the involvement > of action, or the lack of it. ... S: In other words, no one can select or choose for seeing or hearing of thinking to arise now. They arise very rapidly by conditions, one citta at a time. When we have an idea of developing more metta or patience, at such a moment, it's just thinking. Of course, metta or patience may follow....or it may not! We may have lovely ideas about such qualities and then be disturbed by someone or some health problem or any kind of thinking and then there is no metta or patience. The point was simply that the citta now can never be controlled because it is anatta, dependent on conditions. .... >Before I practiced > patience, if someone abused me verbally, I most > probably would abuse back verbally. Now, I will try > not to say anything, and take his abuses with > patience. But what I was saying about “thinking” might > be different from Ajahn Sujin’s idea of “thinking.” ... S: Yes, perhaps. You may be referring to a more common idea of thinking and practice. She was referring to cittas and cetasikas now and how the practice has to refer to moments of right understanding of what has arisen already. .... >I > might have been speaking completely on the wrong > track. Perhaps Nina or Sarah can explain Ajahn Sujin’s > opinion on this issue. > > Meanwhile, it may be useful if members can give their > opinion on whether one can “select” a particular > perfection to develop. .... S: I think your summary was on exactly the right track. As you said "It boils down to the anatta doctrine. No one can select any perfection. It will depend on the accumulatiions and conditions!" I'll also be glad to hear other members' opinions. I think it may also a good topic to pursue further when you next visit the Foundation. Thank you again for all your helpful food for reflection. Metta, Sarah ========== #84730 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) sarahprocter... Hi Mike (& Walto), --- "m. nease" wrote: > 'I' is none of the above, whether unitary or composite--it's a concept > either way as well as a 'perversion of perception (sa~n~naa > vipallaasa)', > namely 'self perception (atta sa~n~naa)'. The same pretty much goes for > your (or my) computer keyboard as I see it. ... S: Very neatly said imho. I don't know if Walto has replied already, but hope to read more discussion between the two of you. ... > > I'll leave it at that before I put my foot into my mouth--if I haven't > done already... ... S: Look forward to any more you have to say, Mike. Your ideas of 'foot into mouth' are usually so very mild that no one else even notices:-). Metta, Sarah ============ #84731 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) jonoabb Hi Walto > I'm not sure what was meant by "individual" here. If by "individual" > we mean something like "unitary entity" then, certainly, composites > are not individual, simply because they are, by definition, not > unitary. But is "individual" being used to connote something other > than "unitary entity" here? If so, what? The context was an earlier post of Howard's in which he was talking about the meaning of "person" according to the teachings. "Individual" was being used as another term for "person". > Would it be possible to give an example of some individual thing that > is neither unitary nor composite, please? Am I neither composite nor > unitary? Is my computer keyboard? Thanks. To my understanding of the teachings, only something having a characteristic that can be (directly) experienced, in other words, by a single moment of consciousness, or through a single doorway, can be considered to be a "thing" in the ultimate ("real") sense. These "things" having characteristics are called "dhammas". For our better understanding, dhammas are classified as: - khandhas, elements, ayatanas, etc, (Sutta and Abhidhamma pitakas), and - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana (Abhidhamma). It is these dhammas that are the appropriate objects of moments of insight consciousness. As regards the particular "things" you ask about, neither (a) a person/individual nor (b) a keyboard has existence in the sense that a "dhamma" does, since there can be no single-moment, single-doorway experience of such. Both are mental constructs, designations for the sake of convenience, referring ultimately to (a) an arising of the 5 khandhas, and (b) an arising of rupas, that must be experienced through different sense-doors and the mind-door in order to be conceptualised as such. Jon #84732 From: han tun Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (1) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your kind comments. But I remember what Jon had said. He said: “Although sickness is not regarded as dukkha sacca in Maha Satipatthaana Sutta and Dependent Origination, it is included in other texts such as Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.” And he asked me, “What problem do you have with it?” No, I should not have any problem with it. Besides, it is not an important issue. So, if you will allow me, I wish to close the case. As regards Patthaana series, I will resume posting when Nina is back at home. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Han, > Great summaries! > #84733 From: han tun Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (3) hantun1 Dear Sarah, > > Han: Ajahn Sujin asked me whether I have selected this moment to arise? She said it is only thinking. I said it is more than thinking, and there is the involvement of action, or the lack of it. > Sarah: In other words, no one can select or choose for seeing or hearing of thinking to arise now. They arise very rapidly by conditions, one citta at a time. When we have an idea of developing more metta or patience, at such a moment, it's just thinking. Of course, metta or patience may follow....or it may not! We may have lovely ideas about such qualities and then be disturbed by someone or some health problem or any kind of thinking and then there is no metta or patience. The point was simply that the citta now can never be controlled because it is anatta, dependent on conditions. -------------------- > > Han: Before I practiced patience, if someone abused me verbally, I most probably would abuse back verbally. Now, I will try not to say anything, and take his abuses with patience. But what I was saying about “thinking” might be different from Ajahn Sujin’s idea of “thinking.” > Sarah: Yes, perhaps. You may be referring to a more common idea of thinking and practice. She was referring to cittas and cetasikas now and how the practice has to refer to moments of right understanding of what has arisen already. -------------------- > > Han: I might have been speaking completely on the wrong track. Perhaps Nina or Sarah can explain Ajahn Sujin’s opinion on this issue. > Sarah: I think your summary was on exactly the right track. As you said "It boils down to the anatta doctrine. No one can select any perfection. It will depend on the accumulations and conditions!" ==================== Han: Thank you very much for the above elaborations. I understand now what Ajahn Sujin meant. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Han (James, Phil & all), > --- han tun wrote: > > Ajahn Sujin asked me whether I have selected this > > moment to arise? She said it is only thinking. I > said > > it is more than thinking, and there is the > involvement > > of action, or the lack of it. #84734 From: han tun Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:55 am Subject: At the Foundation on 5th April (7) hantun1 Dear All, I am trying to elaborate on some points that were discussed at the Foundation on 5th April 2008. This is my last installment. (7) Insignificant (paritta.m) dhammas Sarah wrote about Insignificant dhammas quoting the following references. Atthasaalinii, (PTS, Triplets in the Maatikaa): "In the triplet of 'Limited,' (parittattike) the word 'limited' is applied to a little mass (kha.n.ditattaa) , as in 'a small or little mass of cowdung,'[SN iii 144]etc., because of its being cut off all round. States which, because of their small power are like little objects, are called 'limited,' a name given to things pertaining to the universe of sense (kaamaavacara dhammaanam). 'Sublime' (mahaggataa) means 'having reached greatness,' from ability to discard corruptions, from the abundance of fruition, from the length of duration; or it means 'have been reached by great persons.' i.e., persons with noble intention, energy, impulse, and understanding. (chandaviriyacit tapa~~nehi pa.tipannaa) "] Visuddhimagga: Vism., IV, 74: the text refers to how the change-of-lineage (gotrabhu) "transcends the limited (paritta) [sense- sphere] lineage and brings into being the exalted [fine-material- sphere] lineage." This is also true in the case of the attaining of the arupa jhanas and lokuttara cittas. Vism. XIV: 15 it says:"...the understanding that occurs contingent upon sense-sphere states has a limited object (parittaaramma.naa). That which occurs contingent upon fine-material- sphere states or immaterial-sphere states has an exalted object (mahaggataaramma.naa). That is mundane insight (lokiya vipassanaa). That which occurs upon nibbana has a measureless object (appamaa.naaramma.naa). That is supramundane insight (lokuttara vipassanaa). So it is of three kinds as having a limited, an exalted, or a measureless object.(evam parittamahaggataappmaa.naaramma.navasena tividhaa)" [Pali inserts are done by me.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84265 ------------------------------ I do not have English translation of Dhammasangani, but pali text in Burmese script and Burmese translation. 1026: katame dhammaa parittaa? Sabbeva kaamaavacaraa kusalaa akusalaa byaakataa dhammaa ruupakkhandho – pe – vi~n~naa.nakkhandho ime dhammaa parittaa. 1417: katame dhammaa parittaa? Kaamaavacara kusalam akusalam sabbo kaamaavacarassa vipaako kaamaavacara kiriyaabyaakatam sabba~nca ruupam ime dhammaa parittaa. From the above I understand that Insignificant dhammas consist of kaamaavacara cittas (54), associated cetasikas, and all ruupas. ------------------------------ Now, I cannot and dare not say that Dhammasangani or Visuddhimagga is wrong. But I am unhappy that ALL 54 kaamaavacara cittas are classified as Insignificant dhammas. They may be of a lower level than mahaggatta cittas (jhanacittas), and the lokuttara cittas, but it is difficult for me to consider them as insignificant. I gave an example of bamboo scaffold at the Meeting. When we built pagodas in rural Burma we use bamboo scaffolds. The bamboo by itself is insignificant, but without them the pagoda cannot be built. So in that sense they become significant. So also I consider that mahaa kusala cittas associated with ~naana without which one cannot attain magga ~naana, are very much significant in that sense. I can accept that vipaaka cittas like eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness are insignificant, but to consider ALL 54 kaamaavacara cittas as insignificant is too much for me. This may be due to my lack of understanding and my very immature wisdom. It was said that kaamaavacara cittas are insignificant because they arise and fall away very, very quickly. But jhaana cittas and lokuttara cittas also arise and fall away quickly. They seem to last longer because more number of cittas arise and fall away in succession. But the duration of individual cittas is the same. Nina said that the objects taken by these types of cittas are not the same. For example, the object of lokuttara cittas is Nibbaana. Now, this explanation (taking their objects as criteria) is more acceptable to me. Not on the criteria of arising and passing away quickly. Sarah asked me how close we are now to the quote from Atthasaalinii. For me, it is not much closer. Be that as it may, I do not think it will be profitable to continue debating whether all kaamaavacara cittas are insignificant or not, because I am afraid it will amount to saying that the Buddha was wrong. To have written what I have written so far is enough akusala kamma for me! With this note, I come to the END of reporting on the topics that originated from me or from my old posts. Thank you very much for your patience to read all my posts, and your kind comments posted so far. Respectfully, Han #84735 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > KS and her followers have a mystical approach to this subject. They > try to give their mystical approch scholarly sounding names > like "accumulations", but it is still just mystical. It is the same > as wu-wei "non-doing" in Zen and Taoism. The idea is that we are > already awakened and that any effort to become awakened only > compounds the problem or ignorance. In other words, we just need to > realize our awakened nature- no effort is involved. One should > trust panna (wisdom) to allow this to occur. .... S: Interesting! I'd be glad to be directed to any post by anyone here who has suggested anything along these lines. .... >There isn't enough panna to do anything. The knife > is dull and useless. .... S: This is exactly why there needs to be a lot, lot more hearing and careful considering of the Dhamma. The Buddha didn't teach for so long for no reason:-). Otherwise, it is like trying to chop down a tree with a blunt knife or (as I heard the other day, probably from a text), it's like trying to lift a mountain with one's finger-nail! Metta, Sarah ======== #84736 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (5) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- han tun wrote: > This interpretation of satipatthaana is quite new for > me. Previously, I thought the process of establishing > four foundations of mindfulness is satipatthaana, even > at the beginning stages. But now, according to Ajahn > Sujin and the Group, the word ‘satipatthaana’ can be > used only when the insight is reached. [Nina and > Sarah, please correct me if I am wrong in this > interpretation.] .... S: Usually insight refers to the vipassana nanas. Satipatthana has to be developed in order that these be attained. However, as you rightly said, there is sati with all sobhana (beautiful) cittas, even those which are not accompanied by panna (wisdom). Even when cittas are accompanied by sati and panna, it doesn't mean it is satipatthana by any means. Satipatthana is the understanding and awareness of a present reality. With regard to 'guarding of the senses', it depends on the context as to whether it is referring to satipatthana. Whenever sati arises (i.e. any sobhana cittas), there is a 'guarding', there is wise attention, because no akusala can arise. Is there anything here you disagree with? I'm sorry that I can't include references easily while I'm travelling. Metta, Sarah ======= #84737 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) sarahprocter... Dear Connie, --- connie wrote: > C: Yep, "others", sorry, another of my many typos, I'm sure. .... S: I wasn't meaning to correct a typo, only to check my understanding. .. >I'd look > it up, but most of my books are downstairs - off limits for the time > being as Mom's got me on a short leash until the doctor says I can put > weight on my leg again. ... S: I believe you mentioned to me you were having knee surgery? Do hope it went well....My hip's a bit 'iffy' with weight these days too...more old age, sickness and unpleasant feeling to come....courage, patience and good cheer WITH panna. .... >And yes, I agree that other than those first > 501, a bhikkhunii first had to be accepted by the bhikkhunii and then by > the bhikkhu orders. Also, somewhere along the line, I believe it was > laid down that there would have to be at least 5 fully ordained > bhikkhuniis to represent the bhikkhunii order & that the novice would > have to have practiced 6 (?) precepts for 2 years before asking for the > full ordination from both sides. .... S: I'll make a stab and guess it was 8. (Of course, that might be the Chinese lucky number influence down to the marrow instead of any wise consideration....) Metta, Sarah ====== #84738 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/11/2008 2:01:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Thanks for the further comments and discussion, which I'll respond to a soon as I can get around to it. In the meantime, below is a translation of the chariot simile I found from a search of the internet. If anyone has access to the Bodhi version from CDB, I'd be interested to see it. Jon The Chariot Simile, from S.i,135 (Bhikkhuní Samyutta 10) [Mára the Evil One:] By whom is this creature formed? Who is the creature's maker? Who is the arisen creature? Who is the creature that ceases? [Vajirá the nun:] Why do you refer to 'the creature', Mára, are you involved in (wrong) view? This is a pile of pure determinations; there is, here, no creature to be found. Just as for an assemblage of parts there is the term 'a chariot', So, when there are the aggregates, convention says 'a creature'. It is merely suffering that comes into being, suffering that stands and disappears, Nothing apart from suffering comes into being, nothing other than suffering ceases. (http://nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm) ==================================== And, of course, there also is the presentation in the Milindapanha, in which one finds the following: _________________ Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absolute sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc.; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego" are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth. ---------------------------- Note the talk of "constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other". This speaks of a chariot as an aggregation, as opposed to a thing-in-itself. Note again the speaking of a fist as only "the fingers, the thumb, etc., *in a certain relation* [emphasis mine]", and likewise for a lute. When any of these has the components separated one from the other and taken out of relation, there does not remain a chariot, fist, or lute. They are not just collections, but collections of parts-in-relation for which the being in proper relation makes possible the harmonious functioning of the collection as if it were a single phenomenon. It is only because of the parts, components, or members being in a certain relation that makes possible the joint functionality and induces us to mistakenly view the collection as an individual entity. 