#86000 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 22, 2008 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? sarahprocter... Hi TG, (and other who enjoy a little light fun!), Glad to see you're really getting a handle on the paramattha dhammas:-)) ========== --- On Wed, 21/5/08, TGrand458@... wrote: From: TGrand458@... >NEW TG: Now, does right effort HAVE to be 'kusala' or could it be 'wholesome' or 'skilful'? ======== S: Excellent question!! I hope everyone's taking note (event though 'hope' is a kind of attachment....) Lots of good terms to discuss. First of all, right effort doesn't HAVE to be kusala! Why, because in the cittas of an arahant (not a person, remember), there is right effort, but no more kusala. Instead there are kiriya (inoperative) cittas. So very strictly speaking (and we are looking at precision here, of course), right effort has to be sobhana (beautiful) rather thank kusala (wholesome). Sobhana cittas refer to all cittas accompanied by sobhana cetasikas. As for the translations, they all have their own baggage. 'Wholesome' reminds mothers (Rob K's and mine for a start) of so-called healthy bread. 'Skilful' gets a dissertation on its various meanings from Dan when he's following. ============ TG> I just want to make sure I'm on board with having the "look" of knowing what I'm talking about by properly placing the key foreign term right at the spot where clear communication is the most important. I think its that special "slight of hand" that sets us Abhidhammikas apart from the regular folks. ============== S: We all see through the flattery and can quote lines on bean-soupery if this goes too far:-) And then of course, as you know, maana (conceit) includes even accurate statements about others having more knowledge! ============ >S: Consider deleting the "existing permanently throughout the universe" when you next re-hash this one..... a little too close to energies and Star Wars for an Abhidhammika. S: ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. >NEW TG: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. How about -- "a free floating stationary sub-reality" ? =========== S: A sub-reality for a concept? No, no, no.... ======== TG >How about -- "a delusionary that does not rise to the occasion of actual delusion"? ========= S: That'll have Larry reaching for his head-ache pills. ========= ............ ......... ......... ......... ........ =========== TG: >Now, a paramattha dhamma is also a mental idea ===== >S: Ooh, 'idea', for a p.d. - that's Thanissaro's influence again....painful: S ========= >NEW TG: But when we're writing to express an idea, isn't the word at that time an idea or does it bypass that idea stage and become a reality by virtue of its ultimateness? ... therefore it is the "anti-concept" and cannot lower to the concept stage even as a language component? Interesting conce....I mean...interesting reality! ======== S: That's got me heading for the panadol. Perhaps Scott could cope with this one and let you know whether it passes. ========= TG> Actually, I have to translate Thanissaro's English translations into other English translations before I can understand them....so when I'm reading something he's done, I have to translate it into different English terms on the fly. That way I've come full circle. I figure that's as good as knowing Pali. With Thanissaro, English isn't a game, its an adventure! ========== S: Yes, with that full circle, you're really in the Abhidhammika circle and appreciating the fun (Ken O mentioned) we have. =========== >NEW TG: An appearing visible object with no light or color?....fascinati ng! Would those by any chance be "tachion emissions"? I saw something like that on Star Trek, the Next Generation. I believe they came from "Rupa Beings" who were out of phase with our present moment. Anyway, Mark Twain stepped in and saved the day! ========== S: At least by now you'll appreciate why those physicists have no chance of seeing the light of day:-/ ============ >TG: I think I know what you mean though...that only "panna" could know that! ======= S: Yes, the illuminator!! ========== >TG: Well, growing, one dhamma at a time. :-) ========== S: That's the way. A few more aeons and all may be clear, depending on conditions:-) Thanks for the fun, TG!! Metta, Sis Sarah =========== #86001 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 22, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (159) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- On Thu, 22/5/08, han tun wrote: Nina: Yes, it is helpful to be reminded of this. It can be consoling when having a hard time, facing sad events. How does Han feel about this, does it help? Han: It should help. But at the moment I cannot see the Dhamma, to be honest. It may help later, as the time is the best healer. But not now! ========= S: I enjoyed your anecdote and it's very humane. We encourage each other with the Dhamma as best we can at difficult times, but this doesn't mean we won't grieve ourselves when we experience losses. It's all very natural. We are all affected. Only anagamis no longer grieve at all. I thought of you this morning (and was reminded of the incident just now when I just mentioned panadol to TG ). I visited a doctor (also a friend) and he'd just been approached by a Burmese acquaintance who could travel outside Yangon. He said he needed first-aid equimpment such as bandages and panadol to take in large supplies. So I encouraged my doctor friend to help and gave a donation to help with the cost. We can make gestures in different ways according to the circumstances. I also thought of you when I read the verses RK quoted from the Uttara Sutta (TB transl). Let me repeat them: >UTTARA THE DEVA'S SON Samyutta Nikaaya 2.19 - Uttara Sutta2 At Rajagaha. As he was standing to one side, Uttara the deva's son recited thisverse in the Blessed One's presence: Life is swept along, next-to-nothing its span. For one swept on by aging no shelters exist. Perceiving this danger in death, one should do deeds of merit that bring about bliss. [The Buddha:] Life is swept along, next-to-nothing its span. For one swept to old age no shelters exist. Perceiving this danger in death, one should drop the world's bait and look for peace. ******** Also impressive was #85409 from the Perfections Corner. The brahmin Pingiya was 120 but wished to hear the Dhamma. >"The Buddha said to the Brahmin Pi'ngiya: 'People are intoxicated, they are oppressed by physical phenomena, ruupas. It can be seen that people are disturbed because of ruupas. Therefore, Pi'ngiya, you should not be neglectful, you should give up clinging to ruupas so that you will not be reborn.' " S: We are disturbed because we cling to rupas which are so very, very unsatisfactory in every way on account of their impermanence and because no-one can control or master them or have them as they'd like even for an instant. Take care, Han and let us know how you're getting on. I always appreciate your sincere responses like the one above. [I also thought you might appreciate #85863 on the different kinds of death inc. omentary death at each moment.] Metta, Sarah H: >It reminds me of an anecdote. In Burma, there was once a monk, who used to tell his followers not to be sad and not to cry when their loved ones died, citing the well-known passage, “Anicca vata sankhaaraa …..â€? One day, the followers saw him crying at a funeral, and asked him why he was crying, as he used to tell them not to cry. The monk replied, “Oh, she (the deceased) was my mother!â€? ================ #86002 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 22, 2008 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some thoughts on Samatha/Samadhi/Jhana is it really "mindless"? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Wed, 21/5/08, Alex wrote: > S: Do these meditators really understand what samatha is, do you think? >>> >A:I suspect that some of them understand it much better than non meditators (even though they may lack the proper terminology to describe it). ========= S: I liked the sutta quote Scott gave in #84009. As I think it indicates, for both the development of samatha or the development of vipassana, wisdom is essential. If we don't listen, consider, question and express such understanding, it may be wishful thinking that either samatha or vipassana is being developed. Let me repeat the sutta: >Scott: >AN 2. Dukanipaata 3. Baalavaggo "32. Bhikkhus, these two things are on the side of wisdom (vijjaabhaagiyaa). Which two? Calm (samatho) and insisght (vipassanaa). Bhikkhus, what is the result of developing calm? The mind is developed. What is the result of a developing the mind? Whatever greed fades. Bhikkhus, what is the result of developing insight. Wisdom gets enhanced. What is the use of enhanced wisdom? Whatever ignorance fades. Even the minor defilements, do not release the mind. The minor defilements of ignorance do not enhance wisdom. Thus bhikkhus, with the fading of greed there is release of mind and with the fading of ignorance release through wisdom." 2. 1. 3. 11. 31. Dveme bhikkhave dhammaa vijjaabhaagiyaa. Katame dve? Samatho ca vipassanaa ca. Samatho bhikkhave bhaavito kamatthamanubhoti ? Citta.m bhaaviiyati. Citta.m bhaavita.m kamatthamanubhoti? Yo raago, so pahiiyati. Vipassanaa bhikkhave bhaavito kamatthamanubhoti? Pa~n~naa bhaaviiyati. Pa~n~naa bhaavitaa kamatthamanubhoti? Yaa avijjaa, saa pahiiyati, raagupakkili.t.tha.m vaa bhikkhave citta.m na vimuccati. Avijjupakkili.t.thaa vaa pa~n~naa na bhaaviiyati. Iti kho bhikkhave raagaviraagaa cetovimutti, avijjaaviraagaa pa~n~naavimuttiiti. http://www.mettanet.net/tipitaka/index.html ============ >>> S:>Can anyone 'calm the mind'? >>>> A: >Of course, otherwise Buddha wouldn't teach such a crucial technique. ============== S: Did he teach a 'technique' or an understanding of dhammas? ============== A: >It is a prerequisite to seeing as it is. Calming involves first of all, removal of hindrances which are obstructions to seeing as it is. ============ S: When any wholesome states arise, whether related to dana, sila or bhavana, there is samatha, calm, at such moments. For example, at moments of metta when we write or speak to others, there is calm. This is different from when there is attachment or annoyance with those we address or listen to. So, it comes back to understanding when kusala with calm arises and when it doesn't. Most of what we take for calm is really one kind of attachment or other. Metta, Sarah ========= #86003 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? scottduncan2 Dear Abhidhammikas TG and Sarah, Regarding: NEW TG: "...But when we're writing to express an idea, isn't the word at that time an idea or does it bypass that idea stage and become a reality by virtue of its ultimateness? ... therefore it is the 'anti-concept' and cannot lower to the concept stage even as a language component? Interesting conce....I mean...interesting reality!" ======== S: "That's got me heading for the panadol. Perhaps Scott could cope with this one and let you know whether it passes." ========= Scott: Well, yes and no, because 'words' are real and to think of words as language components, and then to type them out, really quickly, of course turns them into visible object, and so you see that they started out as concept and became anti-concept by virtue of having been reified, maintained now-as-entity through a flowing process of identity-matter conditionalisation and since we see them, the visible word is anti-concept and since to be against something is to be for it, the whole thing is-and-isn't. This whole paragraph, for example is words now but wasn't before it was written because it was ultimately existing in the concept-stage having bypassed the idea-stage altogether, due to the essential wordness of pre-paragraphical wordic realities. See? Sincerely, Scott. #86004 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/21/2008 11:55:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you got that out of your system. I'd have appreciated a reply to the other post you ignored, rather than this displaced response. The other is a much more serious concern. Sincerely, Scott. ========================= I missed the post, it seems. Would you please identify it for me. I didn't *ignore* a post. Perhaps I saw it & had nothing to say - that could happen, but I don't recall that happening. (And, yes, your attitude annoyed me.) 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) #86005 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "I missed the post, it seems. Would you please identify it for me. I didn't *ignore* a post. Perhaps I saw it & had nothing to say - that could happen, but I don't recall that happening. (And, yes, your attitude annoyed me.)" Scott: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/85857 Sincerely, Scott. #86006 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and TG & all) - In a message dated 5/22/2008 7:39:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Well, yes and no, because 'words' are real and to think of words as language components, and then to type them out, really quickly, of course turns them into visible object, and so you see that they started out as concept and became anti-concept by virtue of having been reified, maintained now-as-entity through a flowing process of identity-matter conditionalisation and since we see them, the visible word is anti-concept and since to be against something is to be for it, the whole thing is-and-isn't. This whole paragraph, for example is words now but wasn't before it was written because it was ultimately existing in the concept-stage having bypassed the idea-stage altogether, due to the essential wordness of pre-paragraphical wordic realities. See? ================================= That was, seriously, very good, Scott. We're all getting to know (i.e., stylistically characterize) each other rather well here, and when we put that forward humorously as you have just done, it's simply fun. Sometimes, it seems to me, though, that all of us, and I do mean *all*, including me, are not only bright, but a bit too bright for our own good, because we are getting "stuck in our heads" (or "mana bound," or slaves of our favorite concept-of-the-day). Our clinging to ideas and viewpoints and interpretations sometimes causes us to put down the other person, and to self-righteously view ourselves as "right" and a "defender of the true Dhamma." And that is just ego, I believe. I have seen very few of us who are mostly immune to this, though some are really soft and open. With metta, Howard P. S. An aside I offer for consideration by others as possibly useful (though maybe not) is that just about the only thing that "saves" me from going really far with clinging to belief is the habit I've developed of awareness of bodily sensation and corresponding cognitive and emotional reaction. When I cling to ideas, viewpoints, and interpretations, the tightening up in the body and mind are noted, and they serve as a signal to me to let go. If I didn't have this, I'd truly be hopeless, I think. #86007 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "That was, seriously, very good, Scott..." Scott: What about: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/86005 ? Sincerely, Scott. #86008 From: "Alex" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 5:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some thoughts on Samatha/Samadhi/Jhana is it really "mindless"? truth_aerator Hi Sarah, thank you for your reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > ============== > S: Did he teach a 'technique' or an understanding of dhammas? > ============== > Oh Yeh, big time. Just read the MN118 (anapanasati sutta). If that isn't technique, than I don't know what is. Understanding = letting go off ALL clinging not in being able to navigate the conceptual mazes and impress PhD buddies at the coffee break :) Furthermore by understanding, it is interesting that he did NOT teach momentariness (especially when it came to Body). That wasn't even taught in Abh until the commentators added their 2 rupees. =-== Regarding the rest of the post. I do agree that samatha and vipassana go hand in hand. Best wishes, Alex #86009 From: "upasaka_howard" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - Thank you for giving me the reference. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > Regarding: > > H: "...This is an aspect of what I mean when I say that reality is > seamless. At the same time, however, what is present now (at > any 'now') is distinguishable from what was, and phenomena are > distinguishable from each other. Inseparability doesn't imply > identity. There was a brief period for me, just once, when sense of > personal self and also the sense of separateness of 'things' both > disappeared, though sights, sounds, emotions etc, each as 'the > experienced quality of the moment,' i.e., as so-called object of > consciousness, were (namelessly) distinguishable. This was an > experience of seamlessness, yet everything was still there as an > aspect of reality and not coalescing into an amorphous unity. The > state was so shockingly different, so 'other,' so strange, with no > anchor - nothing at all to hold onto, that a terrible fear arose that > overcame the state and finally ended it. Too bad that I was unprepared." > > Scott: I've waited on a response here, Howard. You addressed me > parenthetically for some reason, which seemed to require some sort of > response. --------------------------------- Howard: I was writing a reply to a post by Herman to you, and it is my custom to parenthetically include the others involved in a post besides the author of the post. When I do that it is a matter of courtesy, but not a suggestion that a response is expected. ------------------------------------- It is a sensitive sort of thing to respond to. It almost > hangs in the ether, defying response, like some sort of Delicate > Thing that no one ought, in a polite world, to respond to. That > notwithstanding, my take on it will not likely please you, but you did > post the description, and you did address me, and hence it is, as they > say, fair game. ------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I have explained why I included your name. Actually, I didn't expect anyone to comment on my personal experience as such. I put it forward only as an instance of the experience of seamlessness (or inseparability) and the experience of distinguishability of phenomena as not being incompatible. -------------------------------------- > > I don't see what this has to do with anything, really, from a Dhamma > perspective. You must understand where I'm coming from, though. I > work everyday with people who are exploring their own psyches as > deeply as they can, all open to every sort of mental experience, every > sort of emotional experience, every sort of fantasy, every sort of > thought, every sort of construction, every sort of dream - what have > you, Howard - I've heard a lot. ------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, Scott. You're free to consider this just one more example of fantasy, as you wish. ------------------------------------- > > I've had a personal psychoanalysis as well, and have had some pretty > Heavy Experiences myself. These sorts of things, in my experience, > are entirely common to the human experience. If you are unfamiliar > with common introspection, and especially, if you have no context > (i.e. an ongoing psychotherapy context) in which to place these sorts > of experiences, then you are vulnerable. > > For what its worth, I'd not make too much of it, if I were you. ------------------------------------ Howard: I don't, though it has served me well. ----------------------------------- > > Some people are simply anxious about certain deeper *psychological and > totally human things* and it really isn't that big a deal, and I > wouldn't start thinking it had much to do with Dhamma, except to > condition some thoughts about it, which thoughts, in the end, may not > be all that Important. > > If you meant to suggest more by posting this, I'd be interested. -------------------------------------- Howard: I have explained why I posted it. -------------------------------------- For > instance, you use this experience to back up a belief in a 'seamless > reality' and of 'seamlessness'. I'm not familiar with 'seamlessness' > as an aspect of the Dhamma. ------------------------------------ Howard: You might consider interdependent origination. ------------------------------------- Can you suggest where such a thing is > mentioned in the texts so that I might have a look at it? > > How would you label this experience? Was it part of the preliminary > experience of jhaana, for example? ------------------------------------- Howard: No. Ive experirnced jhana. This was not jhana. ------------------------------------ And what do you think it was that > you found yourself 'unprepared' for? What might have happened, do you > think, had you been 'prepared'? Are you suggesting that this was some > sort of burgeoning path experience in the offing? Why the fear? --------------------------------- Howard: I believe that had I not reacted with fear, this could have developed further into an awakening. But I ran from the experience, and it didn't lead to what would have been really useful. The reason for fear, I should think, would be obvious. All sense of personal identity was gone - the ground was sewpt out from under my feet. (I have no doubt you'll characterize that as a disassocative state. Whatever! ;-) ---------------------------------- > > Don't you think that, were this to have been such an arising, that the > development of the faculties would have been such that fear wouldn't > have been a question? In other words, wouldn't such a thing happen > naturally as conditioned by the appropriate level of development, and > not be an abortive arising, spoiled by the fear of Someone who was > believing in His Own Fear at the time? This alone suggests that this > was only some sort of emotional experience with thinking on the side. ---------------------------------- Howard: Without grounding in the jhanas, fear is a common reaction. This is well known. Ayya Khema wrote of it, for example. In any case, I don't accept your analysis that the presence of fear is evidence that this was not a useful state. The fear arose because of lack of adequate prior cultivation, and it put an end to what otherwise might have been really worthwhile. The fear wasn't part of the experience - it's arising ended the experience. --------------------------------- > > Please take only as much offense as you do by this, though, Howard. > I'm not trying to be a jerk. --------------------------------- Howard: I accept this post of yours as having been written with good will. --------------------------------- (And I waited a whole night before > posting this, just so you know - I think a discussion about what > constitutes useful 'experience' is potentially useful). No need to > respond at all if this is > too annoying to you. ---------------------------------- Howard: Actually, Scott, somehow I never saw the post at all. I have no idea why I missed it. My not replying was due solely to not having seen it. Sorry. ---------------------------------- > > Sincerely, A Big Wet Blanket, ;-) ----------------------------------- Howard: :-) --------------------------------- > > Scott. > ================================= With metta, Howard #86010 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 1:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/22/2008 8:30:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "That was, seriously, very good, Scott..." Scott: What about: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/86005 ? Sincerely, Scott. ================================ I sent a reply to that a few minutes ago. With metta, Howard #86011 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 5:58 am Subject: Perfections Corner (160) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 continues: The "Dispeller of Delusion", the Commentary to the "Book of Analysis", (Ch 4, Classification of the Truths, 85), states about the fourth noble Truth, the Path: "...the Truth of the Path has the characteristic of outlet, its function is to abandon defilements, it manifests itself as emergence..." The Commentary explains that apart from the Path, there is no other "outlet", no way out, and that it is not otherwise. The "Dispeller of Delusion" mentions that some people deny the four noble Truths and proclaim that the Truth of dukkha is different and the same for the other three Truths. With regard to the fourth Truth, the Path, the "Dispeller of Delusion" explains that the wise know that the Path is a Truth, that it is truly an outlet. Each time when sati arises and is aware of the characteristics of realities and investigates them so that the characteristic of naama, the dhamma which experiences, can be distinguished from the characteristic of ruupa which appears, the Path is developed. This is the Path that is a true way out, leading to the eradication of defilements. Hence it has been said that the wise know that the Path is a Truth, that it is the only way leading to the eradication of defilements. .. to be continued, connie #86012 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Scott You really "nailed it" here. I think basically all we have to do is understand this and we're home free. :-) TG In a message dated 5/22/2008 5:39:52 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Well, yes and no, because 'words' are real and to think of words as language components, and then to type them out, really quickly, of course turns them into visible object, and so you see that they started out as concept and became anti-concept by virtue of having been reified, maintained now-as-entity through a flowing process of identity-matter conditionalisation and since we see them, the visible word is anti-concept and since to be against something is to be for it, the whole thing is-and-isn't. This whole paragraph, for example is words now but wasn't before it was written because it was ultimately existing in the concept-stage having bypassed the idea-stage altogether, due to the essential wordness of pre-paragraphical wordic realities. See? Sincerely, Scott. #86013 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 6:13 am Subject: Sutta-Man TGrand458@... Hi All Citizens of the World It was a close call, but Sutta-Man has returned from the brink. For awhile, those evil Abhidhammikas had cast me into a funk by surrounding me with "corruptionite." Yes, its the only thing that can harm Sutta-Man. Yes, corruptionite -- the twisted perverted mangled self-view inspired reinvention of the Buddha's teaching...aka...Abhidhamma Commentaries. "Corruptionite" took it all out of me and left me a weak, unwary, hulk; unable to see past the "false facade" of "own characteristics." Yes, for awhile my "super-vision" was cut-off and I had been left face to face with that dastardly deluding "dhammas-view." But I have emerged. I have escaped the insidious influence of "corruptionite" by a duel three-fold process of purification -- 1) See no dhammas, 2) hear no dhammas, 3) speak no dhammas (in affirmation) 4) Insightfully see conditions as empty of "own characteristics," 5) Insightfully hear conditions as empty of "own characteristics," 6) Insightfully speak conditions as empty of "own characteristics." Conditions-vision yields a vision of emptiness and insubstantiality. Where seldom is heard ... a discouraging word ... like "dhammas," "ultimate," or "its own." Home, home on the range.... (you get the idea) S-M (TG shhhhhh don't tell anyone) #86014 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2008 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (159) nilovg Dear Han, Op 21-mei-2008, om 23:48 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Text: We should be mindful of the "momentary death" of realities. > When we have seen an object just for an extremely short moment, > attachment to it arises, but seeing falls away immediately and then > visible object does not appear any more. We cannot own visible object. > > Nina: Yes, it is helpful to be reminded of this. It can be > consoling when having a hard time, facing sad events. How does Han > feel about this, does it help? > > Han: It should help. But at the moment I cannot see the Dhamma, to > be honest. It may help later, as the time is the best healer. But > not now! ------- N: I do understand. Not being able to see the Dhamma is also conditioned, such a state of mind is a conditioned dhamma that is subject to momentary death. It cannot stay. -------- > H: It reminds me of an anecdote. > > In Burma, there was once a monk, who used to tell his followers not > to be sad and not to cry when their loved ones died, citing the > well-known passage, “Anicca vata sankhaaraa …..” One day, the > followers saw him crying at a funeral, and asked him why he was > crying, as he used to tell them not to cry. The monk replied, “Oh, > she (the deceased) was my mother!” ------- N: Appreciating this story and we can learn from it. It shows the gap between theoretical understanding and direct understanding of realities. The Buddha could not alter the truth of impermanence, he could not prevent people's sadness because of loss, but he taught right understanding and this is liberating. Even if it arises very shortly, the citta is kusala, with calm and mental balance. Little by little we can learn to accept what is unavoidable. One of the translations of khanti is acceptance. Perhaps Howard and Scott can add some words to this from their own experience. > ==================== > > Han: Nina, can I ask you a question? > > In the text: < However, when satipa.t.thaana arises, we can notice > that we cling to the naama and ruupa that appear, and that we do > not want to let go of them, that we do not want to give up the idea > of self, being or person. The stages of insight are of many > degrees, its development is a gradual process, because it is so > difficult to give up naama and ruupa.> ------ > N: Let me first add something to this. Difficult to give up my nama > and my rupa, still taking them for very important, for self. This > clinging is so deeply rooted, and therefore it is understandable > that insight grows in the course of many stages. During these > stages there is a gradual letting go of nama and rupa, seeing their > disadvantage and danger. ---------- > H: I still find it difficult to know when the satipa.t.thaana arises? ------- N: Yes, we discussed about this many times, a difficult subject. The reason is: when sati arises because of its own conditions, without us trying, one will know what it is, different from the many moments of forgetfulness and thinking about people and things. When you see persons, there is no sati. Persons are not visible object, they do not impinge on the eyesense. ---------- > H:Let me ask you citing the passage from > MN 10 Satipatthana Sutta, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html > > Quote: ["There is the case where a monk — having gone to the > wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits > down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting > mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always > mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. > > "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or > breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. .... > > Now, the question is at what stage in the above passage, the > satipa.t.thaana arises? --------- N: Already knowing the rupa, tangible object, conditioned by citta, presupposes pa~n~naa. At the second vipassana ~naa.na nama and rupa are known as conditioned dhammas. We can experience softness touching the upperlip or nosetip, but, only the rupa that is conditioned by citta is truly breath. Difficult to be sure, it may be just air. -------- H: > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of > itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both > internally & externally on the body in & of itself. ------ N: Instead of remains focussed, I prefer: contemplates: He lives contemplating.. ------- > ... Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the > extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, > unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how > a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself.] ------- N:Passages from Co and subco, showing that vipassana is being developed: In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga nimitta]. Having emerged from the absorption, he lays hold of either the respiration body or the factors of absorption. There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari mahabhutani upadarupañca]. The worker in respiration examines the respiration while devoting himself to the development of insight through the means of corporeality. The basis, namely, the coarse body, is where the mind and mental characteristics occur. Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression. The first beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as representative of mind. The worker in respiration examines the mind and the body, sees the Dependent Origination of ignorance and so forth, and concluding that this mind and this body are bare conditions, and things produced from conditions, and that besides these there is neither a living being nor a person, becomes to that extent a person who transcends doubt. Besides these phenomena there is neither a living being nor a person refers to vision that is purified [añño satto va puggalo natthiti visuddhiditthi]. Mind-and-body is a bare impersonal process. It is not unrelated to a cause and also not related to a discordant cause (which is fictive) like god, but is connected with (the really perceivable fact of) a cause like ignorance [tayidam dhammamattam na ahetukam napi issariyadi visamahetukam atha kho avijjadihi eva sahetukam].... -------- Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. The Commentary: Atthi kayoti va panassa sati paccupatthita hoti = "Or, indeed, his mindfulness is established, with the thought: 'The body exists.'" Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I," nothing that is mine, no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca attli, na satto, na puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na attaniyam naham, na mama, na koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati paccupatthita hoti]. Yavadeva = "To the extent necessary." It denotes purpose. This is said: The mindfulness established is not for another purpose. What is the purpose for which it is established? Nanamattaya patissatimattaya = "For just knowledge and remembrance." That is just for the sake of a wider and wider, or further and further measure of knowledge and of mindfulness [aparaparam uttaruttari ñanapamanatthaya ceva satipamanattha-yaca]. For the increase of mindfulness and clear comprehension is the meaning. For the purpose of reaching the knowledge of body-contemplation to the highest extent [kayanupassana ñanam param pamanam papanatthaya] is the meaning of: To the extent necessary for just knowledge [yavadeva ñanamattaya]. ------- Does this answer your question? Nina. #86015 From: "Alex" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 11:45 am Subject: 89 cittas are they manovinnana or all 6 vinnanas? truth_aerator Hello all, Few Questions: 1st) 89 cittas - do they belong only to mental vinnana or all 6 vinnanas? 