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) #84739 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/11/2008 3:37:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > I would sooner say "It is a matter of no longer thinking of persons as > unitary entities but instead thinking of them as composites." The meaning I get from the Chariot simile is that when the 5 khandhas arise, they are perceived conventionally as a person, whereas in reality there *is no* "person" to be found. This I think is different from the idea that a person should be seen not as a unitary entity but as a composite instead. But regardless of one's view as to that difference, on either reading the development of insight would still be the coming to know dhammas (the khandhas) as dhammas, wouldn't you say? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And knowing aggregations of dhammas as only collections, and not individuals, and in the knowing of dhammas, to know that they are fleeting and contingent and not self-existent. -------------------------------------------------------- Jon ============================= With metta, Howard #84740 From: han tun Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (5) hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: Usually insight refers to the vipassana nanas. Satipatthana has to be developed in order that these be attained. However, as you rightly said, there is sati with all sobhana (beautiful) cittas, even those which are not accompanied by panna (wisdom). Even when cittas are accompanied by sati and panna, it doesn't mean it is satipatthana by any means. Satipatthana is the understanding and awareness of a present reality. With regard to 'guarding of the senses', it depends on the context as to whether it is referring to satipatthana. Whenever sati arises (i.e. any sobhana cittas), there is a 'guarding', there is wise attention, because no akusala can arise. Is there anything here you disagree with? I'm sorry that I can't include references easily while I'm travelling. -------------------- Han: It is not the question of I agree or not agree. I just want to know how you interpret Satipatthaana. If you say Satipatthaana means the following (in line with Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary), it will be alright with me. Quote: [After each contemplation it is shown how it finally leads to insight-knowledge: "Thus with regard to his own body he contemplates the body, with regard to the bodies of others he contemplates the body, with regard to both he contemplates the body. He beholds how the body arises and how it passes away, beholds the arising and passing away of the body. 'A body is there' (but no living being, no individual, no woman, no man, no self, nothing that belongs to a self; neither a person, nor anything belonging to a person; Com.): thus he has established his attentiveness as far as it serves his knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives independent, unattached to anything in the world.' In the same way he contemplates feeling, mind and mind-objects.] End Quote. Or, if you say Satipatthaana means the following (in line with Satipatthaana Sutta), it is alright with me. Quote: [“In this way he abides contemplating the body as a body internally, or he abides contemplating the body as a body externally, or he abides contemplating the body as a body both internally and externally. Or else he abides contemplating in the body its arising factors, or he abides contemplating in the body its vanishing factors, or he abides contemplating in the body both its arising and vanishing factors. Or else mindfulness that ‘there is a body’ is simply established in him to the extent necessary for bare knowledge and mindfulness. And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body.] End Quote. But when you say [Even when cittas are accompanied by sati and panna, it doesn't mean it is satipatthana by any means. Satipatthana is the understanding and awareness of a present reality] it confuses me further, because in Satipatthaana Sutta I cannot find anything about understanding and awareness of a present reality. -------------------- With regard to 'guarding of the senses', you said “it depends on the context as to whether it is referring to satipatthana. Whenever sati arises (i.e. any sobhana cittas), there is a 'guarding', there is wise attention, because no akusala can arise.” Again, there is the confusion. You said “it depends on the context as to whether it is referring to satipatthana.” Then, my question is “do YOU refer satipatthaana to the guarding of the senses?” Or, “how do YOU relate Satipatthaana to the guarding of the senses?” I will accept anything you say. But what you have said so far is more confusing for me. I am sorry, if I am slow in understanding. Respectfully, Han #84741 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 4/11/2008 1:18:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Yes, but insofar as the object of panna is a presently arising dhamma, the extent of what the panna may know about that dhamma is unlimited. Jon .............................................. Do you consider reflection, contemplation, or thinking -- of conditional aspects of -- "external phenomena, whether past, future, or present" -- to be panna of "presently arisen dhamma?" TG #84742 From: han tun Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] At the Foundation on 5th April (5) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Good morning! I hope you have rested well. When I re-read my last post, I think I have not made myself clear. Maybe I have confused you also. So can we start from the beginning once again? Let us assume that we are in a school class-room. There is a big black-board on the wall. On it I had written many things and you had written many things. Let us wipe out all of them, and on the clean black-board, can you kindly write your interpretation of “sati” and “satipatthaana.” (Please forget whatever I had written before, and whatever you had written before about this subject.) Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Han: It is not the question of I agree or not agree. > I just want to know how you interpret Satipatthaana. #84743 From: "colette" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Talking behind my back? ;)) ksheri3 Hi Sarah, JEEZE, c'mon, if you are so "enlightened" then what you said, below, is without any substantiation or merit at all. This is my problem with many insane leaders that inject their insanity to their followers. I have yet to begin a type of completion with the Western esoteric societies where I will just thow danmed to bad luck into the winds and say it now: "The gods, O Bhagavat, do not suggest this matter to me, nor the blessed Buddhas, b ut this thougt occurs to me by my own philosophy alone, that is, that probabl\y the Tathagat dwells to-day in the state of a Buddha, probably the Thathagat dwells to-day in the state of a Jina, in the state of omnicscience, in the state of a Mahsnshs; or he contemplates the venerable Buddhas of the past, future, and present." THERE, I SAID IT. eat me. I accept that, what you said concerning TG's post. Now lets look at TG's post, which is my enitre problem since he deliberately used and applied the word "quagmire" as a condition of the student's ability. My interperpretation is that he, TG, is honorably teaching the students of the multi-phaceted suttas, HOWEVER, he is DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY leading them into a false truth where the student must remain and dwell so as to realize, through experience, the truth of the sutta. Furthermore, the application of quagmire was deliberate so that no other person approach or contend with the financial position of TG. TG has his opinion and is rightly worthy of his opinion, however, if he is going to be seen as a guide or as a teacher then he should be aware and willing to expound on the falsehoods he trains his students in. Don't go off here! He should have explained that the Theravadan methodology is completely centered on the existance of a status quo and the perpetuation of a status quo. Oddly enough this is the exact same ludicrous concept found in Western theologies or WEstern organized religions -- in one aspect I am the worst virus that has ever come unto the Western programming of theology and existance yet on the other hand I am deliberately and intentionally researching the absolute falsehoods of this damned psychology known as Western Psychology which are totally destructive and of little value to the survival of the human animal. Quagmire was and is, in my limited estimation, a deliberate attempt to maintain the status quo through the application of Buddhist practices. It is known that I do not like the communist chinese practices yet they have value which we have to refine in order to stgay alive, on the other hand I cannot stand the contempt and disgust that Western organized religion has for any and all humans -- STILL, WE ALL GOTTA GET THIS TOGETHER SO THAT WE SURVIVE i.e. you suck up all the air in China through your application of coal burning electric factories then how am I gonna live which is a direct threat a direact attempt to murder me. Your petty little world of feet binding prostitution world of gratification does not work with me. If subjegation is your goal then do not try to use alternative means to rationalize your behavior and then inflict your behavior unto others as being the Path to enlightenment since it is the path to SLAVERY AND SUFFERING ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Colette,(& TG), > > S: I just said I like (or agree with) some of his comments, such as:d0 > > .... > S: I have many long discussions with TG in which we disagree on some > aspects, so I was glad to point out some areas where we agree. > > I think that we're in danger of entirely missing the Buddha's message if > we are pre-occupied with social injustices, politics, past traumatic > experiences, anniversaries of 'being given hatred' and so on. TG was > pointing to the real problems in life: ignorance and attachment. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > #84744 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi TG --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > ... > Do you consider reflection, contemplation, or thinking -- of conditional > aspects of -- "external phenomena, whether past, future, or present" -- to be > panna of "presently arisen dhamma?" Well I would rather see the terms used in a particular context, because much could depend on that. But to my understanding of the way these terms are normally used, a reference to reflection on, or contemplation or thinking of, something would be a reference to a moment at which the object of consciousness was concept rather than a dhamma. As regards reflection on, or contemplation or thinking of, the "conditional aspects" of something, I'm not sure what you might have in mind. But I would say that the conditionality taught by the Buddha can only be known by developed understanding (panna) which has as its object conditioned dhammas. Of course, reflection on, or contemplation or thinking of, aspects of the teachings is indispensible to the development of such panna, as we have seen in our discussions on suta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna (and on pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha). Is this how you see it too? Jon #84745 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard > But regardless of one's view as to that difference, on either reading > the development of insight would still be the coming to know dhammas > (the khandhas) as dhammas, wouldn't you say? > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And knowing aggregations of dhammas as only collections, and not > individuals, and in the knowing of dhammas, to know that they are fleeting and > contingent and not self-existent. > -------------------------------------------------------- Of the 2 kinds of knowing you mention here, namely: - knowing aggregations of dhammas as only collections, and not individuals, and - in the knowing of dhammas, to know that they are fleeting and contingent and not self-existent, the second refers to specific characteristics of dhammas, while the first refers, as I see it, to the negation of an aspect of wrong view (namely, the idea of people and things as entities). As insight is gradually developed, so the specific characteristics of dhammas become better known, and wrong view of all kinds becomes attenuated. In either case, however, the "practice" is just the development of insight into presently arisen dhammas, to my understanding. (As an aside, I've never been clear on the meaning of "self-existent" in the expression "not self-existent", but that's not doubt a separate subject!) Jon #84746 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:44 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for citing the passage from the Milinda Panha (which I have copied again at the end of this post). > ---------------------------- > Note the talk of "constituent members, placed in a certain relation to > each other". Yes. The pattern used is: "Just as the word "X" is but a mode of expression for various constituent parts that appear in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine those parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no X ..." This part of the passage is the simile part. It is not an analysis in dhamma terms of "chariot" or "fist", but is a description in conventional terms, to be used to illustrate a point. The gist of this part of the passage is that in the absolute sense there *is no* "chariot", etc. Your comments that follow, however, seem to take the simile description as being an analysis of chariot, etc in dhamma terms. > This speaks of a chariot as an aggregation, as opposed to a > thing-in-itself. Note again the speaking of a fist as only "the fingers, the > thumb, etc., *in a certain relation* [emphasis mine]", and likewise for a lute. > When any of these has the components separated one from the other and taken out > of relation, there does not remain a chariot, fist, or lute. They are not > just collections, but collections of parts-in-relation for which the being in > proper relation makes possible the harmonious functioning of the collection as > if it were a single phenomenon. It is only because of the parts, components, > or members being in a certain relation that makes possible the joint > functionality and induces us to mistakenly view the collection as an individual > entity. The whole point of the simile, to my reading, is the analysis in dhamma terms of an individual (a person), and when it comes to this there is no mention of constituent parts appearing or being arranged in a certain relation to each other. It simply says: "... in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego" are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups; but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth." Jon ==================================== And, of course, there also is the presentation in the Milindapanha, in which one finds the following: _________________ Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absolute sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc.; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego" are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth. #84747 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/11/2008 3:36:56 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Of course, reflection on, or contemplation or thinking of, aspects of the teachings is indispensible to the development of such panna, as we have seen in our discussions on suta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya panna (and on pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha). Is this how you see it too? Jon ................................ Hi Jon Regarding this last statement, yes. However, I am not as tied to the notion that -- concepts or inferential thinking, involving impermanence, affliction, nonself, conditionality, are not legitimate insight factors...or that they are not principle-motivating-factors in leading to detachment. This is not just "my opinion," but is what I see in the Suttas over and over again. Time is short. Latter. TG #84748 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:41 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) buddhatrue Hi Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Sarah and James (*Larry), > > I've uploaded just a few of the photos taken. > ============= > [I hope Sukin uses some discretion when he posts his pics!! Sukin, why > not add some comments about the discussions this time?] > > You'll see that I've followed your advice. I've decided to send that > particular picture to James' private mailbox and leave it to him to > decide if it should be put into the DSG Photo section. :-) LOL! It is a very funny picture! Thanks for sending it to me. It's an interesting choice to send it to me and a great responsibility. Hmmmm...some might take it the wrong way and Sarah is concerned so I guess I will keep it to myself. Unless I hear otherwise. Metta, James #84749 From: "Chew" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:18 am Subject: Khandha Yamaka - study reports, pls help me check on my reports. Sadhu! chewsadhu Study Report 24 [31/211] Pali Text: Sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaarakkhandhoti? sa.nkhaarakkhandha.m tthapetvaa avasesaa sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaarakkhandho, sa.nkhaarakkhandho sa.nkhaaraaceva sa.nkhaarakkhandho ca. Khandhaa ruupakkhandhoti? ruupakkhandho khandho ceva ruupakkhandho ca. Avasesaa khandhaa, na ruupakkhandho. Translation: (i) It is mental formation. Is it mental formation aggregate? With the exception of mental formation aggregate the remainings are mental formations, but not mental formation aggregate. Mental formation aggregate is both mental formation and mental formation aggregate. They are aggregates. Are they matter aggregate? Matter aggregate is both aggregate and matter aggregate. The remainings are aggregates, but not the matter aggregate. Guide: Mental formations are 89 consciousness, 52 mental factors, and 28 matters. Mental formation aggregates are 50 mental factors. The remaining mental formations are 89 consciousness, 2 mental factors, and 28 matters. The remaining aggregates, which are not the matter aggregate, are feeling aggregate, perception aggregate, mental formation aggregate, and consciousness aggregate. from below link: http://khandhayamaka.blogspot.com/2008/04/study-report-24.html #84750 From: "Chew" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Re: Khandha Yamaka - study reports, pls help me check on my reports. Sadhu! chewsadhu Dhammanando at E-sangha has left a new comment on your post "Study Report 24": Hi Chewsadhu, Firstly, let me note that the passage that you are translating here is from the Padasodhana ("Term-purifying") section of the Yamaka, which is concerned with defining the correct scope (i.e. the range of distributions) of various abhidhammic designations. That being so, it would be better here to translate the word 'iti' as "is called", rather than leaving it untranslated. And having done that, consistency will require us to assume an inherent but unstated 'iti' in the catechetical responses. Secondly, the text you are using omits the word 'na' in one place where it is most definitely required. QUOTE Sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaarakkhandhoti? sa.nkhaarakkhandha.m .thapetvaa avasesaa sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaarakkhandho, sa.nkhaarakkhandho sa.nkhaaraa ceva sa.nkhaarakkhandho ca. The Burmese and Thai versions read: Sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaarakkhandhoti? sa.nkhaarakkhandha.m .thapetvaa avasesaa sa.nkhaaraa na sa.nkhaarakkhandho, sa.nkhaarakkhandho sa.nkhaaraa ceva sa.nkhaarakkhandho ca. I would translate: Are formations called 'the aggregate of formations'? Excluding the aggregate of formations, what remains are called 'formations' but are not called 'the aggregate of formations'. The aggregate of formations is called both 'formations' and 'the aggregate of formations'. The Sinhalese reads: Sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaarakkhandhoti? sa.nkhaarakkhandha.m .thapetvaa avasesaa sa.nkhaaraa sa.nkhaaraa, na sa.nkhaarakkhandho, sa.nkhaarakkhandho sa.nkhaaraa ceva sa.nkhaarakkhandho ca. Here the translation would be: Are formations called 'the aggregate of formations'? Excluding the aggregate of formations, the remaining formations are called 'formations' but are not called 'the aggregate of formations'. The aggregate of formations is called both 'formations' and 'the aggregate of formations'. QUOTE Khandhaa ruupakkhandhoti? ruupakkhandho khandho ceva ruupakkhandho ca. Avasesaa khandhaa, na ruupakkhandho. Are aggregates called 'the aggregate of matter'? The aggregate of matter is called both 'aggregate' and 'aggregate of matter'. The remaining aggregates are not called 'aggregate of matter'. QUOTE It is mental formation. The word 'mental' is not required here. If you limit the meaning of 'sa.nkhaara' to mental formations (the fourth khandha) you're going to run into problems when you come to the negative questions. For example: na sa.nkhaaraa na khandhoti? aamantaa. Is that which is not formations called 'not an aggregate'? Yes. If we had translated sa.nkhaaraa here as "mental formations", then the affirmative answer would be false, for ruupa, vedanaa, sa~n~naa and vi~n~naa.na are not called mental formations, but are (or may be) called aggregates. QUOTE Mental formations are 89 consciousness, 52 mental factors, and 28 matters. And since they include the 28 ruupas they should not be translated as "mental formations". Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu Posted by Dhammanando at E-sangha to Khandha Yamaka at April 12, 2008 4:13 PM #84751 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:16 am Subject: eCard from Bangkok - Songkran Festival jonoabb Hi All We've just had our first day's discussion at the Foundation since our return from Kaeng Krachan on Thursday. In addition to the crowd who were at KK, we had Ven Pannabahulo (who has flown down from Chiang Mai for these few days' discussion), David (also from Chiang Mai, whom Ven P has mentioned in his posts before), Bob and several others whose names I did not manage to pick up. The discussion was lively and informative, with the visitors from Chiang Mai generating many of the questions. These few days mark the Thai Songkran (traditional New Year) period, when water-throwing (with dyed water) is the norm. Our taxi back to the hotel bore the marks of having been 'bombed' earlier. Fortunately we ourselves managed to avoid anything more than a water-pistol attack! Jon #84752 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Larry, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Regarding: > > "...da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m di.t.ta.m na ma~n~nati..." > L: .....B. ~Naanananda has "does not conceive of a visible thing > as apart from sight". The commentary has the sense that "the > Tathaagatha does not entertain any cravings, conceits, or views, > thinking: 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.'" .... S: In other words, the visible object is understood as just that which is seen and there is no ma~n~nati (ideas with attachment, conceit or wrong view) about it in the way that ordinary folk conceive or have papa~nca on account of what is seen. [I think Larry gave BB's detailed notes on ma~n~nati and papa~nca as contained in his intro to the Mulapariyaya Sutta.] .... > Scott: I'm interested in the way in which 'view' and 'seen' come > together. When the arahat 'sees' there would seem to be no becoming > caught up in any accompanying imagination or thinking about what is > seen. Or, perhaps, only seeing. ... S: I'd say, no thinking with attachment, conceit or wrong views. Of course, there is still thinking about what is seen. There are still ideas of people and trees, but only with sobhana cittas and cetasikas. You may like to re-post it for Nina's comments on the Pali when she returns (around Tues or Wed). [Likewise Han, could you bring all your series from the Foundation last Sat to her attention when she returns, giving her the numbers of the posts. Also, anything else anyone has addressed to her.] Metta, Sarah ========= #84753 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Hi Larry & Scott, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Here is B. ~Naanananda's note: > > 'Thus, monks, a tathaagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart > from sight;1 > > 1. The Comm. takes the words 'da.t.thaa da.t.thabba'm' in the text to > mean: 'having seen, should be known' and explains the following words > 'di.t.ta'm na ma~n~nati' as a separate phrase meaning that the > Tathaagata does not entertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: > 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.' It applies the > same mode of explanation throughout. ... S: having seen, to be known as the seen, he doesn't conceive (erroneously)....?? <...> > Larry: Maybe so. My guess is, if the Buddha sees the visible data of a > tree he does not conceive that visible data as a tree in the same way as > he does not conceive his own appearance as me or mine. But he still > recognizes a tree and Ananda and anyone else he knows. ... S: Well said! He recognizes the tree and Ananda, without any idea of atta and without any attachment at all. Metta, Sarah ========= #84754 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Hi Scott & Larry, --- sarah abbott wrote: > --- LBIDD@... wrote: > > Here is B. ~Naanananda's note: > > > > 'Thus, monks, a tathaagata does not conceive of a visible thing as > apart > > from sight;1 > > > > 1. The Comm. takes the words 'da.t.thaa da.t.thabba'm' in the text to > > mean: 'having seen, should be known' and explains the following words > > 'di.t.ta'm na ma~n~nati' as a separate phrase meaning that the > > Tathaagata does not entertain any cravings, conceits or views, > thinking: > > 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.' It applies the > > same mode of explanation throughout. ..... S: The following may be relevant (taken from an old post I wrote on the Bahiya Udana): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24977 S: >The Buddha encourages Bahiya to understand the objects experienced through the sense doors and the six classes of consciousness. “ ‘With respect to the seen...merely the seen (di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m)’: with respect to a sight-base (ruupaayatane) (there will be) merely that seen by means of eye-consciousness.” The Buddha is stressing that mere dhammas exist. A little later in the Ud-a we read: “For, in this connection, the sight-base is called ‘the seen’ (di.t.tha.m)in the sense that it is something that is to be beheld, (as is) eye-consciousness, together with the consciousness associated with the doors therefor, in the sense of seeing, both of these, occurring (as they do) in accordance with conditions, being solely and merely dhammas; there is, in this connection, neither a doer nor one who causes things to be done, as a result of which, since (the seen) is impermanent in the sense of being non-existent after having been, dukkha in the sense of being oppressed by way of rise and fall, not-self in the sense of proceeding uncontrolled, whence the opportunity for excitement and so on with respect thereto on the part of one who is wise?...”< Metta, Sarah ======== #84755 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive jonoabb Hi TG > Regarding this last statement, yes. However, I am not as tied to the notion > that -- concepts or inferential thinking, involving impermanence, > affliction, nonself, conditionality, are not legitimate insight factors...or that they > are not principle-motivating-factors in leading to detachment. Restating the above, I understand you to be saying that: (a) concepts or inferential thinking involving impermanence, affliction, nonself and conditionality, are legitimate insight factors; and (b) concepts or inferential thinking involving impermanence, affliction, nonself and conditionality are principle-motivating-factors in leading to detachment. It's difficult for me to comment on this, as it's not at all clear how you are using the terms 'insight factors' and 'principle-motivating-factors in leading to detachment'. But again I would ask you to be specific and if possible relate these statements to established textual terminology such as suta/cinta//bhavana maya panna. An example or two would also be most welcome. > This is not just "my opinion," but is what I see in the Suttas over and over > again. Time is short. Latter. I hope the 'Later' means we may expect some specific references instead of the assertion that everything you've been saying is "in the Suttas" ;-)) Jon #84756 From: "Chew" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:58 am Subject: Khandha Yamaka - Study Report 23 chewsadhu Study Report 23 [30/211] Pali Text: Sa~n~naa sa~n~naakkhandhoti? di.t.thisa~n~naa sa~n~naa, na sa~n~naakkhandho. Sa~n~naakkhandho sa~n~naa ceva sa~n~naakkhandho ca. Khandhaa ruupakkhandhoti? ruupakkhandho khandho ceva ruupakkhandho ca. Avasesaa khandhaa, na ruupakkhandho. Translation: (i) It is perception. Is it perception aggregate? Wrong views based on perception are perception, but not perception aggregate. Perception aggregate is both perception and perception aggregate. They are aggregates. Are they matter aggregate? Matter aggregate is both aggregate and matter aggregate. The remainings are aggregates, but not the matter aggregate. Guide: Wrong views based on perception are wrong view mental factor. They are perception. They are not perception aggregate. Perception aggregate is perception mental factor. The remaining aggregates, which are not the matter aggregate, are feeling aggregate, perception aggregate, mental formation aggregate, and consciousness aggregate. from below link: http://khandhayamaka.blogspot.com/2008/04/study-report-23.html #84757 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) walterhorn Hi, Jon et al. Thanks for your explanation. The concept of individual you describe seems to me to produce items that are quite a bit like the things Bertrand Russell claimed one could be "acquainted with" back in the late teens and twenties. Russell was at that time very concerned to distinguish "knowledge by acquaintance" from "knowledge by description" and thought it must be possible to construct our "every day world" out of the "sense data" which are (or were in his view back then) the only things with which we have "direct knowledge." That's been a tough, perhaps impassable, road; the "logical construction of the world" (see Carnap's "Aufbau") hasn't progressed too far in the long period since Russell's "Logical Atomism." Not most of the philosophical establishment has given up such attempts (and not only for the reasons pushed by Wittgenstein in his later philosophy). As I (and maybe Howard too?) mentioned in prior posts here, there is an important sense of the basic intentionality (or referring quality) of the mental that seems quite important to any correct sense of our world. The "direct, non-physical sense data" view seems to me to miss that sense, and the result of pressing "knowledge by acquaintance" has been considerable trouble in the (certainly more mundane) world of Western Philosophy. Best, Walto -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Walto > > > I'm not sure what was meant by "individual" here. If by "individual" > > we mean something like "unitary entity" then, certainly, composites > > are not individual, simply because they are, by definition, not > > unitary. But is "individual" being used to connote something other > > than "unitary entity" here? If so, what? > > The context was an earlier post of Howard's in which he was talking > about the meaning of "person" according to the teachings. > "Individual" was being used as another term for "person". > > > Would it be possible to give an example of some individual thing that > > is neither unitary nor composite, please? Am I neither composite nor > > unitary? Is my computer keyboard? Thanks. > > To my understanding of the teachings, only something having a > characteristic that can be (directly) experienced, in other words, by > a single moment of consciousness, or through a single doorway, can be > considered to be a "thing" in the ultimate ("real") sense. > > These "things" having characteristics are called "dhammas". > > For our better understanding, dhammas are classified as: > - khandhas, elements, ayatanas, etc, (Sutta and Abhidhamma pitakas), and > - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana (Abhidhamma). > > It is these dhammas that are the appropriate objects of moments of > insight consciousness. > > As regards the particular "things" you ask about, neither (a) a > person/individual nor (b) a keyboard has existence in the sense that a > "dhamma" does, since there can be no single-moment, single-doorway > experience of such. Both are mental constructs, designations for the > sake of convenience, referring ultimately to (a) an arising of the 5 > khandhas, and (b) an arising of rupas, that must be experienced > through different sense-doors and the mind-door in order to be > conceptualised as such. > > Jon > #84758 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:55 am Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Colette > "Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia, plural > synesthesiae or synaesthesiae)—from the Ancient Greek ...is a > neurologically-based phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory > or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a > second sensory or cognitive pathway. ... > > So, with this said, THEN I refer to WRONG VIEW and how we, as > sentient beings, DID NOT EXPERIENCE the exact same stimulus that the > Buddha experienced when the Buddha manifested this "concept". We > futher our misinterpetations and misdirections by crystalizing a > single definition of the "concept" and thus imprisoning the Buddha ... I'm handicapped in commenting on your post because I'm not sure which "concept" manifested by the Buddha you are referring to! I think I'll have to pass this time around. > I am also saying that all consciousnesses are connected together into > a unified whole ... An interesting theory, but can it be supported by the texts? > > > I wouldn't mind watching KenH grill you but I don't think he has > the > > > bar-b to do the grilling with, yet. Got any shrimp or prawns? > Maybe > > > some callimari? > > > > We'll find out later today ;-)) > colette: hopefully we will. We never did find out. The grilling just didn't happen (at least, not that I was aware ;-)). Perhaps Ken can tell us the story there. Jon #84759 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:30 am Subject: Off for a while! - to Sarah hantun1 Dear Sarah, My wife is in hospital intensive care for heart attack. I will not be able to open my mail for the time being. I will let you know when I am back to my house again. Han #84760 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:42 am Subject: Perfections Corner (121) nichiconn Dear Friends, continuing ch.1: We read: "He does not give because he expects something in return. And when there is not enough to give sufficiently to all, he distributes evenly whatever can be shared. But he does not give things that lead to affliction for others, such as weapons, poisons and intoxicants. Nor does he give amusing things which are harmful and lead to negligence. And he does not give unsuitable food or drink to a person who is sick, even though that person might ask for it, and he does not give what is suitable beyond the proper measure." If we really want to help someone, such as a person who is ill, we need to reflect with compassion on the way we will give him assistance. We should not just give without any discrimination, but we should also know to what extent our gift is suitable and useful to a sick person. We should know in detail what is kusala, and we should be discriminative, not neglectful of kusala. Just as a doctor should precisely know the condition of a person who is ill and the dosage of medicaments to be taken that is suitable for each individual, even so should we give with discrimination. The Commentary states: "Again, when asked, he gives to householders things appropriate for householders, and to monks things appropriate for monks. He gives to his mother and father, kinsmen and relatives, friends and colleagues, children, wife, slaves and workers, without causing pain to anyone. Having promised an excellent gift, he does not give something mean. He does not give because he desires gain, honour or fame, or because he expects something in return, or out of expectation of some fruit other than the supreme enlightenment (in the case of the Bodhisatta). He does not give detesting the gift or those who ask. He does not give a discarded object as a gift, not even to unrestrained beggars who