2nd) What is the cause of arising of Citta, another citta? Can Citta arise based on rupa? For example MN148 it states that consciousness arises and is dependent on matter (rupa). ------ Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html --- Best Wishes, Alex #86016 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Colour. was: Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? nilovg Hi Howard, following your discussion with Scott. Op 22-mei-2008, om 5:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Red/green color blindness or no colors at all? Do you see shades of > gray? Is it all one color for you? I don't believe that. If it were > so, you > couldn't be typing. When you open your eyes, Scott, what do you > see? What one sees > is what visible object is. ------ N: Correct, when opening our eyes, what is seen is visible object. But we do not have to think of colours, they all appear and we cannot count them. Only when seeing, visible object is known, not when talking or thinking. When we are walking around doing all sorts of activities, there is also seeing in between, otherwise we would fall down or hurt ourselves. All that appears through eyes is seen, but we do not focus on colours. We do not pay attention to what is seen. When we think too much about what visible object is, I feel that this is confusing. Let seeing just see its appropriate object, that is enough. Nina. #86017 From: "Alex" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? truth_aerator Hello Sarah, TG, and all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi TG, (and other who enjoy a little light fun!), > > Glad to see you're really getting a handle on the paramattha dhammas:-)) > ========== > > --- On Wed, 21/5/08, TGrand458@... wrote: > > From: TGrand458@... > >NEW TG: Now, does right effort HAVE to be 'kusala' or could it be > 'wholesome' or 'skilful'? > ======== > Samma-Viriya is ALWAYS, ALWAYS skillful. That is why it has prefix SAMMA. If it had prefix "Miccha" or Moha (or whatever akusala term) then it would be unskilful. > Lots of good terms to discuss. > > First of all, right effort doesn't HAVE to be kusala! >>> Always a kusala because it is SAMMA. >>> Why, because in the cittas of an arahant (not a person, remember), there is right effort, but no more kusala. Instead there are kiriya (inoperative) cittas. So very strictly speaking (and we are looking at precision here, of course), right effort has to be sobhana (beautiful) rather thank kusala (wholesome). Sobhana cittas refer to all cittas accompanied by sobhana cetasikas. >>>> Dear Sarah, Arahant is ASEKHA so evil unwholesome states no longer assail or need to be removed, and good qualities don't need to be developed. I know that it is wishful thinking to think that one can reach Nibbana through inaction... Best wishes, Alex #86018 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] 89 cittas are they manovinnana or all 6 vinnanas? nilovg Hi Alex, Op 22-mei-2008, om 20:45 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > 1st) 89 cittas - do they belong only to mental vinnana or all 6 > vinnanas? ------- N: They can be classified as six, taking into account the objects experienced through the six doors. But this is not the only kind of classification, there are more. You mention manovinnana, here we have another classification by way of dhatus: we have: the five pairs of the sense-cognitions, furthermore: mind-element (mano dhatu), comprising the five dooradverting citta, and the two types of receiving-consciousness. All other cittas are manovinnana dhatu. ---------- > > A: 2nd) What is the cause of arising of Citta, another citta? Can > Citta > arise based on rupa? ------- N: Many conditions: cetasikas, it could not arise without cetasikas. The object, which is not merely rupa, also nama and concept, and nibbaana. Then we have many types of cittas and thus many different conditions: roots for kusala and akusala citta, kamma for vipaakacitta, etc. etc. Yes, in the five khandha planes it needs a physical base. As you see in the sutta quote you gave. > > A:For example MN148 it states that consciousness arises and is > dependent on matter (rupa). > > ------ > Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. ------- Nina. #86019 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 9:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Colour. was: Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Scott) - In a message dated 5/22/2008 2:49:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, following your discussion with Scott. Op 22-mei-2008, om 5:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Red/green color blindness or no colors at all? Do you see shades of > gray? Is it all one color for you? I don't believe that. If it were > so, you > couldn't be typing. When you open your eyes, Scott, what do you > see? What one sees > is what visible object is. ------ N: Correct, when opening our eyes, what is seen is visible object. But we do not have to think of colours, they all appear and we cannot count them. Only when seeing, visible object is known, not when talking or thinking. When we are walking around doing all sorts of activities, there is also seeing in between, otherwise we would fall down or hurt ourselves. All that appears through eyes is seen, but we do not focus on colours. We do not pay attention to what is seen. When we think too much about what visible object is, I feel that this is confusing. Let seeing just see its appropriate object, that is enough. Nina. ================================= I don't think we are in disagreement on this, Nina. With metta, Howard #86020 From: "colette" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 9:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Blessings ksheri3 Hi Herman, "Meddle" an early Pink Floyd exploit on vynil. ;) "succession" now we get into the Process Thinkers and the Creationists that are servants of order i.e. Standard Operating Procedure, the manual, et al. Yea, working new recipes is fun but sometimes ya just have to relax and let what ever is gonna bubble to the surface bubble, simmer. But that means and requires HEAT, or FIRE. Hmmmmm, I didn't respond last night to your kind reply and Jon's kind reply because I wanted to abide in an UN-INTERFERED WITH sensation of acceptance and humour, laugh with you and not at you type of thing. I'll talk latter. Thanks to both of you. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi colette, > > 2008/5/18 colette : > > Hi Herman, > > > > Another good post/reply, AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS that I'm working on > > the strategy, if the Dharmas can or could have a strategy, of the > > PAST DHARMA, the PRESENT DHARMA, and the FUTURE DHARMA. Naturally, I > > guess I'll have to make the last the first, no? > > > > I thought I would just meddle with your mind, while interfering with > the arrow of time, and answer a later post before a prior one :-) <.....> #86021 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-Man kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi All Citizens of the World > > > It was a close call, but Sutta-Man has returned from the brink. For awhile, > those evil Abhidhammikas had cast me into a funk by surrounding me with > "corruptionite." Yes, its the only thing that can harm Sutta- Man. Yes, > corruptionite -- the twisted perverted mangled self-view inspired reinvention of the > Buddha's teaching...aka...Abhidhamma Commentaries. > > Dear Sutta-man, I am so glad that you have been able to overcome the ancient commentaries and replace them with your own, new, commentaries. ------------------------------ SM: > "Corruptionite" took it all out of me and left me a weak, unwary, hulk; unable to see past the "false facade" of "own characteristics." Yes, for awhile my "super-vision" was cut-off and I had been left face to face with that dastardly deluding "dhammas- view." ------------------------------- But now you can use your super-vision to see things in the suttas that other people cannot see, isn't that right? I'll bet you can see instructions for formal vipassana meditation! I'll bet you can see where the sutas say, "If you are distracted by a pain, or an itch, turn your attention to that distraction until it fades away, and then return to your meditation object." That's an all-time favourite, and I am so glad you will finally be able to locate it for us *in the suttas!* --------------------------------------- SM: > But I have emerged. I have escaped the insidious influence of "corruptionite" by a duel three-fold process of purification -- 1) See no dhammas, 2) hear no dhammas, 3) speak no dhammas (in affirmation) 4) Insightfully see conditions as empty of "own characteristics," 5) Insightfully hear conditions as empty of "own characteristics," 6) Insightfully speak conditions as empty of "own characteristics." ---------------------------------------- Hooray for the new, super-commentaries! I have no idea what they mean, but that's only because I am not Sutta-man. ----------------------------------------------- Conditions-vision yields a vision of emptiness and insubstantiality. Where seldom is heard ... a discouraging word ... like "dhammas," "ultimate," or "its own." Home, home on the range.... (you get the idea) ----------------------------------------------- I think so. An itch or a pain - or a coffee cup - can be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. Is that right? Ken H PS: How? #86022 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Regarding: H: "...This is an aspect of what I mean when I say that reality is seamless. At the same time, however, what is present now (at any 'now') is distinguishable from what was, and phenomena are distinguishable from each other. Inseparability doesn't imply identity. There was a brief period for me, just once, when sense of personal self and also the sense of separateness of 'things' both disappeared, though sights, sounds, emotions etc, each as 'the experienced quality of the moment,' i.e., as so-called object of consciousness, were (namelessly) distinguishable. This was an experience of seamlessness, yet everything was still there as an aspect of reality and not coalescing into an amorphous unity. The state was so shockingly different, so 'other,' so strange, with no anchor - nothing at all to hold onto, that a terrible fear arose that overcame the state and finally ended it. Too bad that I was unprepared." H: "...Actually, I didn't expect anyone to comment on my personal experience as such. I put it forward only as an instance of the experience of seamlessness (or inseparability) and the experience of distinguishability of phenomena as not being incompatible." Scott: I think it unreasonable to imagine that a 'personal experience' posted on the open forum should be immune from comment. If this is being used as evidence to back up some point or other, then it is open to comment. If you don't expect comment, you either think the experience is not worthy of comment due to its ordinariness (which I doubt) or, you think it is so inherently special and sacred that it will speak for itself, convincing the reader simply due to his or her awe of such an Event. There is a lot of talk about having to 'experience' the Dhamma so it is incumbent on readers here to assess any 'experience' so communicated. Howard: "You might consider interdependent origination." Scott: What's with the spin on Dependent Origination? 'Interdependent'? Howard: "No. Ive experirnced jhana. This was not jhana." Scott: I may be mistaken, but I recall, when push came to shove a number of months ago, that all the 'meditators' to a man made admissions to the effect that none had actually experienced jhaana, you included. Are you suggesting otherwise now? Howard: "I believe that had I not reacted with fear, this could have developed further into an awakening. But I ran from the experience, and it didn't lead to what would have been really useful. The reason for fear, I should think, would be obvious. All sense of personal identity was gone - the ground was sewpt out from under my feet. (I have no doubt you'll characterize that as a disassocative state. Whatever! ;-)" Scott: 'Dissociative', actually. But no, I hadn't thought of the experience in that way. I'd appreciate it if you would please explain your use of the term 'awakening'. I am not familiar with this concept, at least in the context of the Theravada tradition. Is this some sort of hybridized notion - a bit of Zen perhaps? And no, the 'reason for fear' is not obvious. It is evidence, for me, that you are not dealing with a state that in any way resembles the arising of the Path - the only sort of relevant transformative arising I'm aware of from within the Theravada tradition. Since the Path would arise subsequent to the appropriate level of development, it would not in any way ever be accompanied by 'fear'. Nor would there be some inexplicable abortive arising of the Path - an arising to be spoiled by 'someone's fear' since, there is no 'someone'. I think that the whole idea that if one isn't ready for an 'awakening' one will be scared off if an awakening starts to happen is A Great Big Old Wive's Tale or Pop-Buddhist Urban Myth. Howard: "Without grounding in the jhanas, fear is a common reaction. This is well known. Ayya Khema wrote of it, for example..." Scott: Who is Ayya Khema? Fear is a common reaction everywhere, period. I fail to see the importance of this. Can you offer a quote for my consideration? Ayya Khema's or a sutta or commentarial? Fear is a common reaction to what? And what does a 'grounding in jhaanas' have to do with it? You've already said that the experience in question wasn't jhaana. How does jhaana relate to this experience? How might a grounding in jhaana have improved the reaction? This might be clear once you give your theory of 'awakening' because it seems all muddled and imprecise to me at this point. H: "In any case, I don't accept your analysis that the presence of fear is evidence that this was not a useful state. The fear arose because of lack of adequate prior cultivation, and it put an end to what otherwise might have been really worthwhile. The fear wasn't part of the experience - it's arising ended the experience." Scott: What was it that was happening then? What was going to be 'useful' about it? If it was so potentially 'useful' what was so scarey about it? I find this quite imprecise due to the impossibility of using something so subjective as a man's private experience and his own interpretation of it to make a point that others are supposed to take seriously. This is like having to believe someone's testimonial. I don't know what this aborted 'awakening' was but I remain unconvinced that this experience can stand as evidence for anything. I hope you can continue this dialogue, Howard. I'd think that it has some relevance. Sincerely, Scott. #86023 From: han tun Date: Thu May 22, 2008 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (159) hantun1 Dear Sarah, I like your post, and I won’t go into detail, but I will say that I agree with all you have written and I really appreciate it. You wrote: “Take care, Han and let us know how you're getting on.â€? I will be getting on well, Sarah. Thank you very much for your kind concern. Respectfully, Han #86024 From: han tun Date: Thu May 22, 2008 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (159) hantun1 Dear Nina, First of all I wish to express my gratitude to you for taking so much trouble to write a long and very comprehensive post. I know that you always write short messages. This shows your cetanaa towards me. Thank you very much. My question was based on the following passage from Satipatthaana sutta. Quote: ["There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself.] End Quote. And my question was at what stage in the above passage, the satipa.t.thaana arises? -------------------- Han: Your response was an excellent explanation of the above passage. But I did not find the specific answer to my question – at what stage in the above passage the satipa.t.thaana arises? But there were clues in your post from which I can draw the conclusions. Your explanations dealt largely with the third paragraph of the passage I have quoted. Soma Thera in his book on The Way of Mindfulness also gave similar explanations based on the Commentary. The third paragraph is mentioned at the end of each chapter of Satipatthaana sutta, and it has a separate sub-heading of [Insight] in the book on A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaaya by Bhikkhu ~Naanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. Therefore, I conclude that when the worker in respiration contemplates according to the third paragraph of the passage I have quoted, the satipa.t.thaana arises. As regards the second paragraph of the passage I have quoted, if the worker in respiration has naama ruupa pariccheda ~naana and paccaya pariggaha ~naana (the two requisite ~naanas before the ten vipassanaa ~naanas), the satipa.t.thaana will arise with the second paragraph as well. You had also remarked that “Already knowing the rupa, tangible object, conditioned by citta, presupposes pa~n~naa.â€? Respectfully, Han #86025 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 7:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? scottduncan2 Dear TG: TG: "You really 'nailed it' here. I think basically all we have to do is understand this and we're home free. :-)" Scott: I agree. I most highly recommend my Very Brilliant Theory and eagerly await the Joy which will surely accompany the experience of any and all who are Smart Enough to Totally Agree with me. And I wrote it all, quite thoughtlessly, in less than 30 seconds!! Behold again: ME: "Well, yes and no, because 'words' are real and to think of words as language components, and then to type them out, really quickly, of course turns them into visible object, and so you see that they started out as concept and became anti-concept by virtue of having been reified, maintained now-as-entity through a flowing process of identity-matter conditionalisation and since we see them, the visible word is anti-concept and since to be against something is to be for it, the whole thing is-and-isn't. This whole paragraph, for example is words now but wasn't before it was written because it was ultimately existing in the concept-stage having bypassed the idea-stage altogether, due to the essential wordness of pre-paragraphical wordic realities. See?" Scott: The above is so Brilliantly Hyper-Idiosyncratic!!! Sincerely, Scott. #86026 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta-Man TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/22/2008 6:42:59 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I think so. An itch or a pain - or a coffee cup - can be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. Is that right? Ken H PS: How? ........................................ Hi Ken H. This knowledge is not for those who are digging in for aeons of ignorance before even hoping for enlightenment. This knowledge is for those who are striving to for enlightenment...dare I say it....even in this lifetime! But stay tuned....Sutta-Man may inadvertently spill the beans and perhaps you may trip on them and fall into the right conditions! S-M #86027 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Scott It is indeed a masterpiece! It gets better every time I read it. 30 seconds? You must be quite the typist! Obviously these thoughts are so clearly formed in your mind that you are "one" with them. We can all learn from this. Keep up the great work! TG In a message dated 5/22/2008 8:10:17 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: ME: "Well, yes and no, because 'words' are real and to think of words as language components, and then to type them out, really quickly, of course turns them into visible object, and so you see that they started out as concept and became anti-concept by virtue of having been reified, maintained now-as-entity through a flowing process of identity-matter conditionalisation and since we see them, the visible word is anti-concept and since to be against something is to be for it, the whole thing is-and-isn't. This whole paragraph, for example is words now but wasn't before it was written because it was ultimately existing in the concept-stage having bypassed the idea-stage altogether, due to the essential wordness of pre-paragraphical wordic realities. See?" Scott: The above is so Brilliantly Hyper-IdiosyncraticSco Sincerely, Scott. #86028 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 8:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? scottduncan2 Dear TG, ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #86029 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 22, 2008 8:15 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,264 Vism.XVII,265 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 264. Another hears or conjectures that sense desires come to still greater perfection in the fine-material and immaterial kinds of becoming, and through sense-desire clinging he produces the fine-material and immaterial attainments, and in virtue of his attainments he is reborn in the fine-material or immaterial Brahmaa-world. The kamma that is the cause of his rebirth there is kamma-process becoming. The aggregates generated by the kamma are rebirth-process becoming. But percipient, non-percipient, neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient, one-constituent, four-constituent, and five-constituent kinds of becoming are included in that, too. Thus sense-desire clinging is a condition for fine-material and immaterial becoming with its analysis and its synthesis. 265. Another clings to the annihilation view thus: 'This self comes to be entirely cut off when it is cut off in the fortunate states of the sense sphere, or in the fine-material or immaterial kinds of becoming', and he performs kamma to achieve that. His kamma is kamma-process becoming. The aggregates generated by the kamma are rebirth-process becoming. But the percipient, etc., kinds of becoming are included in that too. So [false-] view clinging is a condition for all three, namely, for the sense-desire, fine-material, and immaterial kinds of becoming with their analysis and their synthesis. *********************** 264. aparo ``ruupaaruupabhavesu tato samiddhataraa kaamaa´´ti sutvaa parikappetvaa vaa kaamupaadaanavaseneva ruupaaruupasamaapattiyo nibbattetvaa samaapattibalena ruupaaruupabrahmaloke upapajjati. tatraassa upapattihetubhuuta.m kamma.m kammabhavo. kammaabhinibbattaa khandhaa upapattibhavo. sa~n~naa-asa~n~naa-nevasa~n~naanaasa~n~naa-eka-catu-pa~ncavokaarabhavaa pana tadantogadhaa eva. iti kaamupaadaana.m sappabhedaana.m saantogadhaana.m ruupaaruupabhavaanampi paccayo hoti. 265. aparo ``aya.m attaa naama kaamaavacarasampattibhave vaa ruupaaruupabhavaana.m vaa a~n~natarasmi.m ucchinne suucchinno hotii''ti ucchedadi.t.thi.m upaadaaya tadupaga.m kamma.m karoti, tassa ta.m kamma.m kammabhavo. kammaabhinibbattaa khandhaa upapattibhavo. sa~n~naabhavaadayo pana tadantogadhaa eva. iti di.t.thupaadaana.m sappabhedaana.m saantogadhaana.m ti.n.nampi kaamaruupaaruupabhavaana.m paccayo hoti. #86030 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 9:04 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,264 Vism.XVII,265 nichiconn PoP p.691 Another man, hearing or imagining, that greater than that {i.e. among the devas and men} is the fulfilment in the becomings of matter and non-matter by means of the grasping of sense-desires, and through the strength of his attainments is reborn in the Brahmaa world of matter and of non-matter. The karma which is the condition of his rebirth there is the becoming of karma; the aggregates which produce the karma are the becoming of rebirth. And the becomings of perception, non-perception, neither perception nor non-perception, and of one, four, or five constituents are included in that becoming. Thus is the grasping of sense-desires the cause of the becomings of matter and non-matter, together with their different kinds and the included states. Another man clings to the heresy of annihilation: viz., that what is known as the self is annihilated, completely annihilated in the becoming of attainments in a world of sense or in one or other of the becomings of matter and non-matter, and does deeds which lead thereto. His deeds constitute the becoming of karma; the aggregates which produce the karma are the becoming of rebirth, and the becomings of perception and so on are included therein. Thus is the grasping of views the cause of the three becomings of sense-desires, matter and non-matter, together with their different kinds and the included states. #86031 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 8:06 pm Subject: Overview of KS 1: Background buddhatrue Hi All (especiall Nina and Ven. P), Nina has written to me that I don't understand K. Sujin and Ven. P has suggested that my criticism of KS will stunt my spiritual growth. So, I have decided to begin an overview series of KS, what she teaches, and why it is wrong and not in line with the entire Dhamma: From "Taking Refuge in Buddhism" by K. Sujin: "I was born in Ubonrajadhani, but I had my education in Saint MaryХs school in Bangkok. I lived during my childhood in Bangkok until I finished the sixth class of the Secondary School. After that I passed the entrance examination to a school of preparatory education for Chulalongkorn University. Then I enlisted at that University and studied there until the second year. However, I did not finish my study there. Since I often missed lectures about important subjects and did not study regularly, I failed twice my examinations and finally had to leave the University... Interpreter: Where did you first study the Dhamma? Sujin: I started with the study of the Abhidhamma. I came across an announcement in the newspaper the ÒBangkok WorldÓ, explaining that the Buddhist Association had started classes for the study of Buddhism and thereupon I began to study with Achariya Neb Mahniranan and with others who were members of an association of teachers of Dhamma. I mostly studied in the class of Achriya Neb. At that time I was still working, but only half a day, and the rest of the day I spent reviewing what I had learnt from the Abhidhamma teaching on Sunday. ...When I had studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years, Achriya Neb asked me to give lectures on the Dhamma in the National Cultural Institute and also in the womenÕs prison. Whenever Achariya Neb wanted me to do something for the propagation of Buddhism I did it to my best ability. When Achariya Neb founded in 1963 the Research Centre on Buddhism and the Society of Spiritual Aid I lectured there as well." James: What I read here is that K. Sujin flunked out of college, studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years, and then instantly became a Dhamma teacher. I don't believe that those are sufficient qualifications to become a Dhamma teacher. First, anyone who flunks out of college is not very dedicated to study or to hard work. A quality education is important to every Buddhist, not to mention every Buddhist teacher. Second, she only studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years before she became a Dhamma teacher. Is that really enough time to learn the Dhamma? I seriously doubt it. Third, she studied the Abhidhamma only before she started teaching. She studied the suttas and other texts later as translations became available. So, she is one-sided in her approach to the Dhamma. She places far more emphasis on the Abhidhamma then anything else. This makes sense due to her background and conditioning. So, K. Sujin has a lopsided approach to the Dhamma due to her background. I have nothing against K. Sujin as a person. I am sure that she is very nice and it is commendable that she is so dedicated to the Dhamma. But, I don't believe her background makes her a qualified Dhamma teacher. To be continued.... Metta, James #86032 From: "colette" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 9:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? ksheri3 Dear Scott, I was thinking of that exact same analysis today but it was the first time I began looking at it so I really don't have much to put forth other than there is a connection here but luckily we know how many times I've entered the home page and how many, if any, posts I've read, so the true specialists in this esoteric area can be certain, as I am, that something is happening. I was going to mention it earlier but got sidetracked. I've had this type of physical and intuitional (psychic) sensation several times before in my practices. It's almost as if the movie THE MATRIX was in play since I know something has changed I just can't put my finger on the exact change and how it's changed. I've gotta wait to "after the fact", you know, wait til the crime has been commited before I can fully experience and know what has changed. > example is words now but wasn't before it was written because it was > ultimately existing in the concept-stage having bypassed the > idea-stage altogether, due to the essential wordness of > pre-paragraphical wordic realities. See?" > colette: that process you've stated has promise. How can it bypass the idea-stage and go directly to the concept-stage? The last part of that sentence makes no sense to me at all, no familiar with the words, definitions, and concepts of the definitions and words. Maybe try to consider "the unmanifest". What I'd eventually be getting to is something very dangerous if you believe in the Yogacara and/or Mind-Only School of Buddhism. Although it may sound like hocus pocus it can be scientifically documented and scientifically reduced to just a process. But no matter how much we really on the false security of being able to reduce something so complex and mystical as the mind, to a process found in any "do-it-yourself" manual or Popular Mechanics, or even one of those Chilton engine books, manuals, we will still not be able to identify and define many of the obvious building blocks which we certainly will need to actually make the "users manual" work properly. I don't entirely agree with you although you seem to be in the market for some pats on the back (don't worry, I may be excellent with knives, daggers, etc, but stabbing coleagues in the back is simply far too childish for me) I just hope it's not your ego doing the begging for positive support since we all know full well how false and delusionary the ego, every ego, is and can be. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear TG: > > TG: "You really 'nailed it' here. I think basically all we have to do > is understand this and we're home free. :-)" > > Scott: I agree. I most highly recommend my Very Brilliant Theory and > eagerly await the Joy which will surely accompany the experience of > any and all who are Smart Enough to Totally Agree with me. And I > wrote it all, quite thoughtlessly, in less than 30 seconds!! Behold > again: <....> #86033 From: "colette" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 4:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death, ksheri3 Hi Jon, > > Well, I wasn't taking it quite so far. Just a bit of mayhem here and > there, I thought, knowing Herman ;-)) > colette: there you have it! You know Herman, while I am an acquaintence of his and he of mine but we can only know each other "at a distance". This happens to me EVERYWHERE since I can only go on the good nature that I, for some unknown reason, cannot view people other than possessing. When I started in WEstern esoteric sites I had to make it clear that "I cannot see evil". <....> -------------------------------------- > Sorry that we're not going to have the benefit of your deconstruction of > Herman's post. colette: whatever do you mean? I certainly place complete confidence and faith in the practices I perform in my daily behavior, every day since 1978, since whatever it is that I'm in contact with and in conversation with, out there, some where in the cosmos, has this uncanny ability to show me things that I would never have had the ability to see on my own. Here we get into those damned creationists who are sooooooooooo "conditioned" by their own ego that it is such a disgusting, sickening, sight BECAUSE they demand that I give their greedy, give their sloth, give their envy, give their jealousy, give their..., you name it, they demand that through my testimony of the actual existance of their "creationist diety" will then free me from this life, this existance, of servitude, poverty, and suffering. WHAT? Since finding Buddhism and having the ability to study Buddhism, I can clearly say, and am overjoyed to say, WHAT SUTTA ARE YOU READING that gives you the idea that everything is pre-arranged and that you or I or anybody never had any free will to make any choices in our lives? I have found interest in parabhava because of the truths it pronounces, what little I've had the time to google and study parabhava. I also know that Herman, through his kindness and acceptance, has unlocked things that I have no ability to formulate so fast BECAUSE the information and enlightenment that comes to me happens soooooo fast that I could never be able to type that fast to even hope to get a tiny portion of the Pravda down on paper or disc (see Rabbi Isaac Luria and his enlightenment to the kabbalah) I added Luria because the process is the same: I learned through a Montesory or On The Job form of training back in 1980 and that behavior, that process has stuck with me which means and clearly states that if I'm studying Judeaism or Buddhism the flow of information will always remain the same, much like, as students on the Path of Alchemy etc, learn that "magicians cannot destroy or create matter, we can only reconfigure it" which clearly shows the obvious designation of the Magician, in tarot decks of cards, as the Juggler, meaning that it's gotta go somewhere, it just don't disappear. Here we find the hand prints in certain Tibetan caves where monks have found the ability to place their hands inprinted into the rock, it's nothing but a change of configuration. I would be happy to display what I find, when the time comes. I know that when I display it that which is displayed will certainly be miss- understood and perverted since I do not hold an economic status and I am at the whims of society as to whether I live or die, whether I live in poverty or wealth, whether I eat or starve, etc. In fact, I was sitting and reading before I came into the library tonight and couldn't figure out where to put some quotes that I wanted to use. I know that I wanted to tell Herman: "The fourth auspicious coincidence is the convergence of a proper audience of bodhisattvas, dakas, and dakinis -- those who are advanced on the path." --------------------------------- But thanks for the comments below, anyway. > > > To put an end to my "butting in" I'll say: > > > > "Certainly there is no self-existence (svabhava) of existing things > > in conditioning causes, etc; > > And if no self-existence exists, neither does 'other-existence" > > (parabhava)." > > > > I can't wait to dig deep into parabhava but things take time. > > > > Looking forward to hearing more about it (if relevant to the discussions > here). colette: are you suggesting that nirvana is not samsara? Are you suggesting that samsara is not nirvana? In the study I'm practicing, I have lots and lots of newly found interest to aleviate my ignorance in those man made concepts called TIME and SPACE. Parabhava is a "downfall" therefore the few subject lines I caught mentioning "...death..." would certainly have a relevancy, esspecially since our audience tends to be from the WEstern psychological herd and therefore is programmed, conditioned, by this supposed "Fall" where they place the blame not on themselves but on an exterior entity which at first they go with the Users Manual by labeling, Name & Form, Satan, but then they begin to question their past actions of pointing their accusing finger and begin to rationalize Adam & Eve where we find they take the easiest route, like the initially did by pointing the finger saying "evil empire" and/or SAtan then they re-evaluate their actions which have already created Karma, and they look for an actual tangible being to blame, in the form of Women which leads to Eve where they can say that prostitution is bad, until they sign the contract and receive payment for actions performed, then prostitution is good. These WEsterners, I mean, come on, when are they ever gonna stop flip-flopping, waffling, on their descisions? I'll be in touch, naturally! toodles, colette #86034 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 8:54 pm Subject: To Kevatta * rwijayaratne <....> ________________________________ Taken from AccessToInsight.org1 Translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu TO KEVATTA - I Dîgha Nikâya 11 - Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta2 I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Nalanda in Pavarika's mango grove. Then Kevatta the householder approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, this Nalanda is powerful, both prosperous and populous, filled with people who have faith in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One were to direct a monk to display a miracle of psychic power from his superior human state so that Nalanda would to an even greater extent have faith in the Blessed One."   When this was said, the Blessed One said to Kevatta the householder, "Kevatta, I don't teach the monks in this way: 'Come, monks, display a miracle of psychic power to the lay people clad in white.'"   