revile and abuse him." Each time we give, we should carefully investigate our citta. The citta should truly be gentle and tender. We should not have contempt for the people who ask for something or dislike the things we give; we should not give discarded objects, not even to unrestrained beggars who revile and abuse us. Can we follow this up? The person who receives a gift may be annoyed, or sometimes his behaviour may be most impolite. But still, the citta of the person who gives can be gentle and tender. He can give without dislike of the receiver. It may happen that the receiver is unrestrained in his behaviour, that his conduct is improper, or that he reviles the person who gives; he may be angry, he may say that the other person gives too little, or that he does not want to have the things that are given. However, in spite of this, the citta of the giver should be steadfast in kusala. We read in the Commentary: "He gives invariably with confidence, with compassion and respect." In this way one can eradicate one's own defilements, also when giving. connie #84761 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 4/12/2008 7:37:33 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG > Regarding this last statement, yes. However, I am not as tied to the notion > that -- concepts or inferential thinking, involving impermanence, > affliction, nonself, conditionality, are not legitimate insight factors...or that they > are not principle-motivatin are not principle-motivating-factors i It's difficult for me to comment on this, as it's not at all clear how you are using the terms 'insight factors' ..................................................... NEW TG: An "insight factor" is a factor that is highly associated with insight. Clear? ....................................................... and 'principle-motivati'principle-motivating-factors in lead .......................................................... NEW TG: Insight as a "principle-motivating factor" is a "central factor" or "central quality" that "motivates" the mind toward detachment. Clear? I'm not a "Pali Scholar Jon, and although if I wanted to spend the time, I could perhaps insert the appropriate Pali terms to satisfy you, I just don't really want to spend the time. I rather spend the time working on detaching this mind. Although I respect and encourage the study of Pali, I discourage being trapped in a "Pali box" whereby one seems to think that the truth can only be found in that "box." Its just a presentation or representation. The truth is in the actual occurrences of nature. (Please don't ask me to explain what "nature" means.) ........................................................... But again I would ask you to be specific and if possible relate these statements to established textual terminology such as suta/cinta//to establish panna. An example or two would also be most welcome. ....................................................... NEW TG: I will leave it up to your ingenuity to figure out the correct reference points to equate the languages. Just hope that when you "equate the languages," that your understanding of Pali, is such, that it reveals the correct meaning of what's in the Suttas, and more importantly, reveals the correct meaning of what's in nature / phenomena. ................................................................ > This is not just "my opinion," but is what I see in the Suttas over and over > again. Time is short. Latter. I hope the 'Later' means we may expect some specific references instead of the assertion that everything you've been saying is "in the Suttas" ;-)) ............................................................ NEW TG: I'm not sure if anyone uses Suttas quotes, more than I, to back up points. The quotes you are asking for now are "throughout" the Suttas, I have posted them repeatedly over the last several months and years, and will continue to do so at my leisure. However, if every time I make general statements regarding what should be well known by a serious student of Suttas, I have to run back and post the same old quotes that I've been consistently posting for some time, and being asked to do so as it I hadn't done so in the first place, its just another tedium I don't care for. I feel like I'm running around in circles. BTW, those quotes, when posted, usually get "shelved" and ignored and another point that is 'off point' gets being discussed. So the posting of Sutta quotes to this group, in general, is 90% in vain. In other words, the proof is just ignored. So you can see my frustration and lack of incentive to spend the next hour or so searching for various quotes that when posted, will likely not be given sufficient weight of examination to have justified my time. However, there is a series of Suttas in the Fifth Book of Samyutta Nikaya where it is described that "wisdom leads the way" and the other factors follow in its wake" so to speak. Therefore, factors on the side of wisdom, or that most prominently deal with wisdom, are "leading motivators" of the other wholesome factors that tend toward detachment/enlightenment. Mindfulness is directly described as being about both internal and external, in the same book of the SN. In other words, the Buddha directly says, there is mindfulness that is internal, and there is mindfulness that is external." This is also in Satipatthana but more subtly applied there. I will make a post on this topic in about 10 days so won't reference it here. And as with most of my initiated posts, it will accompany at least one Sutta as evidence. :-) Gotta run. Cya TG #84762 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:36 pm Subject: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nichiconn Dear Larry, L: When you see something what do you construe? C: My brain scrambles (thanks, colette) from concept to concept in it's interpretation/building of my own confinement. p.30, CMA, Guide to I,3: << A definite relation nevertheless exists between the spheres of consciousness and the planes of existence: a particular sphere of consciousness comprises those types of consciousness which are typical of the corresponding plane of existence and which that plane by tending to arise most often there. Consciousness of a particular sphere is not tied to the corresponding plane, but may arise in other planes of existence as well; for instance, fine-material and immaterial-sphere cittas can arise in the sensuous plane, and sense-sphere cittas can arise in the fine-material and immaterial planes. But still a conection is found, in that a sphere of consciousness is for the plane that shares its name. Moreover, **the kammically active cittas of any particular sphere, the cittas that generate kamma, tend to produce rebirth into the corresponding plane of existence, and if they succeed in gaining the opportunity to generate rebirth, they will do so only in that plane, not in any other plane.** Hence the tie btween the spheres of consciousness and the corresponding planes of existence is extremely close. >> vol.2, p.9, Buddhist Legends: << "Monk, if you can guard one thing, it will not be necessary for you to guard the rest." "What is that, Reverend Sir?" "Can you guard your thoughts?" "I can, Reverend Sir." "Well then, guard your thoughts alone." >> peace, connie #84763 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:03 pm Subject: Dhammabrothers: Doing Insight while doing time! bhikkhu0 Friends: How Buddhist Teachings Transformed a Maximum Security Prison in Alabama The Essay is here: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/features/article/57161/state-of-grace-how-buddhist-\ teachings-transformed-a-maximum-security-prison/ The Film is here: http://www.dhammabrothers.com/film.html The Pictures are here: Prisoners practicing Vipassana meditation… Johnny Mack Young: A participant in a 10 day crash course in insight meditation! The inmates meditates in their cells. Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #84764 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Off for a while! - to Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Han (& all), For when you return home, I'd just like to say, on behalf of everyone, how very sorry we all are to hear this news and wish your wife, Tin Tin a good recovery. We'll be thinking of you both and all your family. With metta, Sarah --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > My wife is in hospital intensive care for heart > attack. > I will not be able to open my mail for the time being. > > I will let you know when I am back to my house again. > > Han #84765 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Connie, L: When you see something what do you construe? C: My brain scrambles (thanks, colette) from concept to concept in it's interpretation/building of my own confinement. L: I think that's it. When I see something I construe "me", which is both prison and prisoner, cut-off from the seen. This is the flip side of identifying with the seen, also "my own confinement". Bahiya Sutta: When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress. Larry #84766 From: "colette" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:03 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi Jon, With regards to addressing your request for clarification (I have a few empty burners on the stove top so I guess I can clarify some butter), you show your ignorance without properly identifying it as ignorance which could be a psychological problem or handicap which would hold you back. So lets start warming up that lump of butter: the point of synethesia is that the brain or mind actually cognizes things using more than a single sense i.e. eye consciousness can and is also used by blind persons that have nevere had sight or sound waves reverberating against the body making them a tactile consciousness and not simply the ear consciousness. I am showing, here, that our focus and obsession with identifying each of the eight consciousnesses is misleading or Miss Leading and inevitably leads down the path of WRONG VIEW. I appreciate your skillfulness here: [> > > "Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia, plural > > synesthesiae or synaesthesiae)—from the Ancient Greek ...is a > > neurologically-based phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory > > or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a > > second sensory or cognitive pathway. ... > > > > So, with this said, THEN I refer to WRONG VIEW and how we, as > > sentient beings, DID NOT EXPERIENCE the exact same stimulus that the > > Buddha experienced when the Buddha manifested this "concept". We > > futher our misinterpetations and misdirections by crystalizing a > > single definition of the "concept" and thus imprisoning the Buddha ... > > I'm handicapped in commenting on your post because I'm not sure which > "concept" manifested by the Buddha you are referring to! I think I'll > have to pass this time around. > ] here is where my appreciation can be found since it properly links my statement of the impression I got from your ignorance into this below. > > I am also saying that all consciousnesses are connected together into > > a unified whole ... > > An interesting theory, but can it be supported by the texts? > colette: now you're right there with me since I require, in Western Theological forums and groups, other more learned colleagues that have memorized these scriptures upon which I base my shamanism. It sounds as though you are desirous of learning more of my views and concepts however I lack that profound ability to express the entirety of the illuminations I receive in and through my meditations. There's so much going on in my mind that it takes a catalyst, sometimes, to bring the thoughts out or, in my tried and true technique I dispose of negativity, that which is negative and of no value to me other than to assist me to a vipisanna consciousness, et al. With respect to the concept of thoughts flooding my consciousness it's very akin to the illumination that Rab. Isaac Luria experienced in his kabbalistic practices i.e. my hands simply cannot move fast enough to write down the overwhelming amount of realization. For instance I read the first few pages of a six page "glossary" from a text and the terminology for Buddhadharma was dharma where a flash came to mind of a paper I read in 2004 "Entering the Buddhadharma" by Sam Webster where I immediately went to a site where it could be found and glanced at it again. The paper had a completely different flavor to it now that I used or applied this new definition of Buddhadharma to the title and sensation of the paper. This also led me to glance at a paper, in the same sight, that had interested me a lot since there were so many thoughts this person had that resonated with me, when I read the paper in 2004. Again, in this second paper, I applied the new strategy or technique of the different position/point of view taken by applying dharma to the term Buddhadharma. Both papers now have a strong urge for me to sit down and read in my tried and true fashion, my techniques, but I don't have the time now to do such a thing since I am focusing on Buddhism, mainly Varjayana, Madhyamika, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, etc. which means that this is more of a Tantra and very close to the Indian root of Buddhism while these two papers are of Western esoteric theological practices. ------------------------- > > We never did find out. The grilling just didn't happen (at least, not > that I was aware ;-)). Perhaps Ken can tell us the story there. colette: I'm sure that Ken would be willing to explain it to us IF it actually did lead us further towards the goal of enlightenment however I've noticed in this forum that people are very micromanager- focused or micromanagement focused where thoughts and wording of thoughts is an unwritten law that cannot be broken yet if it were or is broken then those that hallucinate themselves to be better or "a Caste above the rest" of us will automatically categorize the individual without any redress, kindof like breaking one or all ten of those Judeaism or Christian "Ten Commandments" i.e. Thou shalt not bear false witness yet telling falsehoods to Congress about the use of performance enhancing drugs to set the baseball Home Run Record is perfectly legal thus telling Congress that Iraq has WMDs and is going to use WMDs against the USA is a legal act -- how did Lou Reed say it: "While all the colored girls go do, ta do, do ta do..." ;o Thanks for your shrewd reply. toodles, colette #84767 From: "colette" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' ksheri3 Hi Connie, Are you sure that this "brain" that you claim is yours is scrambling, couldn't it be "flitting".<....> > **the kammically active cittas of any particular sphere, the cittas > that generate kamma, tend to produce rebirth into the corresponding > plane of existence colette: this is the only thing I wanted to comment on. "the cittas that generate kamma": can kamma be defined as "reality"? Ya gotta go into the Mind-Only School or Yogacara School of Buddhism since I'm looking for rationale that specifically vindicates the concept that things do not exist in and of themselves they are the result of an individual's mind "willing" that thing to exist by a "projective" characteristic found in all human minds. "rebirth" I interpret, in this context, as meaning Karma and if you've been following me these past few years then you know that I continually theorize that Karma is nothing more than an electromagnetically charged "force", for lack of better terms, and if the mind of an individual clings to an electromagnetically charged force that attracts that "free" "force" then whether or not that person deserved bad karma coming to them or not they could not stop the electromagnetic attraction thus the imposition of the reality upon the individual. Now if the individual can "generate kamma" or manifest reality through their mind then doesn't that change the picture completely? just deviant thoughts concerning that beatten path the status quo tends to be slaves upon. toodles, colette #84768 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:45 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) jonoabb Hi Walto I'm afraid I don't have any familiarity with the writings you mention, but I'll try to make some observations that are pertinent to your comments. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Walter Horn" wrote: > > Hi, Jon et al. > > Thanks for your explanation. The concept of individual you describe > seems to me to produce items that are quite a bit like the things > Bertrand Russell claimed one could be "acquainted with" back in the > late teens and twenties. Russell was at that time very concerned to > distinguish "knowledge by acquaintance" from "knowledge by > description" ... The Dhamma purports to be a description of how things are (as opposed to how they are generally perceived to be), as (re)discovered by the Buddha. That is to say, it is descriptive rather than speculative. > ... and thought it must be possible to construct our "every > day world" out of the "sense data" which are (or were in his view > back then) the only things with which we have "direct knowledge." The Buddha claimed to have seen the truth about the world, which he described in terms of presently arising dhammas (things that are real in the ultimate sense). "Sense data" are among these dhammas, but I have no idea how close Russel's idea of sense data is to that found in the Dhamma. Please feel free to elaborate on this aspect. > That's been a tough, perhaps impassable, road; the "logical > construction of the world" (see Carnap's "Aufbau") hasn't progressed > too far in the long period since Russell's "Logical Atomism." According to the Dhamma, it is the sense-data as experienced from which the conventional world of people and things is (mis)constructed. There are no people or things in mere sense-data. > Not > most of the philosophical establishment has given up such attempts > (and not only for the reasons pushed by Wittgenstein in his later > philosophy). There may be a typo here. Will wait for your clarification before attempting a comment. > As I (and maybe Howard too?) mentioned in prior posts here, there is > an important sense of the basic intentionality (or referring > quality) of the mental that seems quite important to any correct > sense of our world. The "direct, non-physical sense data" view > seems to me to miss that sense, and the result of > pressing "knowledge by acquaintance" has been considerable trouble > in the (certainly more mundane) world of Western Philosophy. The aim of the development of the understanding taught by the Buddha is the eradication of all causes for further becoming, that is to say, the attainment of a stage of understanding such that death in that life is not followed by rebirth of any kind. This is to be achieved by transcending the cycle of conduct that is the cause for continued rebirth, in one plane or another, after death at the end of each lifespan. Hoping these comments are apposite to yours. Jon #84769 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- colette wrote: > Do you generally cognize for your emotional state of consciousness? > > Do you have a state of consciousness with the emotional? .... S: Don't both these questions imply there is a self? Perhaps you'd clarify. Metta, Sarah ======= #84770 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Hi Larry, I hadn't read the later posts when I replied to this thread yesterday. --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Iti kho bhikkhave tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m di.t.tha.m na > ma~n~nati. Adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati. Da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati. > Da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati. > > How about this: > > Thus bhikkhus, a Tathagatha, having seen what is to be seen, does not > construe a seen. Does not construe an unseen. Does not construe a to be > seen. Does not construe a seer. > > "Construe" being something like "form an opinion about" or "interpret" > in conformity with the line: > > "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed > > and fastened onto as true by others, > > One who is Such, among the self-fettered, > wouldn't further claim to be true or even false." > > By not construing a seen I don't think he is saying there is no seen > because of the line "having seen what is to be seen". .... S: Not bad at all:-) No atta-sa~n~naa at all. The seen is understood as just the seen. I'm sure Nina will have more to say on this thread on her return. Metta, Sarah ======== #84771 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Khandha Yamaka - study reports, pls help me check on my reports. Sadhu! sarahprocter... Dear Chew (& Ven Dhammanando), You kindly sent a birthday greeting to Nina and now you send an extract from the Yamaka (followed by Ven Dh's helpful response). Can I encourage you to introduce a little about yourself? I'm very interested to know more about how you come to be studying this text in Pali and translating it. Where do you live? I'm interested to see anything from the Yamaka as it is not translated into English. Metta, Sarah --- Chew wrote: > Study Report 24 #84772 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:14 am Subject: eCard from Bangkok - Sunday jonoabb Hi All Another day of lively discussion, with a tasty lunch at the Foundation (brought in for us by Elle) to break the day. Ven Pannabahulo began the session by saying how much he had appreciated the previous day's discussion, so much so that he'd had trouble sleeping that night! A full room (30+ people) again, and no shortage of questions/comments. Topics discussed included: - the idea of strong defilements as an obstacle to the development of awareness; - the prevalence of thinking and the tendency for akusala thinking to be taken for kusala thinking; - what it means for dhammas to be "not-self"; - whether observing/labelling is part of the development of insight; - effort as a mental factor, and how this differs from the idea of effort as the doing of something; - why daana is in the ultimate sense a single citta even if in conventional terms it involves an act that is done over a period of time. Another day to look forward to tomorrow! Last day for Nina and Lodewijk (returning to Holland) and Tom and Beverly (to the US). Jon PS I made the mistake of venturing outside the compound for a walk at lunchtime and got 'hit' by Songkran revellers, leaving me with wet clothes and a painted face for the afternoon! #84773 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:01 am Subject: Truth is a Treasure! bhikkhu0 Friends: Truthful Honesty is the Seventh Mental Perfection: Honesty is Trust Honesty is Truthful Honesty is Guarantee Honesty is Confidence Honesty is Consistence Honesty is Convincing Honesty is Certainty Honesty is Credibility Honesty is Reliability Honesty is Authenticity Honesty is Integrity Honesty is Accuracy Honesty is Commitment Honesty is Sincerity Honesty is Security Honesty is Reality Honesty is a Must. Honesty characteristically never deceives, it's function is to verify the actual & factual, it's manifestation is excellence... Sincere exact truthfulness is the proximate cause of honesty! All evil states & crimes converge upon transgression of Truth... Devotion to Truth is the only reliable foundation of Nobility! Like The Buddha demand of your own mind: You have to give me an honest answer, understand?! I won't accept anything phony. And once you've answered, you have to stick to that very answer & not slide around. Don't be a traitor to yourself… Be sober & straight… Therefore: Undertake this 4th training rule of avoiding all false speech... If one is not true to the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha's teachings will not be true to oneself, either... That Dhamma, which is used only as a costume, a uniform or alibi, does not bear fruit, as it's intention is not true! Honesty, however, makes you quite worthy of respect. If one is painstakingly honest towards oneself, one is also meticulously honest towards others. If one however deceives oneself, believing own lies, one automatically also deceives others, betraying them. Honesty, however, makes you quite worthy of respect. Make an island of yourself, be your own light & illumination, make yourself your only safe haven; there is no other protection. Make Truth your only island, make Truth your sole refuge; make Truth your lone lamp; there is no other luminosity. Digha Nikaya, 16 The straight person, self-controlled, keeping precepts, open & honest, is both worthy & fit for the yellow robe. The hiding person, uncontrolled, immoral, keeping secrets, not honest, is neither worthy nor fit for the yellow robe. Dhammapada 9+10 Overcome the furious by friendship; overcome the evil one by goodness; overcome the stasher by generosity; overcome the liar by truth. Dhammapada 223 The one who destroys life; The one who speaks false; The one who takes what is not given; The one who mates with another's partner; The one who is addicted to drugs and alcohol; Such one - even in this world - digs up his own root!!! Dhammapada 246-47 They who falsely declare: "That happened" about what did not happen, or: "I did not do that" about what they actually did, they earn themselves a ticket to grilling in Hell. Dhammapada 306 When the Blessed One heard about the king’s spies, who for money stole information from others, he explained: One should not take just any job. One should not be another’s man. One should not live dependent upon another. One should not sell the truth for money… Udana VI - 2 The Bodhisatta was once caught by a man-eater, which sat him free on the condition that he returned the next day. He kept his word & did so & much later remembered: Protecting this way of truth, having given up my life & kingdom, I thereby set free 100 captured nobles, as the man-eater lost his nerve. In honesty I had thereby reached ultimate perfection. Mahasutasoma-Jataka no. 537 More of the 10 mental perfections (paramis): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ten_Perfections.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_10_mental_perfections_(parami)_in_three_le\ vels.htm Source: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Truth_Triumphs.htm Truth Triumphs! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #84774 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eCard from Bangkok - Sunday upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/13/2008 9:14:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi All Another day of lively discussion, with a tasty lunch at the Foundation (brought in for us by Elle) to break the day. Ven Pannabahulo began the session by saying how much he had appreciated the previous day's discussion, so much so that he'd had trouble sleeping that night! A full room (30+ people) again, and no shortage of questions/comments. Topics discussed included: - the idea of strong defilements as an obstacle to the development of awareness; - the prevalence of thinking and the tendency for akusala thinking to be taken for kusala thinking; - what it means for dhammas to be "not-self"; --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'd be very interested to read some of the discussion on that last matter, if there is a record of it that could be sent in an email to the list. :-) ---------------------------------------------------- - whether observing/labelling is part of the development of insight; - effort as a mental factor, and how this differs from the idea of effort as the doing of something; - why daana is in the ultimate sense a single citta even if in conventional terms it involves an act that is done over a period of time. Another day to look forward to tomorrow! Last day for Nina and Lodewijk (returning to Holland) and Tom and Beverly (to the US). Jon PS I made the mistake of venturing outside the compound for a walk at lunchtime and got 'hit' by Songkran revellers, leaving me with wet clothes and a painted face for the afternoon! ============================ With metta, Howard P. S. With regard to synesthesia, my impression from very brief reading about it is that it is considered to be an actual phenomenon by medical people. My thoughts on it, however, are that when one, for example, "sees sounds," what happens is that a sound is heard in the usual way (via the ear door), and this hearing is immediately followed by "seeing" via the mind door. In the Wikipedia article, there is the following: "In sound → color synesthesia, individuals experience colors in response to tones or other aspects of sounds. _Simon Baron-Cohen_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen) and his colleagues break this type of synesthesia into two categories, which they call "narrow band" and "broad band" sound → color synesthesia. In narrow band sound → color synesthesia (often called music → color synesthesia), musical stimuli (e.g., timbre or key) will elicit specific color experiences, such that a particular note will always elicit red, or harps will always elicit the experience of seeing a golden color. In broadband sound → color synesthesia, on the other hand, a variety of environmental sounds, like an alarm clock or a door closing, may also elicit visual experiences." #84775 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:48 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) walterhorn Dear Jon, Thanks for trying to bridge this gap! I appreciate the difficulty and am grateful for your time and effort. You are right about my typo. I should have written: "Most of the philosophical establishment has given up such attempts (and not only for the reasons pushed by Wittgenstein in his later philosophy)." My claim, was that (as you put it) "it is the sense-data as experienced from which the conventional world of people and things is (mis)constructed." has not fared too well since the mid-20th Century in western philosophy circles, I don't think. On the following, I think we agree: "There are no people or things in mere sense-data." Unfortunately, as they say, one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. In my case, I'd take the inability to "properly" construct (rather than 'misconstruct' people and things out of "mere sense-data" (which is something I agree with) to show rather that, in truth, There are no "mere sense-data" rather than that there are no real persons or (ordinary) things. I'd say, that is, that what we actually (even 'directly') perceive, actually ARE people and things. I'd take those to BE the actual data of our senses. Continuing on, I confess I don't understand the connection(s) between your last paragraph: > The aim of the development of the understanding taught by the Buddha > is the eradication of all causes for further becoming, that is to say, > the attainment of a stage of understanding such that death in that > life is not followed by rebirth of any kind. > > This is to be achieved by transcending the cycle of conduct that is > the cause for continued rebirth, in one plane or another, after death > at the end of each lifespan. and that part of my post to which it was apparently intended to respond: > >As I (and maybe Howard too?) mentioned in prior posts here, there is > > an important sense of the basic intentionality (or referring > > quality) of the mental that seems quite important to any correct > > sense of our world. The "direct, non-physical sense data" view > > seems to me to miss that sense, and the result of > > pressing "knowledge by acquaintance" has been considerable trouble > > in the (certainly more mundane) world of Western Philosophy. What you have described is a lovely vision, nevertheless; and it is one I (sometimes) find quite attractive. Best, Walto #84776 From: "Chew" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Khandha Yamaka - study reports, pls help me check on my reports. Sadhu chewsadhu --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Chew (& Ven Dhammanando), > > You kindly sent a birthday greeting to Nina and now you send an extract > from the Yamaka (followed by Ven Dh's helpful response). > > Can I encourage you to introduce a little about yourself? I'm very > interested to know more about how you come to be studying this text in > Pali and translating it. Where do you live? I'm interested to see anything > from the Yamaka as it is not translated into English. > > Metta, > > Sarah > --- Chew wrote: > > > Study Report 24 > Hi Sarah, Thank you for your reply. I am Chew from Penang, Malaysia. I have just attended a 8 days course (Sunday 9, March 2008 to Sunday 16, March 2008) at Santarama Buddhist Hermitage, Balik Pulau, Penang, Malaysia. The subject was Khandha Yamaka and it was conducted by Sayadaw Dr Nandamalabhivamsa. This was the first time I studied this subject Khandha Yamaka. I am doing these study reports and share it with my course-mates and Dhamma friends. The original Pali text and the english translation are copied and pasted. The guide part is where I noted it down when I was in the class. I like to study Buddhism. And I like this subject too. To share my reports here with two intentions: 1. Hope that my mistakes in the reports will be corrected. 2. Share the Dhamma with all my respected Dhamma friends. With respect Chew #84777 From: "colette" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) ksheri3 Good Morning Sarah, Had to go back and review the context of the thoughts I had when I encountered the statement "emotional state". Now, when I read the entire post again I find that it was Phil who raised the issue of a student at first finding comfort in the emotional state then establishing a foundation which generates this comfort, PLEASURABLE ABIDING, of the dharma. Your reply was just now viewed differently, msg. # 84706, but lets go with your current point of contact with me today. The issue is that Anatta is being contradicted since I showed implications of a self. I've recently been encountering several different papers that address this very issue and know that in my current messy stack of papers downstairs I have several exact explanations of encounters scholars have had when confronted by the contradiction of Anatta, maybe even how the Buddha handled it when confronted by students raising the issue of obvious contradiction. Since I haven't dwelt on that position much allow me to try to clear things up in my own mind by laying a thin layer of cement down to see how this goes and if it's worthy of continueing to complete the pour, of cement for the foundation, that is. It's really great that Buddhism has already done the dirty work on rationalizing RELATIVE TRUTH and ULTIMATE TRUTH, unfortunately I'm encountering A LOT OF interference from Western religions and religious types because these groups, the Western religious institution and the members that make up the institution, could be inmates, as in prison, or patients, as in mental, because I am touching upon their foundational premises. Whenever I have encountered their edifice I have always done a little work of taking the time to remove a little dirt and chisel out some of the concrete at the base of the wall. A hole big enough to hold and retain some explosives that I could store there and always know that they were in safe keeping without me having to lug that stuff around the jungle with me. I've mimicked the behavior of many animals that have to store food for the winter months where the animals do not store it all in one place but store it in many places around their domain, like storing many different charges in the same wall at many different locations. I don't have to remember exactly where it is I just know that it's nearby and if I push a button a little beeper will activate that shows me where I put the explosives. Surprisingly, another animal always seems to be eating my food stuffs since when I hear the call of the explosive materials I go to the place only to find that the hole I dug has been enlarged and my food stuffs have been taken. I've often thought that it's like a river eating away at the rock formations that the river travels over. Good thing I'm on the ground since I've always used Jimi Hendrix's phrase concerning the mountains in terms of buildings where I'd say "fall buildings just don't fall on me" instead of "fall mountains just don't fall on me" Thank you for raising the issue and getting me to look back into things I ran right past. Let me get back to ya on this one. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > --- colette wrote: > > > Do you generally cognize for your emotional state of consciousness? > > > > Do you have a state of consciousness with the emotional? > .... > S: Don't both these questions imply there is a self? Perhaps you'd > clarify. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > #84778 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] eCard from Bangkok - Sunday jonoabb Hi Howard > Topics discussed included: > ... > - what it means for dhammas to be "not-self"; > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'd be very interested to read some of the discussion on that last > matter, if there is a record of it that could be sent in an email to the list. :-) > ---------------------------------------------------- A subject that is also of much interest to me (it was my question!). I'll state briefly what I can recall, and check the audio later for a fuller (and more accurate!) account. First, it is necessary to know what is meant by "self" [J: which I understand top mean, by taking things for self]. For example, we take our body as belonging to us, and external objects (such as a glass) as having substance as an object. But such ideas are created out of the mere experience of dhammas which do not last and are beyond control. Well, that's a very brief summary. Time now to go down for pre-breakfast swim and exercise, in preparation for another day of long hours of sitting (no, not that kind!). Jon PS If there's anything on this (or any other topic) you'd like to ask something on, please feel free to put a question or comment to be raised at the discussion. #84779 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) jonoabb Hi Walto Thanks for your further comments and thoughts. > "Most of the philosophical establishment has given up such attempts > (and not only for the reasons pushed by Wittgenstein in his later > philosophy)." > > My claim, was that (as you put it) "it is the sense-data as > experienced from which the conventional world of people and things > is (mis)constructed." has not fared too well since the mid-20th > Century in western philosophy circles, I don't think. I'd be interested to know what is seen as being the weakness/inaccuracy in this proposition. To move things along, let me explain the way I understand it from my reading of the texts: - experience of a sense-door object (say, visible object) occurs in a sense-door process; - this is followed by mind-door processes which think about (or 'process') the sense-door experience and relate it to other immediately preceding and longer-past sense-door experiences; - these are then followed by other sense-door processes; and so on, all happening extremely rapidly and with the various sense-door processes interspersed, so that it has the appearance of continuity (as regards each sense-door experiencing) and contemporaneousness (of all the sense-consciousnesses), but being in fact momentary arisings with never more than one moment of consciousness occurring at a time. > On the following, I think we agree: > > "There are no people or things in mere sense-data." > > Unfortunately, as they say, one man's modus ponens is another man's > modus tollens. In my case, I'd take the inability to "properly" > construct (rather than 'misconstruct' people and things out of "mere > sense-data" (which is something I agree with) to show rather that, > in truth, There are no "mere sense-data" rather than that there are > no real persons or (ordinary) things. I'd say, that is, that what > we actually (even 'directly') perceive, actually ARE people and > things. I'd take those to BE the actual data of our senses. Well, since there are actual sense-door experiences occurring as we 'speak', it should be possible to verify what is the object being experienced – mere sense object (audible object (ear-door), hardness (body-door), etc) or actual person or thing. (I am perhaps missing something here, because I'm unable to reconcile your agreement with the statement, "There are no people or things in mere sense-data." with your further statement, "There are no "mere sense-data"." Grateful if you could point out where I have misread you.) > Continuing on, I confess I don't understand the connection(s) > between your last paragraph ... > and that part of my post to which it was apparently intended to > respond: > > > >As I (and maybe Howard too?) mentioned in prior posts here, there > is > > > an important sense of the basic intentionality (or referring > > > quality) of the mental that seems quite important to any correct > > > sense of our world. The "direct, non-physical sense data" view > > > seems to me to miss that sense, and the result of > > > pressing "knowledge by acquaintance" has been considerable > trouble > > > in the (certainly more mundane) world of Western Philosophy. Well, I obviously missed the point you were making! If you wouldn't mind re-stating it, I'd be happy to attempt a more relevant response ;-)) Jon PS modus ponens, modus tollens - translation, pls! #84780 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:14 pm Subject: Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi James > > > James: "Latent Insight" is a new one for me. Could you point to any > > texts which explain this? > > While I'm looking for textual references, let me explain that, to my > understanding, all tendencies that arise from moment to moment, > whether wholesome or unwholesome, are accumulated in the succeeding > moment of consciousness and thereafter lie latent except when there is > occasion for them to manifest. > > In this respect, moments of insight that have occurred in the past are > no different from any other wholesome or unwholesome mental factor. > > They differ only in the sense that insight knowledge accumulated in > previous lives cannot arise in a subsequent lifetime unless and until > the teaching on insight/the Four Noble Truths has been heard and > understood in that subsequent lifetime (the only exception to this > general rule being a Buddha). James: Thank you for this explanation, but, again, could you point to any texts which state this? > > So the 2 teachers of the Buddha could have accumulated much insight in > previous lifetimes, but it could not have arisen in the lifetime of > the Buddha until after his enlightenment because until then there was > no part of the teaching to be found. James: You haven't pointed to any text to support this theory. By that time, of course, the 2 > teachers had died and been reborn in the arupa-brahma realm where > there is no ear-sense arising and hence no chance to hear the newly > (re-)discovered teaching. > > > James: It seems as if you will go to any lengths to > > avoid jhana. Do you have a jhana phobia of some sort? > > I am simply disagreeing with the assumptions you are making about how > the 2 teachers came to be persons with little dust in their eyes. If > that makes me jhana-phobic in your eyes, then so be it ;-)) James: Well, of course it does because I am using concrete evidence while you are using theory of accumulated and latent wisdom. > > > > The fact is, there are no such suttas to quote ;-)) > > > > James: Yes there are; I just won't quote them for you anymore. > > I don't think there are. James: You don't think there are texts which point to the importance of jhana for wisdom? > > Jon > Metta, James #84781 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:06 pm Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (B-2) walterhorn Hi, Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Walto > > Thanks for your further comments and thoughts. > > > "Most of the philosophical establishment has given up such attempts > > (and not only for the reasons pushed by Wittgenstein in his later > > philosophy)." > > > > My claim, was that (as you put it) "it is the sense-data as > > experienced from which the conventional world of people and things > > is (mis)constructed." has not fared too well since the mid-20th > > Century in western philosophy circles, I don't think. > I'd be interested to know what is seen as being the > weakness/inaccuracy in this proposition. > Building up even a single tree out of "phenomenal objects of sense" has been a program of various philosophical schools since Berkeley (in the 18th Century). Nobody's been able to do it. Not Mill, the Compte positivists, not the Husserlians, not the Wittgensteinian logical empiricists, nobody. > To move things along, let me explain the way I understand it from my > reading of the texts: > - experience of a sense-door object (say, visible object) occurs in a > sense-door process; > - this is followed by mind-door processes which think about (or > 'process') the sense-door experience and relate it to other > immediately preceding and longer-past sense-door experiences; > - these are then followed by other sense-door processes; > and so on, all happening extremely rapidly and with the various > sense-door processes interspersed, so that it has the appearance of > continuity (as regards each sense-door experiencing) and > contemporaneousness (of all the sense-consciousnesses), but being in > fact momentary arisings with never more than one moment of > consciousness occurring at a time. It's a picture, no doubt, but there's quite a bit of what might be called "hand-waving" going on there. When have you got an actual door? In my view the door is there without any "sense-door experiences" and if an epidemic were to whisk us all away tomorrow, there'd still be that stubborn door. > > > On the following, I think we agree: > > > > "There are no people or things in mere sense-data." > > > > Unfortunately, as they say, one man's modus ponens is another man's > > modus tollens. In my case, I'd take the inability to "properly" > > construct (rather than 'misconstruct' people and things out of "mere > > sense-data" (which is something I agree with) to show rather that, > > in truth, There are no "mere sense-data" rather than that there are > > no real persons or (ordinary) things. I'd say, that is, that what > > we actually (even 'directly') perceive, actually ARE people and > > things. I'd take those to BE the actual data of our senses. > > Well, since there are actual sense-door experiences occurring as we > 'speak', it should be possible to verify what is the object being > experienced – mere sense object (audible object (ear-door), hardness > (body-door), etc) or actual person or thing. > > (I am perhaps missing something here, because I'm unable to reconcile > your agreement with the statement, "There are no people or things in > mere sense-data." with your further statement, "There are no "mere > sense-data"." Grateful if you could point out where I have misread you.) I can see why that would be confusing. I was focussing on the "mere": I'd say that the data of our senses actually ARE things like doors. So there aren't any "mere sense data" just, you know, ordinary objects and 'perceivings' of them. These perceivings, in my (realist) view, aren't of phenomena, ideas, or anything misty like that, but of doors, trees, people, etc. They may be erroneous, of course. > > > Continuing on, I confess I don't understand the connection(s) > > between your last paragraph ... > > and that part of my post to which it was apparently intended to > > respond: > > > > > >As I (and maybe Howard too?) mentioned in prior posts here, there > > is > > > > an important sense of the basic intentionality (or referring > > > > quality) of the mental that seems quite important to any correct > > > > sense of our world. The "direct, non-physical sense data" view > > > > seems to me to miss that sense, and the result of > > > > pressing "knowledge by acquaintance" has been considerable > > trouble > > > > in the (certainly more mundane) world of Western Philosophy. > > Well, I obviously missed the point you were making! If you wouldn't > mind re-stating it, I'd be happy to attempt a more relevant response ;-)) > Again, I was reiterating that the 'wonderful' thing about mental acts is that they can be, indeed usually are, OF non-mental things. > Jon > > PS modus ponens, modus tollens - translation, pls! > Modus ponens is the valid form of argument: If P then Q P Therefore, Q Modus tollens is the valid form of argument: If P then Q Not-Q Therefore, Not-P So, e.g., say we agree on: If it's been raining then it's wet outside I might say, "It's been raining, so it must be wet out" while you might counter with "Well, it's not wet out, so it couldn't have been raining." Best, Walto #84782 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] eCard from Bangkok - Sunday upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/13/2008 6:55:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > Topics discussed included: > ... > - what it means for dhammas to be "not-self"; > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'd be very interested to read some of the discussion on that last > matter, if there is a record of it that could be sent in an email to the list. :-) > ---------------------------------------------------- A subject that is also of much interest to me (it was my question!). I'll state briefly what I can recall, and check the audio later for a fuller (and more accurate!) account. First, it is necessary to know what is meant by "self" [J: which I understand top mean, by taking things for self]. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree 100% that this is necessary. I had made that point once on DSG, and someone disputed it. ----------------------------------------------------------- For example, we take our body as belonging to us, and external objects (such as a glass) as having substance as an object. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would agree that taking our body, or anything at all as me or mine, is self-making as regards the person, and I also agree that taking conventional objects as having substance (or own-being) is an example of imputing self. (I also apply the last to paramattha dhammas.) On another list, I expressed my view of 'self' as meaning "singular, independent identity." I went on to say the following with regard to that notion of 'self': "Persons and all other composites are aggregations of paramattha dhammas, and hence are not singular. Moreover, the paramattha dhammas of which they are composed have an existence that is utterly contingent, and thus they are not independent. Finally, nibbana is beyond all condition and all characterization, and hence lacks identity. The conclusion is that nothing has singular, independent identity nor does it contain any core that has singular, independent identity, and, thus, there is no self anywhere in anything." ----------------------------------------------------------- But such ideas are created out of the mere experience of dhammas which do not last and are beyond control. Well, that's a very brief summary. Time now to go down for pre-breakfast swim and exercise, in preparation for another day of long hours of sitting (no, not that kind!). -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! (You LITERALLY don't know what you are missing! ;-)) BTW, with your pre-breakfast swims, exercise, lovely meals etc, it seems you have created one helluva sensual Dhamma realm right here on earth! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------------ Jon PS If there's anything on this (or any other topic) you'd like to ask something on, please feel free to put a question or comment to be raised at the discussion. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I look forward to reading anything further you could report on the not-self discussion upon your hearing the audio. :-) ================================ With metta, Howard #84783 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:16 am Subject: Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > > > > Hi James > > > > > James: "Latent Insight" is a new one for me. Could you point to > any > > > texts which explain this? > > > > While I'm looking for textual references, let me explain that, to > my > > understanding, all tendencies that arise from moment to moment, > > whether wholesome or unwholesome, are accumulated in the succeeding > > moment of consciousness and thereafter lie latent except when > there is > > occasion for them to manifest. > > > > In this respect, moments of insight that have occurred in the past > are > > no different from any other wholesome or unwholesome mental > factor. > > > > They differ only in the sense that insight knowledge accumulated in > > previous lives cannot arise in a subsequent lifetime unless and > until > > the teaching on insight/the Four Noble Truths has been heard and > > understood in that subsequent lifetime (the only exception to this > > general rule being a Buddha). > > James: Thank you for this explanation, but, again, could you point > to any texts which state this? To add a bit more, I found this sutta: "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? "He is endowed with a [present] kamma obstruction, a defilement obstruction, a result-of-[past]-kamma obstruction; he lacks conviction, has no desire [to listen], and has dull discernment. "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma. "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? "He is not endowed with a [present] kamma obstruction, a defilement obstruction, or a result-of-[past]-kamma obstruction; he has conviction, has the desire [to listen], and is discerning. "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma." James: I think that this sutta shows that there is no such thing as "wisdom accumulating" or "latent wisdom", it is just a matter of fortunate or unfortunate kamma. If one understands the Dhamma, it isn't because of "latent wisdom", it is because of fortunate kamma. If one doesn't understand the Dhamma, it isn't because of a lack of "accumulated wisdom" it is because of unfortunate kamma. Metta, James #84784 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:54 am Subject: from the city of wet angels gazita2002 hello dsg. the city of angels, otherwise known as bangkok. Normally a very traffic-clogged city but during this Songkran festival time one could [almost] wander down a main road without being asphyxiated or hit by several cars and bikes. Much more likely to be drenched in flour and water. Songkran festival is traditionally a time to pay respect to family members particularly the elders; but its now got a little outa control with lots of folk hurling water at passers-by - no matter who it is! can be quite fun, actually, as it is the very hot season and one way to cool off!!!. A kinda 'cut-loose' time. That's all conceptual really. If panna arises and knows a reality there is no story about Songkran, bangkok, me..... Realities are citta, cetasikas, rupa and Nibbana. The 1st three are conditioned and they arise and fall away very quickly. They are not- self, impermanent and unsatisfactory. The truth of this cannot be known by just thinking about it. Right understanding of what is and is not the path is the main factor. Panna is the cetasika that knows, and it is a conditioned reality that arises and falls away. It is anicca, dukkha and anatta. Panna can only develop when it arises. Interestingly, like seeing consciousness, hearing consciousness etc, it cannot be made to arise by any of 'us'. It is conditioned like all other realities. Some of the conditions for the arising of panna are hearing the true dhamma, contemplating deeply and honestly what is heard, practise in accordance with the dhamma, and here we have many interpretations of practice. However, if the true Dhamma is heard and understood even at the pariyatti level, panna can grow little by little. right understanding/panna is the reality that knows thereis 'no self'. If there is no rightunderstanding then there is ignorance about the truth of the Dhamma. We said a rather sad goodbye to Nina and Lodewyck today as they returned home to the Netherlands. It was wonderful to be included in the birthday celebrations for Nina and to share so many benefical dhamma discussions over the last week or so. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #84785 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the reply: S: "We have to be specific about which vipaka cittas we are talking about. In this context, we were talking about moments of hearing consciousness and I said there was no panna with these. Only the 7 universal cetasikas arises with them. With other kinds of vipaka citta, such as bhavanga cittas, it's another matter. How's your study going?" Scott: I've been looking at the 'beginning', as it were. And this comes at the question from a different angle. Rebirth consciousness can have no, two, or three roots, as I understand. If there is no pa~n~naa at this moment - if patisandhi citta is not sahetuka kusala vipaaka, and if it is not accompanied by wisdom at this time, then there can be no development of pa~n~naa during that given life-time. This wouldn't mean that there was no pa~n~naa accumulated, but that it didn't arise during cuti citta of the last lifetime. I'd like to clarify this first. Do I have it correct? Sincerely, Scott. #84786 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Jon) - In a message dated 4/14/2008 4:16:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > > > > Hi James > > > > > James: "Latent Insight" is a new one for me. Could you point to > any > > > texts which explain this? > > > > While I'm looking for textual references, let me explain that, to > my > > understanding, all tendencies that arise from moment to moment, > > whether wholesome or unwholesome, are accumulated in the succeeding > > moment of consciousness and thereafter lie latent except when > there is > > occasion for them to manifest. > > > > In this respect, moments of insight that have occurred in the past > are > > no different from any other wholesome or unwholesome mental > factor. > > > > They differ only in the sense that insight knowledge accumulated in > > previous lives cannot arise in a subsequent lifetime unless and > until > > the teaching on insight/the Four Noble Truths has been heard and > > understood in that subsequent lifetime (the only exception to this > > general rule being a Buddha). > > James: Thank you for this explanation, but, again, could you point > to any texts which state this? To add a bit more, I found this sutta: "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? "He is endowed with a [present] kamma obstruction, a defilement obstruction, a result-of-[past]-kamma obstruction; he lacks conviction, has no desire [to listen], and has dull discernment. "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma. "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? "He is not endowed with a [present] kamma obstruction, a defilement obstruction, or a result-of-[past]-kamma obstruction; he has conviction, has the desire [to listen], and is discerning. "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma." James: I think that this sutta shows that there is no such thing as "wisdom accumulating" or "latent wisdom", it is just a matter of fortunate or unfortunate kamma. If one understands the Dhamma, it isn't because of "latent wisdom", it is because of fortunate kamma. If one doesn't understand the Dhamma, it isn't because of a lack of "accumulated wisdom" it is because of unfortunate kamma. Metta, James ================================= I view pa~n~na as a faculty - the operation of observing clearly, directly, and with understanding of things as they actually are. This faculty can operate with varying degrees of relative perfection, and with varying frequency of occurrence. The quintessence of this faculty is referred to as "the perfection of wisdom." As a consequence of appropriate conditions, including the exercise of the faculty of wisdom itself, there can be an enhancing of that faculty. From my perspective, wisdom is not a form of knowledge but is a faculty, and it is better to speak of it as being cultivated or developed than accumulated. With metta, Howard #84787 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eCard from Bangkok - Sunday sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > I look forward to reading anything further you could report on the > not-self discussion.... .... S: There have also been some really interesting exchanges between Ven P and K.Sujin. I'm sure he'll be giving his own reports, but I have a few notes scribbled down in an exercise book, so will also try to share some of these later. Tomorrow is the last day of discussion and on Wednesday, we'll be having a quiet day before returning to Hong Kong, so hope to share some of these notes then. Howard, you have no idea how often topics from discussions Nina, Jon, Ken H, Sukin, I and others have had with you have surfaced in one guise or other! We should all thank you for all the 'meat':-). One today was on understanding visible object (or 'sight') and the purpose of studying details, such as kalapas of rupas. Rather than making a mess of any of then now (when I'm very tired), I'll try to refer to one or two when deciphering my notes. I think Ken H has had one on the boil for most of the trip - you might like to ask him to summarise it. (It's on citta, cittas and concepts. Daana - reality or concept etc). Metta, Sarah p.s Coming back from the countryside, I was sitting next to Lodewick in the van. At one point he said that what he'd really love would be to have 'Howard here in discussion with KS'. I think he felt the rest of us could then all just sit back and enjoy your dialogue:). ======== #84788 From: "connie" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:09 am Subject: Perfections Corner (122) nichiconn Dear Friends, Continuing with ch.1 on Generosity: The Commentary states: "He does not give through belief in superstitious omens: but he gives believing in kamma and its fruit. When he gives he does not afflict those who ask by making them do homage to him, etc.; but he gives without afflicting others. He does not give a gift with the intention of deceiving others or with the intention of injuring; he gives only with an undefiled mind. He does not give a gift with harsh words or a frown, but with words of endearment, congenial speech, and a smile on his face. Whenever greed for a particular object becomes excessive, due to its high value and beauty, its antiquity, or attachment accumulated since a long time, the Bodhisatta recognizes his greed, quickly dispels it, seeks out some recipients, and gives it away." A person who understands himself well knows the extent of his clinging, he knows when he can give up something or when he cannot. Sometimes he may think of giving, but he is not able to give. However, as we read, it is different for the Bodhisatta. The passage quoted above deals with the giving of material goods, aamisa daana. The Commentary gives many more details of the Bodhisatta's practice while he developed the perfections in order to attain the supreme enlightenment as the Sammaa-Sambuddha. However, now only a few details are dealt with so that people can investigate more carefully their own citta in order to develop kusala further. The Commentary states about the giving of freedom from fear, abhaya daana: "The giving of freedom from fear is the giving of protection to beings when they have become frightened on account of kings, thieves, fire, water, enemies, lions, tigers, other wild beasts, dragons, ogres, demons, goblins, etc. The giving of the Dhamma, Dhamma daana, is a non-perverted discourse on the Dhamma given with an undefiled mind; that is, methodical instruction conducive to good in the present life, in the life to come, and to ultimate deliverance (di.t.thadhammika samparaayikaparamattha). By means of such discourses, those who have not entered the Buddha's Dispensation enter it, while those who have entered it reach maturity therein. This is the method:- In brief, he speaks on giving, on virtue, and on heaven, on the unsatisfactoriness and defilement in sense pleasures, and on the benefit in renouncing them." People may have understanding of daana, of the danger in sense pleasures and the benefit of renouncing them, but when one is unaware and does not listen to the Dhamma, one is bound to be overcome by defilements. When we often listen to the Dhamma, even though we hear what was said before, or when we listen to what has been said about daily life, we are reminded to reflect and be aware of realities, and, thus, there are conditions to accumulate more kusala. > connie #84789 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eCard from Bangkok - Sunday upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 4/14/2008 9:25:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > I look forward to reading anything further you could report on the > not-self discussion.... .... S: There have also been some really interesting exchanges between Ven P and K.Sujin. I'm sure he'll be giving his own reports, but I have a few notes scribbled down in an exercise book, so will also try to share some of these later. Tomorrow is the last day of discussion and on Wednesday, we'll be having a quiet day before returning to Hong Kong, so hope to share some of these notes then. Howard, you have no idea how often topics from discussions Nina, Jon, Ken H, Sukin, I and others have had with you have surfaced in one guise or other! --------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! I suppose I provide grist for the mill! ;-)) --------------------------------------------------- We should all thank you for all the 'meat':-). One today was on understanding visible object (or 'sight') and the purpose of studying details, such as kalapas of rupas. Rather than making a mess of any of then now (when I'm very tired), I'll try to refer to one or two when deciphering my notes. I think Ken H has had one on the boil for most of the trip - you might like to ask him to summarise it. (It's on citta, cittas and concepts. Daana - reality or concept etc). --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'll be happy to read it all! --------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah p.s Coming back from the countryside, I was sitting next to Lodewick in the van. At one point he said that what he'd really love would be to have 'Howard here in discussion with KS'. I think he felt the rest of us could then all just sit back and enjoy your dialogue:). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! I think that for me it would be a "khanti test"!! :-) ======================== With metta, Howard #84790 From: "connie" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:18 pm Subject: Knowledge of Scrambled Brains nichiconn Dear colette, > **the kammically active cittas of any particular sphere, the cittas > that generate kamma, tend to produce rebirth into the corresponding > plane of existence colette: this is the only thing I wanted to comment on. "the cittas that generate kamma": can kamma be defined as "reality"? connie: Not as the whole of reality. colette: Ya gotta go into the Mind-Only School or Yogacara School of Buddhism since I'm looking for rationale that specifically vindicates the concept that things do not exist in and of themselves they are the result of an individual's mind "willing" that thing to exist by a "projective" characteristic found in all human minds. connie: According to that model, does the individual's mind, unlike other things, exist in it's own right? Seems to me the mind would have to have some basic materials to build it's version/projection/interpretation of reality on... not just a pure consciousness with nothing outside of itself to be conscious of... it would have to start out with "things" like the elemental characteristics - hardness, temperature, cohesiveness, etc. that fall under the rupa umbrella. colette: "rebirth" I interpret, in this context, as meaning Karma and if you've been following me these past few years then you know that I continually theorize that Karma is nothing more than an electromagnetically charged "force", for lack of better terms, and if the mind of an individual clings to an electromagnetically charged force that attracts that "free" "force" then whether or not that person deserved bad karma coming to them or not they could not stop the electromagnetic attraction thus the imposition of the reality upon the individual. connie: You'll have to humour me a bit here and call the returning/reactive ('just deserts') force the result or vipaka whereas kamma would be the generative force. Are you familiar with the story of the arahant who was beaten to death? He wouldn't have clung to anything, yet the kamma effecting that had already been set in motion in a previous lifetime - well, by way of saying we're in partial agreement as far as the no escape clause. peace, connie #84791 From: "colette" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) ksheri3 Hi Sarah, It seems that the double edged sword, multiple meanings, I apply on a regular basis to cover myself against those people that, when speaking with me, only tell me lies, falsehoods, words, thoughts, and conceptions, that they have contrived and employ for their personal profit and betterment at the cost of my life, my suffering (they increase my suffering deliberately), this double meaning within concepts will have to be delt with here and so I'll be showing a bit more of myself and my Standard Operating Procedure in the coarse of this arcane study. > Do you generally cognize for your emotional state of > consciousness? colette: notice I placed "generally" in front of "cognize" which askes the question concerning the type of cognition I'm speaking of. The greater part is that I clearly give you a false view since I place an "emotional state" in your possession: "...your emotional state...", can't any person have an emotional state or condition? I should go back to review your post to see if you actually did speak in terms of actually possessing an emotional state. Another important concept would be that consciousness is established by an emotional state, emotional states can be part of a consciousness although we in Buddhism are continually trying to maintain a state of equilibrium, the Middle-path, Madhyamika, equinimity I believe the word is. Although this is a desirous position to be in and to maintain it is often VERY DIFFICULT, STRENUOUS, and time consuming, which is why that the doctrines of EXPERIENCE or the students actual existance coming into contact with the extremes of either side i.e. severe/mild. Lets move on please. > Do you have a state of consciousness with the emotional? colette: duh, this was the trick question which led me into actually seeing that you had absolutely no experience in buddhism at all and do not care to experience the beauty of the doctrine(s). -------------- > > S: Don't both these questions imply there is a self? Perhaps you'd > > clarify. colette: I haven't found the material which addresses these or this issue of continually harping on accepting the Doctrine of Anatta then turning around, as hypocrits tend to do, and completely contradicting the doctrine by cognizing a self, an individual self which is seperate from all other selves. Lets use my self as the example. I know that while I was recouperating from my automobile accident in 1978 I was completely confounded by strangeness or changes in personal behavior, the people around me, toward everything they encountered. My dad did quite a bit of work making sure that I had no friends since he would call the parents of whoever I went out with and he would rip them a new a- hole, verbally, and he would probably threaten them of consequenses that would occur if the parents did not keep their child away from me. He even did this routine to my teachers at high school in my senior year. He made it clear that I was not going to have a life if I did anything that was not to his liking or approval i.e. slavery, robotics, no life at all. Part of the problem, that I had cognized at the time was that he wanted me to obey everything from him i.e. a Soviet Politburo rubber stamping everything from the dictates of the Supreme Soviet, or the Republican Congress ala Reagan/Bush/Gingrich: spend spend spend without ever paying back or returning that which was taken. In high school this cognition was seen and experienced by myself as being the obligation any individual has to join groups and become a robot of the group. From what I considered an extremely powerful mystical experience, the automobile accident, I cognized that everything these different groups actually wanted from me was for me to completely dishonor the mystical experience by consciously choosing to ignore and mock the experience in order to honor the more beautiful and powerful experience of ONLY EXISTING IN THE HERE AND NOW at this very moment. ... So, I do not have to join groups, is the new psychology and mantra of the status quo, but the reality is that when they say that something does not have to be done then what they are saying is that they are not responsible they have sold their brains in return for the microchip of a LAN/WAN computer which directs their physical existance i.e. lies are truth, truth are lies, up is down, black is white, inside is outside, etc. You MUST JOIN GROUPS! Now when working from a Boddhisatva position for the betterment and enlightenment of all sentient beings the self certainly does not exist but I am of the absolute complete 100% CERTAINTY that every student in every white middle-class suburban high school that obeys the doctrine of group, gang, mob, behavior has no indkling of what a Boddhisatva does and/or is responsible for therefore they are just greedy slothlike pigs. sorry gotta go, anyway, I'm copping an attitude. toodles, colette #84792 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:54 am Subject: Resolute Determination! bhikkhu0 Friends: Resolute Determination is the Eighth Mental Perfection: Only determination can completely Fulfill the other mental perfections! It's characteristic is an unwavering decision, it's function is to overcome it's opposites, & it's manifestation is unfaltering persistence in this task... The proximate cause of determination is strong willpower to succeed! Only the vigour of resolute determination lifts any praxis to perfection... When the Future Buddha placed his back against the trunk of the Bodhi tree, then he right there made this mighty decision: 'Let just the blood & flesh of this body dry up & let the skin & sinews fall from the bones. I will not leave this seat before having attained the absolute supreme Enlightenment!' So determined did he invincibly seat himself, which not even 100 earthquakes could make him waver from. Jataka Nidana A female lay follower (Upasika) at the time of the Buddha kept the precepts, comprehended the nature of impermanence, the consequent fragility of the body and thereby won stream-entry (Sotapanna). After passing away, she re-arose as the favourite attendant of Sakka, the king of Gods. Reviewing her own merit, she remembered her prior admonition to herself: ‘Let this body break up as it may, herein will not be any excuse or relaxation of the effort...!!!’ Whose mind is like a rock, unwavering, immovable, without a trace of lust of urging towards the attractions, without a trace of aversion of pushing away the repulsive, from what, can such a refined mind ever suffer ? Udana IV - 4 Using the tools of Faith, Morality, Effort, Determination, Meditation and true Understanding of this Dhamma, one gradually perfect first knowledge & then behaviour. So equipped & aware, one may eliminate all of this great heap of suffering once and for all ... Dhammapada 144 What is being determined for right Motivation ? The decision for being motivated by withdrawal, The decision for being motivated by good-will, The decision for being motivated by harmlessness: This is being determined for right Motivation. Samyutta Nikaya XLV 8 My mind is firm like a rock, unattached to sensual things, no shaking in the midst of a world, where all is decaying. My mind has been thus well developed, so how can suffering ever touch me? Theragatha 194 The four determinations: One should not neglect the Dhamma, One should guard well the Truth, One should be devoted to Withdrawal, and one should train only for Peace. Majjhima Nikaya 140 Fearing being predestined for Hell if he became a King, who had to punish criminals violently, the Bodhisatta determined not to show any intelligence, and play dumb, deaf and crippled for sixteen years, only showing his abilities, when he was on the verge of being buried alive! This was his ultimate perfection of resolute determination... The Basket of Conduct: Cariyapitaka More of the 10 mental perfections (paramis): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ten_Perfections.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_10_mental_perfections_(parami)_in_three_le\ vels.htm Determination nails it down! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84793 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:04 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) philofillet HI Sarah and all (p.s to Han) > > Sarah and others > > deny that they get emotional comfort from the Dhamma - I suspect > > they are in denial on this point. Again, just a suspicion that I > > throw out for their consideration in a friendly way. :) > .... > S: I think that what I suggested before was that I don't look for > emotional comfort from the Dhamma or think about emotional comfort as > being something I find from the Dhamma. Ph: OK, in that case I take it back. I hope you can admit that you *find* emotional comfort by being surrounded by all your Dhamma books. > > Perhaps you can elaborate on just what you mean to help me see if there's > any denial here:-)). For example, Would this be any different from > attachment? Is it just more clinging to oneself and one's well- being? Ph: I think we cling to the Dhamma, and that is fine. Otherwise we would be swept away by our defilements. We have to cling to something, and there has to be "self" (wrong view, of course) clinging. If you guys can't see that there is just as much self at work in your dhamma study as there in other meditation, I don't know what to say. You will say something about meditators seeking to control dhammas, while that is not the case in your pariyatti, but my contention is that when you guys have a deep interest in knowing the presently arisen dhamma, there is bound to be trying to have too much understanding. Self is finding comfort in dhamma, but in territories that are too deep and rarefied. For me, self finds comfort in more conventional ways, reflections on being a better person thanks to the Dhamma, reflections on improving possibility of human rebirth thanks to the Dhamma - I think this is the comfort and encouragement offered to busy worldlings by the Dhamma. Not a liberating one, of course, but more liberating than secretly longing to get at the deeper liberation. (I don't say AS is the only teacher who conditions that, but what bugs me about her is that elsewhere she talks about being patient, about not rushing to get at the heart of the Dhamma, then she says things like "just understand...just understand..." to people who are dealing with issues. i.e just get to the heart of the Buddha's teaching. Take this for example, on guarding the sense doors. I think it's from the SPD. First she quotes the suttas that goes "if he dwells with this organ of sigh uncontrolled, evil unskillful states might predominate, so he fares along controlling it, he guards the organ of sight" etc. And how does he do this according to AS: "This kind of restraint can be achieved through the development of panna that understands the realities that appear as they are. One will begin to let go of atta- sanna with regard to what appears through the eyes, the ears, the nose etc according to the degree of panna that has been reached." And that is fine, that is true, but before that kind of liberating panna can be reached there has to be so much of a much more mundane and conventional guarding of the sense doors. She goes too deep way too soon, as always. Here is what the Buddha says on the matter: "If there is no sense control, O monks, then the basis for virtue is destroyed for one who lacks sense control. If there is no vritue, then the basis for right concentrations is destroyed for one who lacks virtue. If there is no right concentration, then the basis for knowledge and vision of things as they really are is destroyed for one who lacks right understanding." There is no leapfrogging to the liberation. AS does too much leapfrogging, I think. As she herself says "nobody can change the Buddha's teaching" and of course that applies to her. I'm show you have seen the above sutta (AN VI,50) many times and have a suitable response up your sleeve, and please feel free to make it! I'm still not able to spend enough time here to discuss properly, I honestly think I will someday, so in the meantime my apologies...and thanks to Jon for your post as well...cannot respond now. Metta, Phil p.s very sorry to hear about your wife's illness, Han. > .... > > > James: They have to know what that's like. If they are > > unenlightend > > > they have to know what it is like to be overpowered by unwholesome > > > mind states. We all know what that's like. But not everyone > > knows > > > what's happening at those moments and why it's happening. > .... > S: And there isn't always the wisdom and courage to really face up to such > unwholesome mental states. > .... > > > > "We all know what that's like." OK, that's a good reminder. But I > > guess I disagree because that is just what Sarah says, that we all > > know what it's like to behave in an unwholesome way. > .... > S: OK, so you disagree with James's helpful comments because you think > they agree with ones I've made!! > > Too tired to work this one out:) Look forward to catching up tomorrow, > before several further days of discussions starting on Saturday at the > Foundation. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > #84794 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ================================= > I view pa~n~na as a faculty - the operation of observing clearly, > directly, and with understanding of things as they actually are. This faculty can > operate with varying degrees of relative perfection, and with varying > frequency of occurrence. The quintessence of this faculty is referred to as "the > perfection of wisdom." As a consequence of appropriate conditions, including the > exercise of the faculty of wisdom itself, there can be an enhancing of that > faculty. From my perspective, wisdom is not a form of knowledge but is a > faculty, and it is better to speak of it as being cultivated or developed than > accumulated. Right, and this isn't just your 'view' or opinion, this is the way it is. Wisdom is a faculty or ability of the mind which is enhanced by the proper factors: favorable kamma and contact with the teachings. If we could know our numerous lifetimes and see how often we have existed in the hell realms, ghost realms, and animal realms, we would very clearly see that wisdom does not accumulate (and that kamma only accumulates until it reaches fruition). Metta, James #84795 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Many thx for the comments - you've supplied some good material and issues to bring up in our last discussion session with K. Sujin today. Sure to be a lively one and others will appreciate your points. I'll try to report back to you later. Wish you (and the rest of the gang) were here to raise the points yourselves:-) Metta, Sarah p.s Sukin, if you see this, could your print out Phil's post for me. --- Phil wrote: > Ph: I think we cling to the Dhamma, and that is fine. Otherwise we > would be swept away by our defilements. We have to cling to > something, and there has to be "self" (wrong view, of course) > clinging. If you guys can't see that there is just as much self at > work in your dhamma study as there in other meditation, I don't know > what to say. You will say something about meditators seeking to > control dhammas, while that is not the case in your pariyatti, but > my contention is that when you guys have a deep interest in knowing > the presently arisen dhamma, there is bound to be trying to have too > much understanding. Self is finding comfort in dhamma, but in > territories that are too deep and rarefied. For me, self finds > comfort in more conventional ways, reflections on being a better > person thanks to the Dhamma, reflections on improving possibility of > human rebirth thanks to the Dhamma - I think this is the comfort and > encouragement offered to busy worldlings by the Dhamma. Not a > liberating one, of course, but more liberating than secretly longing > to get at the deeper liberation. (I don't say AS is the only teacher > who conditions that, but what bugs me about her is that elsewhere > she talks about being patient, about not rushing to get at the heart > of the Dhamma, then she says things like "just understand...just > understand..." to people who are dealing with issues. i.e just get > to the heart of the Buddha's teaching. Take this for example, on > guarding the sense doors. I think it's from the SPD. First she > quotes the suttas that goes "if he dwells with this organ of sigh > uncontrolled, evil unskillful states might predominate, so he fares > along controlling it, he guards the organ of sight" etc. And how > does he do this according to AS: "This kind of restraint can be > achieved through the development of panna that understands the > realities that appear as they are. One will begin to let go of atta- > sanna with regard to what appears through the eyes, the ears, the > nose etc according to the degree of panna that has been reached." > > And that is fine, that is true, but before that kind of > liberating panna can be reached there has to be so much of a much > more mundane and conventional guarding of the sense doors. She goes > too deep way too soon, as always. Here is what the Buddha says on > the matter: "If there is no sense control, O monks, then the basis > for virtue is destroyed for one who lacks sense control. If there is > no vritue, then the basis for right concentrations is destroyed for > one who lacks virtue. If there is no right concentration, then the > basis for knowledge and vision of things as they really are is > destroyed for one who lacks right understanding." > > There is no leapfrogging to the liberation. AS does too much > leapfrogging, I think. As she herself says "nobody can change the > Buddha's teaching" and of course that applies to her. I'm show you > have seen the above sutta (AN VI,50) many times and have a suitable > response up your sleeve, and please feel free to make it! I'm still > not able to spend enough time here to discuss properly, I honestly > think I will someday, so in the meantime my apologies...and thanks > to Jon for your post as well...cannot respond now. #84796 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:51 pm Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) scottduncan2 Dear Phil and Sarah, AN VI,50 Indriyasa.mvarasutta.m "If there is no sense control, O monks, then the basis for virtue is destroyed for one who lacks sense control. If there is no vritue, then the basis for right concentrations is destroyed for one who lacks virtue. If there is no right concentration, then the basis for knowledge and vision of things as they really are is destroyed for one who lacks right understanding." Indriyasa.mvare bhikkhave asati indriyasa.mvaravipannassa hatuupanisa.m hoti siila.m. Siile asati siilavipannassa hatuupaniso hoti sammaasamaadhi. Sammaasamaadhimhi asati sammaasamaadhivipannassa hatuupanisa.m hoti yathaabhuuta~naa.nadassana.m. Yathaabhuuta~naa.nadassane asati yathaabhuuta~naa.nadassanavipannassa hatuupaniso hoti nibbidaaviraago. Nibbidaaviraage asati nibbidaaviraagavipannassa hatuupanisa.m hoti vimutti~naa.nadassana.m. Bh. Bodhi, Note 26 (p.301): "AA explains 'knowledge and vision of things as they really are' (yathaabhuuta~naa.nadassana) as tender insight knowledge; 'revulsion' (nibbidaa) as powerful insight knowledge; 'dispassion' (viraaga) as the noble path (the four stages of awakening); and 'knowledge and vision of liberation' (vimutti~naa.nadassana) as reviewing knowledge..." Phil: "...And how does he do this according to AS: 'This kind of restraint can be achieved through the development of pa~n~naa that understands the realities that appear as they are. One will begin to let go of atta-sa~n~naa with regard to what appears through the eyes, the ears, the nose etc according to the degree of panna that has been reached...She goes too deep way too soon, as always." Scott: Since 'understand[ing] of realities that appear as they are' is, as far as I can tell, yathaabhuuta~naa.nadassana (tender insight knowledge), and since this precedes higher levels of developed pa~n~naa, I fail to see how this is 'too deep way too soon'. Sincerely, Scott. #84797 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:52 am Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) philofillet Hi Sarah > Many thx for the comments - you've supplied some good material and issues > to bring up in our last discussion session with K. Sujin today. Sure to be > a lively one and others will appreciate your points. Glad to be able to contribute! I just really think that despite her rather uncharitably toned comments on the way others try to get too deep too fast she encourages the same thing. I'd rather stick to conceptual objects of understanding than to seek to have understanding of paramattha dhamams. (Except as a an exercise in book studying of the way the truth really is in what can only be theory for those of such weak understanding as myself.) You know, there are so many reference amoung A.S students to things like "just a lot of mana" or "always so much lobha" and so on. I contend that you don't really understand or experience the characteristics of the dhammas that are arising and falling away - you just project what you assume the dhamma would be on to various situations. For example, something nice happens to you and you assume a lot of mana involved. I doubt that it is possible for us to "experience the characteristic" of the paramattha dhamma that is mana, that falls away so quickly... just something more for the gist. I'll be stepping away again. btw, I'm not finding time for e-sangha either, so it's not that I have abandoned this fine group for that fine group... metta, phil #84798 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) philofillet Hi Scott > > Scott: Since 'understand[ing] of realities that appear as they are' > is, as far as I can tell, yathaabhuuta~naa.nadassana (tender insight > knowledge), and since this precedes higher levels of developed > pa~n~naa, I fail to see how this is 'too deep way too soon'. Thanks for this. I guess I'm having a crisis of faith when it comes to understanding (panna) or something, but I don't believe that we are at all likely to have this tender insight knowledge. I think it's not possible when there is grasping for it, and maybe you and others are more patient than me in ways I can't imagine, but I think A.S conditions grasping for understanding when she says things like "is there seeing now? Understand it, or panna can not understand." But I'm really just floundering around here when I talk about these deep topics. My main concern is not doing things that are harmful to myself and others. Non-harmfulness is the only thing that truly interests me these days when it comes to Dhamma, and I don't think understanding of the characteristics of dhammas is necessary to be able to apply oneself to non-harmfulness. It's all about concepts of people and situations. But that's just me and my sense of where I (so to speak) am at. Metta, Phil #84799 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:01 am Subject: Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) philofillet Hi again correction >is there seeing now? Understand it, or panna can not > understand." should be "panna can not develop." metta, Phil