A second time... A third time, Kevatta the householder said to the Blessed One: "I won't argue with the Blessed One, but I tell you: Lord, this Nalanda is powerful, both prosperous and populous, filled with people who have faith in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One were to direct a monk to display a miracle of psychic power from his superior human state so that Nalanda would to an even greater extent have faith in the Blessed One."   A third time, the Blessed One said to Kevatta the householder, "Kevatta, I don't teach the monks in this way: 'Come, monks, display a miracle of psychic power to the lay people clad in white.'   "Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of instruction. Explanation:   The lay-person Kevatta requests the Lord Buddha to direct his monks to display their psychic powers in order for the lay people of the town of Nalanda to have greater confidence in the Lord Buddha. The Lord Buddha replies that he does not instruct his monks to display their psychic powers to the lay public. The Miracle of Psychic Power"And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.   "Then someone who has faith and conviction in him sees him wielding manifold psychic powers... exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. He reports this to someone who has no faith and no conviction, telling him, 'Isn't it awesome. Isn't it astounding, how great the power, how great the prowess of this contemplative. Just now I saw him wielding manifold psychic powers... exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.'   "Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Gandhari charm by which the monk wielded manifold psychic powers... exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.' What do you think, Kevatta — isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?"   "Yes, lord, that's just what he would say."   "Seeing this drawback to the miracle of psychic power, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power. Explanation: The Lord Buddha explains the various psychic powers that a monk can have, viz. a monk becomes many (copies of himself), and then becomes one again, he vanishes and re-appears, goes through walls, ramparts and mountains, dives in and out of earth, walks on water, flies through the air, with his hand tocuhes and strokes the sun and the moon(!), and can reach even as far as the Brahma divine worlds. He says that someone who has conviction/confidence in the Lord Buddha would be astounded by such powers; however someone who does not have conviction/confidence in the Lord Buddha could say that these powers were wielded by using a charm (called Gandhari), and seeing this risk the Lord Buddha was fearful of, ashamed of and was disgusted with the miracle of psychic power. The Miracle of Telepathy (Mind Reading)"And what is the miracle of telepathy? There is the case where a monk reads the minds, the mental events, the thoughts, the ponderings of other beings, other individuals, [saying,] 'Such is your thinking, here is where your thinking is, thus is your mind.'   "Then someone who has faith and conviction in him sees him reading the minds... of other beings... He reports this to someone who has no faith and no conviction, telling him, 'Isn't it awesome. Isn't it astounding, how great the power, how great the prowess of this contemplative. Just now I saw him reading the minds... of other beings...'   "Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Manika charm by which the monk read the minds... of other beings...' What do you think, Kevatta — isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?"   "Yes, lord, that's just what he would say."   "Seeing this drawback to the miracle of telepathy, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of telepathy. Explanation: The Lord Buddha explains the telepathic (mind reading) power that a monk can have, viz. a monk reads the minds, mental events, thoughts and mental ponderings of other beings and is able to say 'You thought in such a way, this is where your thinking is upto now, this is the way your mind is.' He says that someone who has conviction/confidence in the Lord Buddha would be astounded by such powers; however someone who does not have conviction/confidence in the Lord Buddha could say that these powers were wielded by using a charm (called Manika), and seeing this risk the Lord Buddha was fearful of, ashamed of and was disgusted with the miracle of telepathy. The Miracle of Instruction"And what is the miracle of instruction? There is the case where a monk gives instruction in this way: 'Direct your thought in this way, don't direct it in that. Attend to things in this way, don't attend to them in that. Let go of this, enter and remain in that.' This, Kevatta, is called the miracle of instruction. Explanation: The Lord Buddha explains the miracle of instruction, where a monk instructs another saying direct your thinking in this (positive) way and not in that (negative) way, do things in this (positive) way and not in that (negative) way, let go of this (negative thing) and become established in that (positive thing). Commentary: Of the three miracles, the Lord Buddha held the miracle of instruction in high regard as it allows for the instruction and the training of others to attain Nibbâna to and end suffering/stress/unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). The miracles of psychic power and telepathy can be viewed as "cheap tricks" by others so was not held in high regard by the Lord Buddha. Notes1. More suttas from AccessToInsight.org can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html 2. This sutta can be found in full here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html <....> #86035 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 22, 2008 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background kenhowardau Hi James, Here we go again: you launch a personal attack on K Sujin until someone says, 'Never mind that, just show us where KS contradicts the Dhamma (as it is found in the ancient texts)." And so you tell us KS contradicts the Satipatthana Sutta and the Visuddhimaggga where they say we should watch our feet going up and down while we walk. Then someone demonstrates that the texts tell us nothing of the sort. And they quote the ancient commentaries. So you change your plan of attack. You tell us K Sujin teaches in accordance with the ancient commentaries, *but* the ancient commentaries contradict the Tipitaka! Then someone shows you that the Abhidhamma contains the same teaching as the ancient commentaries. Again, you change your attack, and you tell us the Abhidhamma was a later text fraudulently added-on to the Bipitaka. Then someone shows you that the Abidhamma is taught expressly in some of the suttas. And - no prizes for guessing - you tell us that some of the suttas are forgeries. Then you go quiet for a while. So, I'll play along: Can we skip the personal background? Just tell us where K Sujin contradicts the Dhamma as it is found in the original Theravadin texts. TIA Ken H #86036 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? sarahprocter... Hi Alex (TG & all), First of all, realise that TG, Scott and I were having a little fun - don't take any of it too seriously. --- On Fri, 23/5/08, Alex wrote: > From: TGrand458@.. . > >NEW TG: Now, does right effort HAVE to be 'kusala' or could it be > 'wholesome' or 'skilful'? > ======== A: >Samma-Viriya is ALWAYS, ALWAYS skillful. That is why it has prefix SAMMA. If it had prefix "Miccha" or Moha (or whatever akusala term) then it would be unskilful. =============== S: OK.... I have no problem with the word skilful. I was just indicating that others have indicated some. To be honest, I really don't mind what terms are used and I don't call myself 'an Abhidhammika':-). =============== >S: Lots of good terms to discuss. > > First of all, right effort doesn't HAVE to be kusala! >>> =============== A: >Always a kusala because it is SAMMA. ============== S: Again this is fine, but as I went on to say, in the case of an arahant, there are no kusala cittas or cetasikas. =============== A: >Dear Sarah, Arahant is ASEKHA so evil unwholesome states no longer assail or need to be removed, and good qualities don't need to be developed. ============ S: I agree that the functions of right effort regarding unwholesome states no longer apply. The viriya (effort) arising in the javana processes of an arahant is still samma, right (effort). It's a sobhana (beautiful) cetasika arising with all the kusala cittas of a non-arhant and with the javana kiriya cittas of the arahant. The right effort can be of different kinds and degrees and different aspects are stressed - it can be effort for dana, sila, samatha or vipassana. ============ A: >I know that it is wishful thinking to think that one can reach Nibbana through inaction... ============== S: I know it is wishful thinking to think that one can do anything. When kusala cittas arise, effort is there already. No 'one' to do anything further. If you look in CMA, at the table in ch.2, (table 2-2), you'll see that viriya arises with all cittas exluding the five sense-door adverting consciousness, the two sets of fivefold sense consciousness (seeing, hearing etc), receiving and investigating consciousness. (89-16 = 73). Metta, Sarah ========== #86037 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Metta, Ch 5, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, “One is dear to non-humans”, this is another benefit of the development of mettå. When there is chanda, desire for the development of kusala, we do not expect to be liked by human beings nor by non-humans, because we do not hope for the result of kusala, we do not hope for any benefit. When there is pure kusala one is dear to non-humans. “Devas guard one”, this is another benefit. When we develop mettå, kusala citta has as effect that we are dear to humans and non-humans and that devas guard us with mettå. The right cause brings its appropriate effect, and there is no need to wish for such result. “Neither fire, nor poison nor sword affects one”, this is another benefit. When there is pure kusala citta with mettå, it can protect us from dangers, even if we have not attained “access concentration” or jhåna. When someone develops calm with mettå as meditation subject and his kusala citta is of such degree of steadfastness that jhåna can be attained, he will not be affected by fire, poison or sword. “Even when one does not reach the highest, one will be reborn in the Brahmå world”, this is another benefit, which, as I shall explain, shows clearly that satipatthåna should be developed together with all the other kinds of kusala. When someone develops samatha with mettå as subject, and he can attain calm which is steadfast, and which is of the degree that the first jhåna can be reached, the result can be rebirth in the brahma-plane of the first jhåna. When higher stages of jhåna are attained, the result is rebirth in higher brahma-planes in accordance with the stage of jhåna which produces rebirth. However, the highest benefit which can be reached is, after the realisation of the four noble Truths at enlightenment, to attain the state of the arahat, the perfected one. Then there will be the end of rebirth. The text states that when one does not penetrate to the highest dhamma, that is, the state of the arahat, one will be reborn in the brahma-world. What is most important is the realisation of the noble Truths. This should be one’s goal. Therefore mettå should be developed together with satipatthåna and not merely for the sake of attaining calm to the degree of access concentration or jhåna. We should develop satipatthåna time and again in our daily life, and then the other kinds of kusala will also grow. As we read in the sutta, the Buddha also said that the person who, with mindfulness established, develops boundless mettå will realize the elimination of attachment and all other “fetters”. He will not harm any being while he develops mettå-citta, he will only be intent on what is wholesome. He has compassion for all beings, he is an excellent person with abundant merit. ******* Nina. #86038 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:39 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background buddhatrue Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > So, I'll play along: Can we skip the personal background? Just tell > us where K Sujin contradicts the Dhamma as it is found in the > original Theravadin texts. James: I will get to specific Dhamma teachings in later posts. This first post was entirely about KS's background. Granted, I have written many posts contradicting the teaching of KS, but it was always in response to someone else's post. This is the first time I will be writing an independent series (which I probably should have done long ago). As source material I will only be using the books that KS has written, not what others have written about her. And, I don't think that we should skip her personal background. It is very important to consider to get an overall view of KS's teaching. Remember, conditions rule! Metta, James #86039 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 3:12 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nilovg Hi James, I am away from Sunday to Thursday and cannot react much to your posts. Op 23-mei-2008, om 5:06 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Whenever Achariya > Neb wanted me to do something for the propagation of Buddhism I did > it to my best ability. When Achariya Neb founded in 1963 the > Research Centre on Buddhism and the Society of Spiritual Aid I > lectured there as well." > > James: ...First, anyone who flunks > out of college is not very dedicated to study or to hard work. A > quality education is important to every Buddhist, not to mention > every Buddhist teacher. -------- N: People have different motivations not to finish a study. It has to do with one's interest too and one's circumstances of life. -------- > J: Second, she only studied the Abhidhamma for > two or three years before she became a Dhamma teacher. Is that > really enough time to learn the Dhamma? I seriously doubt it. -------- N: I remember that she told me that she did not see herself as a teacher, but a Dhamma friend. Others call her Achaan as a sign of respect and then she will not say anything. She wanted to help Achaan Neb, that was her motivation. She would not think of herself as a teacher. ------- > J: Third, she studied the Abhidhamma only before she started teaching. > She studied the suttas and other texts later as translations became > available. So, she is one-sided in her approach to the Dhamma. She > places far more emphasis on the Abhidhamma then anything else. This > makes sense due to her background and conditioning. So, K. Sujin > has a lopsided approach to the Dhamma due to her background. -------- N: People have different opinions about what to study first. I think that it is difficult to understand the Suttanta without the Abhidhamma. In her Thai lectures she quotes many, many suttas, but this does not stand out so much when one only listens to the English informal discussions as we have them on the audio. When I first met her, decades ago, I started to read all the suttas. I did not have any idea about what to study first. I never felt any dilemma, it would not occur to me. Nina. #86040 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/20 : > > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 5/19/2008 9:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Sure. I wonder why you would say that B cannot die, or be killed, > unless an appropriate prior kamma was commited by B? Would you say the > same about the opposite, that B cannot be born without an appropriate > prior kamma by B? > > > ============================ > Wouldn't you say it? Consider, for example, the sutta I copy at the end, > which, BTW, I take to pertain not only to lifetimes but to moment-by-moment > existence, just as I do dependent origination. > > > Cetanaa Sutta > Volition > > PTS: S ii 65 > CDB i 576 > The Pali title of this sutta is based on the PTS (Feer) edition. > > > ____________________________________ > > > _1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.wlsh.html#n-1) > [At Saavatthii the Blessed One said:] "Monks, what a man wills, what he > plans, what he dwells on forms the basis for the continuation of > consciousness._2_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.wlsh.html#n-2) > This basis being present, consciousness has a lodgment. Consciousness being > lodged there and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the > future, and from this renewed existence arise birth, decay-and-death, grief, > lamentation, suffering, sorrow and despair. Such is the uprising of this entire > mass of suffering. > "Even if a man does not will and plan, yet if he dwells on something this > forms a basis for the continuation of consciousness:... rebirth... takes > place... > "But if a man neither wills nor plans nor dwells on anything, no basis is > formed for the continuation of consciousness. This basis being absent, > consciousness has no lodgment. Consciousness not being lodged there and not growing, > no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and so birth, > decay-and-death, grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow and despair are destroyed. > Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering." > I appreciate the sutta you quoted, Howard. As far as I am concerned , it is one of the all time BIGGIES. However, in the context of where I am coming from, I do not think the sutta is relevant. Because I am talking about causation in the world, and you are talking causation in thought. These are certainly different areas of causation, and are not contradictory by any reading of the Suttas. Consider the following: AN 4:159 "This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge. The context of the Sutta is Ananda admonishing a nun who has sexual designs on him. Ananda's statement clearly has nothing to do with dependent origination of the mind, but everything with causation in the world. It would be quite absurd to think that a man and a woman having sex occurs because an unconceived being is willing it. Similarly, a knife slashing a throat has very real life-ending consequences, none of which depend in any way shape or form on how the sequence of events is thought about. Cheers Herman #86041 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 3:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background egberdina Hi James, 2008/5/23 buddhatrue : > Hi All (especiall Nina and Ven. P), > From "Taking Refuge in Buddhism" by K. Sujin: > > "I was born in Ubonrajadhani, but I had my education in Saint MaryÐ¥s > school in Bangkok. I lived during my childhood in Bangkok until I > finished the sixth class of the Secondary School. After that I > passed the entrance examination to a school of preparatory education > for Chulalongkorn University. Then I enlisted at that University and > studied there until the second year. However, I did not finish my > study there. Since I often missed lectures about important subjects > and did not study regularly, I failed twice my examinations and > finally had to leave the University... > > Interpreter: Where did you first study the Dhamma? > Sujin: I started with the study of the Abhidhamma. I came across an > announcement in the newspaper the Ã’Bangkok WorldÓ, explaining that > the Buddhist Association had started classes for the study of > Buddhism and thereupon I began to study with Achariya Neb Mahniranan > and with others who were members of an association of teachers of > Dhamma. I mostly studied in the class of Achriya Neb. At that time I > was still working, but only half a day, and the rest of the day I > spent reviewing what I had learnt from the Abhidhamma teaching on > Sunday. ...When I had studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years, > Achriya Neb asked me to give lectures on the Dhamma in the National > Cultural Institute and also in the womenÕs prison. Whenever Achariya > Neb wanted me to do something for the propagation of Buddhism I did > it to my best ability. When Achariya Neb founded in 1963 the > Research Centre on Buddhism and the Society of Spiritual Aid I > lectured there as well." > I am very glad that you wrote this. I am happy to read that K. Sujin acknowledges her own history. In that respect she is not a crackpot, unlike those of her followers who feel obliged to dress up their experience as being something other than what it was. Cheers Herman #86042 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? scottduncan2 Dear colette, Thanks for the reply. I hope you are well. c: "...I don't entirely agree with you although you seem to be in the market for some pats on the back (don't worry, I may be excellent with knives, daggers, etc, but stabbing coleagues in the back is simply far too childish for me) I just hope it's not your ego doing the begging for positive support since we all know full well how false and delusionary the ego, every ego, is and can be." Scott: I don't agree with myself. I was just fooling around with TG. We've been exchanging ironic caricatures of our own views, stabbing each other in the backs while smiling and winking. Sorry about the childishness, colette. I thought it was kinda fun though, in a childish way. I do very much agree with you that every ego is false and delusionary. c: "...there is a connection here but luckily we know how many times I've entered the home page and how many, if any, posts I've read, so the true specialists in this esoteric area can be certain, as I am, that something is happening...I know something has changed I just can't put my finger on the exact change and how it's changed." Scott: I think there's just a shift in the way in which the same old differences of opinion are being discussed. I noticed the change in the wind as well. I'm not clear what it means or where its going. I think its just the way things go on these sorts of ethereal spaces. Peace! Sincerely, Scott. #86043 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/22/2008 9:44:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard: "You might consider interdependent origination." Scott: What's with the spin on Dependent Origination? 'Interdependent'? ============================= It's a common translation. In some cases conditionality is one-way, but in others it is mutual. With metta, Howard P. S. Scott, why not just discuss things without combativeness as an add-on. there's no need to use 'spin' to exhibit disdain? Why not just ask what significance if any there might be to my writing "interdependent" instead of "dependent"? #86044 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/22/2008 9:44:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: I may be mistaken, but I recall, when push came to shove a number of months ago, that all the 'meditators' to a man made admissions to the effect that none had actually experienced jhaana, you included. Are you suggesting otherwise now? ============================= I never said that. In fact, I discussed before my slight acquaintance with jhanas. You are mistaken about me in that regard. Scott, I'm quickly tiring of this substitute for fruitful conversation. This constant face slapping isn't my idea of how to discuss the Dhamma. With metta, Howard #86045 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/22/2008 9:44:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: 'Dissociative', actually. But no, I hadn't thought of the experience in that way. I'd appreciate it if you would please explain your use of the term 'awakening'. I am not familiar with this concept, at least in the context of the Theravada tradition. Is this some sort of hybridized notion - a bit of Zen perhaps? ============================ I'm going to quit our discussion at this point, Scott. I suppose you've never encountered the Pali word 'bodhi', or you have but choose to ignore it. Frankly, I'm so wearied of your hostility to anything that doesn't harmonize with your fixed views, that I'm going to take a hiatus from conversing with you. I'll read the rest of your post, but provide no response. With metta, Howard #86046 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "I'm going to quit our discussion at this point, Scott..." Scott: Okay, Howard. Sincerely, Scott. #86047 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/18 Scott Duncan : > Dear Howard, > > I don't see what this has to do with anything, really, from a Dhamma > perspective. You must understand where I'm coming from, though. I > work everyday with people who are exploring their own psyches as > deeply as they can, all open to every sort of mental experience, every > sort of emotional experience, every sort of fantasy, every sort of > thought, every sort of construction, every sort of dream - what have > you, Howard - I've heard a lot. > > I've had a personal psychoanalysis as well, and have had some pretty > Heavy Experiences myself. These sorts of things, in my experience, > are entirely common to the human experience. If you are unfamiliar > with common introspection, and especially, if you have no context > (i.e. an ongoing psychotherapy context) in which to place these sorts > of experiences, then you are vulnerable. > Vulnerable to what, Scott? The very thing that has you in it's clutches? Perhaps this is the time to drum up a bit of courage, and seek out and persist in some contextlessness, and watch the dissipation of whatever is propping up this mighty and angry edifice, that sounds more like the rantings of the Old Testament righteous God of Judgment than a fellow traveller in search of peace. Cheers Herman #86048 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "Vulnerable to what, Scott? The very thing that has you in it's clutches? Perhaps this is the time to drum up a bit of courage, and seek out and persist in some contextlessness, and watch the dissipation of whatever is propping up this mighty and angry edifice, that sounds more like the rantings of the Old Testament righteous God of Judgment than a fellow traveller in search of peace." Scott: Just my opinions, Herman. I'm ignorable, eh. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #86049 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 1:38 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and James) - If this Ajahn Neb is the same person as the meditation teacher Ajahn Naeb who emphasized sitting with great immobility and seeing the pains that arise in the body and the aversive reaction to them, she is rather well known. Is this that same teacher? With metta, Howard #86050 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/23 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > H: "Vulnerable to what, Scott? The very thing that has you in it's > clutches? Perhaps this is the time to drum up a bit of courage, and > seek out and persist in some contextlessness, and watch the > dissipation of whatever is propping up this mighty and angry edifice, > that sounds more like the rantings of the Old Testament righteous God > of Judgment than a fellow traveller in search of peace." > > Scott: Just my opinions, Herman. I'm ignorable, eh. ;-) > I don't think you are ignorable. What you say is there to be read. And it is being read, by others. And at least some of those are reading anger in it. Are they wrong? Cheers Herman #86051 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/5/20 Jonothan Abbott : > Hi Herman > >> I wonder why you would say that B cannot die, or be killed, >> unless an appropriate prior kamma was commited by B? Would you say the >> same about the opposite, that B cannot be born without an appropriate >> prior kamma by B? >> > > When I said that B's death cannot occur unless the appropriate kamma has > been committed by B at some time in the past, I was referring to the > timing or manner and general circumstances of death, and not to the fact > of death per se. Death is of course an inevitable consequence of birth. > > Birth is likewise the inevitable successor of death, for all except the > arahant (he/she having gone beyond birth). Birth occurs at the moment > succeeding the moment of death (and so there is not quite the same > 'timing' issue as with death). > > I am of course merely stating matters learnt from book study or > listening to talks. No particular authenticity is being asserted ;-)). > > Hoping this clarifies. Does it answer your question(s)? > I accept that you are trying to answer my question(s), but I remain unsatisfied, which is no failing of yours. I originally read you to say that B cannot be killed, unless B has somehow intentionally participated in this. Did I read you correctly? Cheers Herman #86052 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:53 am Subject: Perfections Corner (161) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 continues: We read further in the "Dispeller of Delusion" with regard to the origin of dukkha that there is no other source of dukkha but craving; that it does not originate from any other cause, that it is not due to the will of a lord creator, etc. Dukkha does not come from a cause outside, but all dukkha comes from clinging to realities, from taking them for self or "me", and at such moments there is lobha, attachment, to this wrong view. If pa~n~naa comes to know the truth of non-self, if it is able to eliminate the view that naama and ruupa are self, and if it understands the characteristics of realities as they truly are, dukkha can decrease. There will be less dukkha even when pa~n~naa is still of the level of investigating and considering the realities that are appearing, and begins to understand them as not self, not mine. However, only when the stage of enlightenment of the streamwinner, sotaapanna, has been attained, the wrong view that takes realities for self and all other kinds of wrong view are completely eradicated. So long as one has not become a sotaapanna one takes realities for self, and if wrong view is firmly engrained dukkha will increase. Before pa~n~naa can become accomplished to the degree of attaining the different stages of insight knowledge, we should begin to understand that our life evolves in accordance with kamma and that there is no escape from the conditions for the arising of citta, cetasika and ruupa. We should have a firm understanding of kamma and the factors which are the conditions for life to evolve each day, bound up as it is with joy and sorrow. We are sometimes delighted and thrilled, and sometimes depressed or afraid; at times our expectations come true, at times we are disappointed, there are pleasant and unpleasant events. There are birth, old age, sickness and death. We live in ignorance, but when pa~n~naa arises in daily life, it is able to consider the characteristics of realities and to understand them as not a being, a person or self, but only realities which arise because of their own conditions. Naama, the element which experiences, arises all the time in our life. We are so used to experiencing objects that we do not realize, when we see at this moment, that seeing is a reality which experiences, or when sound appears and we are hearing at this moment, that hearing is a reality which experiences. Satipa.t.thaana is awareness of the dhammas which are real in our daily life, and through satipa.t.thaana pa~n~naa can further develop to the degree of realizing the stages of insight. When the khandha of ruupa appears, sati can be mindful of it. When the khandha of consciousness appears, which experiences an object through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door, sati can be mindful. However, there should be awareness and understanding also of the khandhas of feeling, of remembrance (sa~n~naa) and formations (sa'nkhaarakkhandha). If there is no understanding of all five khandhas, defilements cannot be eradicated. If satipa.t.thaana does not arise in our daily life, and pa~n~naa does not investigate the characteristic of each reality that appears, it is impossible to eliminate wrong view. When remembrance or perception arises, or when there are conditions for liking or for detesting something, for wholesome thinking or for evil thinking, pa~n~naa can realize that all these phenomena are truly not self. They are realities each with their own characteristic. ..to be continued, connie #86053 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...And at least some of those are reading anger in it. Are they wrong?" Scott: Who could say? If one reads anger into something its likely their own so then they would be right about anger, since they are reading it, but the question then becomes, 'Whose anger?' In checking myself I don't note any anger. Sincerely, Scott. #86054 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 7:32 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nilovg Hi Howard, Op 23-mei-2008, om 14:38 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > If this Ajahn Neb is the same person as the meditation teacher Ajahn > Naeb who emphasized sitting with great immobility and seeing the > pains that > arise in the body and the aversive reaction to them, she is rather > well known. Is > this that same teacher? ----- N: Yes. As you know Kh Sujin went a different way as to the practice, but she was always grateful for the Abhidhamma she learnt from A. Naeb. She continued visiting her and was with her when she was dying. Nina. #86055 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 8:01 am Subject: What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hello all, in CMA it says that citta can be classified in 3 ways: as an agent, an instrument or as an activity. Question: What EXACTLY is consciousness (citta) as an activity? Thanks. Best Wishes, Alex #86056 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 8:29 am Subject: Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination truth_aerator Dear Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: Hi Alex, The idea that one could have acted differently under the same circumstances is identical to the idea of free will. Two thoughts on the matter follow below: 1] The proposition is entirely untestable. In other words, it is always possible to say it, but never possible to realise it. It is entirely metaphysical ie in the realm of: I was, I am, I will be. >>>>>> Th statement is illogical. It is a logical fallacy actually, called: "retrospective determinism". There is absolutely not a grain of proof that only one choice&action was possible. The fact is, often we are in such position when we can physically act in different ways. Example: Lets say John say to Jack "turn and face any direction you want or don't want". Jack can physically turn to the right or to the left, face this or that direction. Another more close example to our work: If someone angers Jack, Jack can either fight back (akusala) or not (not akusala). It would be illogical to state that Jack has only ONE choice, Jack can have a number (maybe even many) of choices, maybe even to send Metta (kusala) ! :) Best wishes, Alex #86057 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/23/2008 11:29:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: Hi Alex, The idea that one could have acted differently under the same circumstances is identical to the idea of free will. Two thoughts on the matter follow below: 1] The proposition is entirely untestable. In other words, it is always possible to say it, but never possible to realise it. It is entirely metaphysical ie in the realm of: I was, I am, I will be. >>>>>> Th statement is illogical. It is a logical fallacy actually, called: "retrospective determinism". There is absolutely not a grain of proof that only one choice&action was possible. The fact is, often we are in such position when we can physically act in different ways. Example: Lets say John say to Jack "turn and face any direction you want or don't want". Jack can physically turn to the right or to the left, face this or that direction. Another more close example to our work: If someone angers Jack, Jack can either fight back (akusala) or not (not akusala). It would be illogical to state that Jack has only ONE choice, Jack can have a number (maybe even many) of choices, maybe even to send Metta (kusala) ! :) Best wishes, Alex ============================= But do you believe, Alex, that the choice that was made occurred without condition? I do not. With metta, Howard #86058 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 8:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ============================= > But do you believe, Alex, that the choice that was made occurred without condition? I do not. > > With metta, > Howard Everything is conditioned (in some shape or form) but it doesn't follow that only ONE response is possible. We may have (almost) infinite storehouse of conditions and it is up to whatever "wisdom" there is to act in this or that way. We aren't talking about 2 bodies interacting with 3 or so variables each. When there are many factors involved (and within each person there are MANY), then the ordinary rules of conditionality are not as mechanistic as some people believe. The more factors are involved, the more degrees of freedom there is. Best wishes, Alex #86059 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 4:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 1: Background TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 2:44:54 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: And, I don't think that we should skip her personal background. It is very important to consider to get an overall view of KS's teaching. Remember, conditions rule! Metta, James ..................................... Great Point on conditions! TG #86060 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 4:53 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 4:12:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: People have different opinions about what to study first. I think that it is difficult to understand the Suttanta without the Abhidhamma. In her Thai lectures she quotes many, many suttas, but this does not stand out so much when one only listens to the English informal discussions as we have them on the audio. When I first met her, decades ago, I started to read all the suttas. I did not have any idea about what to study first. I never felt any dilemma, it would not occur to me. Nina. ................................................ Hi Nina, James, All If you are going to believe that Abhidhamma is the proper presentation, and use Suttas to back up the Abjhidhamma, then it makes sense that you'd think that Abhidhamma needs to be studied first. That way, the mind is inculcated in Abhidhamma style thought and the Suttas are just "picked over" and used as Abhidhamma support. Of course I think this is a completely backwards approach. And so much of the Suttas are ignored and turned a blind eye toward when the contradictions, with some of the broad overview claims of Abhidhamma, are pointed out. TG #86061 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 9:04 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Dear TG, Nina, James and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > In a message dated 5/23/2008 4:12:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > N: People have different opinions about what to study first. I think that it is difficult to understand the Suttanta without the Abhidhamma. >>> In which SUTTA did the Buddha directly has stated that one should study the 7 books Abhidhamma Pitaka? Best wishes, Alex #86062 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 5/23/2008 9:43:41 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Everything is conditioned (in some shape or form) but it doesn't follow that only ONE response is possible. We may have (almost) infinite storehouse of conditions and it is up to whatever "wisdom" there is to act in this or that way. ........................................................ TG: Wisdom will arise or not depending on conditions. There is no "wisdom director" that can "lead the band." But, continued reflection of the matter ... and studies, mindfulness, etc. are the conditions that, the more they are garnered, the more the mind will "outgrowth" in a wisdom direction...through conditions. ............................................................ We aren't talking about 2 bodies interacting with 3 or so variables each. When there are many factors involved (and within each person there are MANY), then the ordinary rules of conditionality are not as mechanistic as some people believe. The more factors are involved, the more degrees of freedom there is. .............................................................. TG: I'll have to disagree with this last statement . It totally belies -- "this being, that is, etc." Just because there are millions of variables, does not mean that "free will" springs forth from them. The millions of variables just means that the conditional possibilities are vast and very complicated for our minds to unravel. But nevertheless, its just conditions pushing and pulling "each other" based on this or that impulse/force. TG OUT #86063 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 9:02:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, in CMA it says that citta can be classified in 3 ways: as an agent, an instrument or as an activity. Question: What EXACTLY is consciousness (citta) as an activity? Thanks. Best Wishes, Alex ..................................................... Hi Alex I'll take perhaps a non-Abhidhammika crack at this... Consciousness as an activity like any other phenomena... it arises due to conditions, it "become-otherwise" due to the continuous movement and alteration of supporting conditions, and it falls apart when the supporting conditions can no longer sustain it. So its an active little cuss. Consciousness is an outgrowth of conditional interaction just as any phenomena. What type of consciousness arises is entirely up to the conditions coming together to generate it. Of course, those 'generating conditions' are at the mercy of their generating conditions, etc., etc. etc. TG OUT #86064 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, All BTW, "activity" means energy!!! So put that in your Abhidhamma pipe and smoke it. ;-) Even your own precious CMA lists it as such!!! TG In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:35:53 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hello all, in CMA it says that citta can be classified in 3 ways: as an agent, an instrument or as an activity. Question: What EXACTLY is consciousness (citta) as an activity? Thanks. Best Wishes, Alex #86065 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 9:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex > ............................................................ >> > We aren't talking about 2 bodies interacting with 3 or so variables each. When there are many factors involved (and within each person > there are MANY), then the ordinary rules of conditionality are not as > mechanistic as some people believe. The more factors are involved, > the more degrees of freedom there is. > > .............................................................. > > TG: Just because there are millions of variables, does not mean that "free will" springs forth from them. The millions of variables just means that the conditional possibilities are vast and very > complicated for our minds to unravel. But nevertheless, its just conditions pushing > and pulling "each other" based on this or that impulse/force. > > > TG OUT First of all, there is such a thing as co-determination. River shapes the riverbed and the riverbed shapes the river. Two upright standing cards are both co-dependent on each other, if either falls both fall, if either stands both stand. Also, there is unity of the opposites. Determination requires free will because it is only in opposition to determination that free will is and only to opposition of free will there is determination. Good and bad (also happiness and suffering) rely on each other for "existence". 2nd) When we have many variables, it does NOT mean that by adding additional similiar formulas will solve the effects. Quantity becomes Quality here. The deterministic system becomes chaotic when amount of variables increases. It is not the fact that more calculations are needed. NO, the type of equation changes and becomes LESS deterministic with MORE degrees of freedom. And of course I could mention QM which has a LOT to say about predictability... Best Wishes, Alex #86066 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 9:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/23/2008 9:02:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hello all, > > in CMA it says that citta can be classified in 3 ways: as an agent, an > instrument or as an activity. > > Question: What EXACTLY is consciousness (citta) as an activity? > > Thanks. > > Best Wishes, > > Alex > > > > ..................................................... > > Hi Alex > > > I'll take perhaps a non-Abhidhammika crack at this... Consciousness as an > activity like any other phenomena... it arises due to conditions, >>> Of course. But this isn't a topic of discussion in this thread. it > "become-otherwise" due to the continuous movement and alteration of supporting conditions, and it falls apart when the supporting conditions can no longer sustain it. So its an active little cuss. > > > Consciousness is an outgrowth of conditional interaction just as any phenomena. What type of consciousness arises is entirely up to the conditions coming together to generate it. Of course, those 'generating conditions' are at the mercy of their generating conditions, etc., etc. etc. > You keep using "it" (for citta) all the time. So what IS "IT"? Please don't use circular arguments or tautology. Best wishes, Alex #86067 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 9:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, All > > > BTW, "activity" means energy!!! So put that in your Abhidhamma pipe and > smoke it. ;-) Even your own precious CMA lists it as such!!! > > > TG > Samma-Viriya means "energy" (Right Effort). And other similiar words imply a presence of some sort of energy or force. May the force be with you (and me) ! #86068 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:43:10 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: First of all, there is such a thing as co-determination. River shapes the riverbed and the riverbed shapes the river. Two upright standing cards are both co-dependent on each other, if either falls both fall, if either stands both stand. ...................................................... TG: Absolutely correct...I'd be the first to tell you that! Well, actually Sutta-Man would be the first....but I'd be the second! ............................................ Also, there is unity of the opposites. ............................................... TG: Don't follow what you mean here...no matter. ........................................................... Determination requires free will because it is only in opposition to determination that free will is and only to opposition of free will there is determination. Good and bad (also happiness and suffering) rely on each other for "existence". ..................................................... TG: Yikes.... this is a job for ........ Sutta-Man! Unfortunately, his out on another job right now. (Or so I've been told.) .................................................... 2nd) When we have many variables, it does NOT mean that by adding additional similiar formulas will solve the effects. Quantity becomes Quality here. The deterministic system becomes chaotic when amount of variables increases. It is not the fact that more calculations are needed. NO, the type of equation changes and becomes LESS deterministic with MORE degrees of freedom. ..................................................................... TG: Do you understand here, that you are trying to "hold on" to the 'notion of self' and disguising it as a measure of "freedom"? This is what the infamous Abhidhammikas do but they use "dhammas" to do the disguising. ........................................................................... And of course I could mention QM which has a LOT to say about predictability.pr ........................................................................ TG: I didn't know Quinn Martin was a Buddhist?!? That's fascinating! He put out all those TV shows and still managed to study Dhamma. I guess there are a lot of Buddhist bookstores on "The Streets of San Francisco." I know of a few. TG OUT #86069 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:52:03 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: > "become-otherwise" due to the continuous movement and alteration of supporting conditions, and it falls apart when the supporting conditions can no longer sustain it. So its an active little cuss. > > > Consciousness is an outgrowth of conditional interaction just as any phenomena. What type of consciousness arises is entirely up to the conditions coming together to generate it. Of course, those 'generating conditions' are at the mercy of their generating conditions, etc., etc. etc. > You keep using "it" (for citta) all the time. So what IS "IT"? Please don't use circular arguments or tautology. Best wishes, Alex .......................................................... TG: When the subject is solely about "consciousness," and the discussion is about "consciousness," the term "it" would be referring to "consciousness." Seemed clear to me. Anyone else confused??? TG OUT #86070 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:55:10 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Samma-Viriya means "energy" (Right Effort). And other similiar words imply a presence of some sort of energy or force. May the force be with you (and me) ! ......................................................... Hi Alex Indeed!!!!!! Those who scoff at "energy" and using "energy" to do the scoffing!!! LOL TG OUT #86071 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 10:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Alex > > .......................................................... > > > TG: When the subject is solely about "consciousness," and the discussion is > about "consciousness," the term "it" would be referring to "consciousness." > Seemed clear to me. Anyone else confused??? > > But what is consciousness itself? #86072 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 11:26:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: But what is consciousness itself? ...................................................... TG: Awareness. I suspect you are looking deeper than that? #86073 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/23/2008 11:26:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > But what is consciousness itself? ...................................................... > > TG: Awareness. I suspect you are looking deeper than that? > > > Yes, What is Awareness? Best Wishes, Alex #86074 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nilovg Hi TG, Op 23-mei-2008, om 17:53 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > If you are going to believe that Abhidhamma is the proper > presentation, and > use Suttas to back up the Abjhidhamma, then it makes sense that > you'd think > that Abhidhamma needs to be studied first. That way, the mind is > inculcated in > Abhidhamma style thought and the Suttas are just "picked over" and > used as > Abhidhamma support. ------- N: The Tipitaka, all three parts should be studied together. We can then see that they are in agreement with each other. It depends on inclinations what book one takes up first. I merely said: it is difficult to understand Sutta without Abhidhamma. Nina. #86075 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 11:38 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nilovg Hi Alex, Op 23-mei-2008, om 18:04 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > In which SUTTA did the Buddha directly has stated that one should > study > the 7 books Abhidhamma Pitaka? -------- N: The Buddha pointed out that the contents of the teachings should be seen as being in agreement with each other. He did not state any rule. Nina. #86076 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta nilovg Hi Alex, you have to help me: in what part of Ch 1 in this? I do not have your edition. since there are many types of citta there are many classifications. Citta cognizes, clearly knows an object, it is the chief in knowing. Nina. Op 23-mei-2008, om 17:01 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > in CMA it says that citta can be classified in 3 ways: as an agent, an > instrument or as an activity. > > Question: What EXACTLY is consciousness (citta) as an activity? #86077 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 11:54 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Hello Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Op 23-mei-2008, om 18:04 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > In which SUTTA did the Buddha directly has stated that one should > > study > > the 7 books Abhidhamma Pitaka? > -------- N: The Buddha pointed out that the contents of the teachings should be seen as being in agreement with each other. He did not state any rule. > Nina. > He DID state in DN#16 that "Dhamma-Vinaya" is the guide and that it doesn't matter what so and so revered teacher (or a group of teachers) says: Dhamma is the guide. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html ---------------- Also more detail explanation of Dhamma-Vinaya-> Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute." "Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead: to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.' "As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead: to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami delighted at his words. — AN 8.53 Best Wishes, Alex #86078 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 11:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > you have to help me: in what part of Ch 1 in this? I do not have your > edition. > since there are many types of citta there are many classifications. > Citta cognizes, clearly knows an object, it is the chief in knowing. > Nina. > Op 23-mei-2008, om 17:01 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > in CMA it says that citta can be classified in 3 ways: as an agent, an > > instrument or as an activity. > > > > Question: What EXACTLY is consciousness (citta) as an activity? > I found a similiar paragraph The first is called agency definition (kattu-sadhana) because it attributes agency to the thing to be defined. Such, for example, is the definition of citta (consciousness) as "that which thinks" (cinteti ti cittat).25 The second is called instrumental definition (karana-sadhana) because it attributes instrumentality to the thing to be defined. Such, for example, is the definition of citta as "that through which one thinks" (cinteti ti etena cittat).26 The third is called definition by nature (bhava-sadhana) whereby the abstract nature of the thing to be defined is brought into focus. Such, for example, is the definition," The mere act of thinking itself is citta (cintanamattam eva cittat)." 27 http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ---- So what exactly and precisely is "the mere act of thinking itself" ? Thanks, Alex #86079 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Q. anapanasati [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (159) nilovg Dear Han, Op 23-mei-2008, om 3:53 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > And my question was at what stage in the above passage, the > satipa.t.thaana arises? > > -------------------- > > Han: Your response was an excellent explanation of the above > passage. But I did not find the specific answer to my question – at > what stage in the above passage the satipa.t.thaana arises? > > But there were clues in your post from which I can draw the > conclusions. -------- N: I was not complete enough. As you know the Visuddhimagga mentions the tetrads, group of four clauses. We read as to the first tetrad (in the translation of Ven. Nyanamoli, VII, 146) : (I) Breathing in long, he knows “I breathe in long”; or breathing out long, he knows “I breathe out long”. (II) Breathing in short, he knows “I breathe in short”; or breathing out short, he knows “I breathe out short”. (III) He trains thus “I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body”; he trains thus “I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body”. (IV) He trains thus “I shall breathe in tranquillizing the bodily activity”; he trains thus “I shall breathe out tranquillizing the bodily activity”... The yogavacaara attains jhana and emerges from it to develop insight, right after the first tetrad already: In the word commentary to the above quoted sutta the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 223-226) mentions with regard to the first tetrad (group of four clauses, marked I-IV) of the sutta the different stages of insight-knowledge which are developed after emerging from jhåna. We read: < On emerging from the attainment he sees that the in-breaths and out- breaths have the physical body and the mind as their origin; and that just as, when a blacksmith’s bellows are being blown, the wind moves owing to the bag and to the man’s appropriate effort, so too, in- breaths and out-breaths are due to the body and the mind. Next he defines the in-breaths and out-breaths and the body as materiality, and the consciousness and the states associated with the consciousness as the immaterial... Having defined nama-rupa in this way, he seeks its condition...> The Visuddhimagga then mentions all the different stages of insight (Visuddhimagga VIII, 223 -225). We then read: Thus the answer is: right from the beginning, with the first tetrad satipatthana can be developed. Nina. #86080 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 3:58 pm Subject: To : rwijayaratne@... RE: KEVATTA SUTTA D.N.#11 reverendagga... Hi dhamma friend! i was reading your posting with intrest,since even though you give a link to the accesstoinsight.org web site where this sutta can be accessed,you distort and misrepresent the sutta like MANY by only giving certain parts and therefore giving an interpretation that seems accurate but truly is NOT. Venerable Gotama was NOT teaching that certain supranormal powers like mind reading etc.were not to be considered worthy because they would be viewed as "cheap tricks". the miracle of instruction section spoken of so well by Venerable Gotama also includes a subsection on: SUPRANORMAL POWERS CLAIRAUDIENCE (DEVINE EAR) MINDREADING RECOLLECTION OF PAST LIVES THE PASSING AWAY AND REAPPEARANCE OF BEINGS (having what would be considered the supranormal knowledge of such) It therefore (and therefore with to!) should be duly noted that Venerable Gotama's dismay of such abilties was CONDITIONAL based on how such abilities were to be used. IF they were being used for INSTRUCTION of some sort there was NO objection. If anyone should doubt this all you have to do is read the words: "this is the MIRACLE OF INSTRUCTION" after each above and before mentioned subsection! They were NOT to be used for P.R.work or the such in any way. May the Buddha's, Deva and Angels bless ALL of you! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #86081 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 12:25 pm Subject: Calm, Cool and Quite Content! bhikkhu0 Friends: What is cause & effect of satisfied contentment? The blessed Buddha once said: Solitude is happiness for one, who is content, Who understands & clearly sees the Dhamma. Harmlessness is happiness in all worlds, Kindness towards all living beings. Udana 10 What is the proximate cause of contentment? Mutual joy with others success is the proximate cause of contentment... If one is never glad by the happiness of others, one will always be discontent!!! If one is always glad by the happiness of others, one will always be content!!! Thus is contentment caused by an altruistic mental state & not by external richness... Example: Rich people possessing all the things they ever desired, can still be very discontent! And vice versa: Poor people not having much can still be very content and very much smiling! What are the proximate & remote effects of contentment? Satisfaction is the proximate effect of contentment! From this sweet satisfaction is joyous gladness born. From gladness is bodily & mental tranquillity born. From bodily & mental tranquillity is a pleasurable happiness born. From this pleasurable happiness emerges focused concentration. In focused concentration, one comes to know and see it, just as it really is. Seeing and knowing it, just as it really is, induces undeceived disillusion. Disillusion detaches by disenchanted & disappointed disgust. When detaching, then there is mental relinquishment! When letting go, then mental freedom becomes inevitable! Mental freedom produces a calmed inner peace... This Peace is bliss! Peace is the taste of NibbÄ?na ;-) More on the Contentment: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Contentment.htm How to cultivate mutual joy & thus induce & increase contentment: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Mutual_Joy.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Rejoicing_Bliss_is_Mudita.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Infinitely_Joyous_Consciousness.htm Calm, Cool and Quite Content! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #86082 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/21 : > > > It seems that you object to using the present tense in referring to what > has already ceased. Actually, you go further than that. You write "You > cannot refer to something that isn't there, and say that it was this or that > before it fell away." That seem to indicate that you wish to disallow discussing > the past in any manner, which is rather extreme as I see it. Even Ken > occasionally takes a thought-vacation away from the Present Moment Ranch! ;-) > ========================= Though all communication is conventional in nature, different levels of understanding require different levels of precision in speech. When we go to the shop we ask for a kilo of sugar, and whether we end up with 1,000,000 molecules more or less than a standard kilo of sugar is of no concern to us. But a chemist or physicist speaks very precisely, and will insist that there exactly 6.022 x 10 ^23 molecules in a mole. No more, no less. Which is quite appropriate to the level of understanding. Now, Sarah is speaking to me about what she says is a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma, namely impermanence. Which seems to me to be a matter which requires a high degree of precision in language to understand correctly, wouldn't you agree? Let's face it, she is talking about the supposed fundamental elements of experience here, and a slight error here will result in huge errors when considering the not-deconstructed experience of daily life. You, on the other hand seem to think that I am too stringent in my requirement for precision at this level of discussion. But I wonder how you, then, understand the matter. The standard line sems to be that the being of a paramattha dhamma eg red, has three phases, an arising, a stasis, and a ceasing. I'm assuming that arising red must be different in some way to static (stasis) red, else why the differentiation? What, in your understanding, is that difference? My line of questioning has been that if there is a red that is somehow different to itself, what is the basis for saying that the alleged three phases of a phenomenon are all part of the one phenomenon? Cheers Herman #86083 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:15 pm Subject: Photos of Friday the 23rd of May 2008 sukinderpal Hi Sarah and All, I have just uploaded four photographs from yesterday's discussions. Vince and Nancy had come last Saturday and told us about Ven. Gutasila (Evan). Apparently, Ven. Gutasila decided to leave Sri Lanka to now stay in some up-country temple here in Thailand. This special session was arranged for him and for Ven. Pannabahulo who had come down for the regular Saturday discussion but which happened to have been cancelled. Sukin #86084 From: han tun Date: Fri May 23, 2008 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (159) hantun1 Dear Nina, Once again, I thank you very much for your kind explanation and your patience with me. I noted that you have explained by quoting the First Tetrad of Aanaapaanasati Sutta. But the Kaayaanupassanaa Aanaapaanapabba of MN 10 Satipa.t.thaana Sutta contains more text than the First Tetrad of MN 118 Aanaapaanasati Sutta, as far as the breathing meditation is concerned. The extra text is the third paragraph of the passage I have earlier quoted taken from Satipa.t.thaana Sutta. "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or externally on the body in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the body in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself. Iti ajjhattam vaa kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati. Bahiddhaa vaa kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati. Ajjhattabahiddhaa vaa kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati. Samudayadhammaanupassii vaa kaayasmim viharati. Vayadhammaanupassii vaa kaayasmim viharati. Samudayavayadhammaanupassii vaa kaayasmim viharati. Atthi kaayoti vaa panassa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti yaavadeva ~naa.namattaaya pa.tissatimattaaya. Anissito ca viharati. Na ca ki~nci loke upaadiyati. Evampi kho bhikkhave bhikkhu kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati. This paragraph is very important because it shows, without any doubt, the development of insight. That’s why the Buddha repeated this paragraph at the end of every chapter in Satipa.t.thaana Sutta. However, this fact does not diminish the high value of your kind explanation: “Thus the answer is: right from the beginning, with the first tetrad satipatthana can be developed.â€? Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #86085 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 7:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/23 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "...And at least some of those are reading anger in it. Are they > wrong?" > > Scott: Who could say? If one reads anger into something its likely > their own so then they would be right about anger, since they are > reading it, but the question then becomes, 'Whose anger?' In checking > myself I don't note any anger. > What I have observed is a longterm inability to maintain a civil conversation with certain folks. If I continue your reasoning here, this observation is not an objective fact of our shared reality here at dsg, it is something that is being "read" into it. Your own contentment with your relationships with others at dsg, will no doubt disincline you to alter your approach. If you are, however, prepared to accept that your asessment of the situation is not shared by everyone else, this might prompt a revision of the attitude with which you approach certain topics or people. Cheers Herman #86086 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 7:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...If you are, however, prepared to accept that your asessment of the situation is not shared by everyone else, this might prompt a revision of the attitude with which you approach certain topics or people." Scott: Thank you, Herman. Sincerely, Scott. #86087 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To : rwijayaratne@... RE: KEVATTA SUTTA D.N.#11 m_nease Hi Reverend, Which post was that? mike reverendaggacitto wrote: > Hi dhamma friend! > i was reading your posting with intrest,since even though you give > a link to the accesstoinsight.org web site where this sutta can be > accessed,you distort and misrepresent the sutta like MANY by only > giving certain parts and therefore giving an interpretation that > seems > accurate but truly is NOT. #86088 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/5/24 Alex : > Dear Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > The idea that one could have acted differently under the same > circumstances is identical to the idea of free will. Two thoughts on > the matter follow below: > > 1] The proposition is entirely untestable. In other words, it is > always possible to say it, but never possible to realise it. It is > entirely metaphysical ie in the realm of: I was, I am, I will be. > > >>>>>>> > > Th statement is illogical. It is a logical fallacy actually, > called: "retrospective determinism". There is absolutely not a grain > of proof that only one choice&action was possible. > > > The fact is, often we are in such position when we can physically act > in different ways. > > > Example: Lets say John say to Jack "turn and face any direction you > want or don't want". > > Jack can physically turn to the right or to the left, face this or > that direction. > > Another more close example to our work: If someone angers Jack, Jack > can either fight back (akusala) or not (not akusala). It would be > illogical to state that Jack has only ONE choice, Jack can have a > number (maybe even many) of choices, maybe even to send Metta > (kusala) ! :) > We are talking about two different things: I am talking about the conditions that underlie experience, and you are talking about experience. I don't doubt for a moment that there can be the experience of being faced with a number of possibilities, and that one is chosen over all the others. What I do doubt is that this experience is instrumental in a choice being made. In a situation with no mindfulness, things just happen without any attention being paid to that. In a situation with mindfulness, there is awareness of things happening, this thought arising, that thought arising, this action being carried, that action being carried, But if you go looking, there is never awareness of an "I" or something else making the possibilities arise, or doing the choosing. These arise conditionally, without the participation of any agent. The unassailable fact remains that no matter how many possibilities are conceived of, there is only ever one reality. Cheers Herman #86089 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/23/2008 8:02:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/5/21 : > > > It seems that you object to using the present tense in referring to what > has already ceased. Actually, you go further than that. You write "You > cannot refer to something that isn't there, and say that it was this or that > before it fell away." That seem to indicate that you wish to disallow discussing > the past in any manner, which is rather extreme as I see it. Even Ken > occasionally takes a thought-vacation away from the Present Moment Ranch! ;-) > ========================= Though all communication is conventional in nature, different levels of understanding require different levels of precision in speech. When we go to the shop we ask for a kilo of sugar, and whether we end up with 1,000,000 molecules more or less than a standard kilo of sugar is of no concern to us. But a chemist or physicist speaks very precisely, and will insist that there exactly 6.022 x 10 ^23 molecules in a mole. No more, no less. Which is quite appropriate to the level of understanding. Now, Sarah is speaking to me about what she says is a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma, namely impermanence. Which seems to me to be a matter which requires a high degree of precision in language to understand correctly, wouldn't you agree? Let's face it, she is talking about the supposed fundamental elements of experience here, and a slight error here will result in huge errors when considering the not-deconstructed experience of daily life. You, on the other hand seem to think that I am too stringent in my requirement for precision at this level of discussion. But I wonder how you, then, understand the matter. The standard line sems to be that the being of a paramattha dhamma eg red, has three phases, an arising, a stasis, and a ceasing. I'm assuming that arising red must be different in some way to static (stasis) red, else why the differentiation? What, in your understanding, is that difference? My line of questioning has been that if there is a red that is somehow different to itself, what is the basis for saying that the alleged three phases of a phenomenon are all part of the one phenomenon? Cheers Herman ================================= I don't think I'm quite getting what you are saying or are after. (My fault, not yours.) I'll just say a couple things: Experienced redness is not considered to be a paramattha dhamma. What is actually seen, is the entire sight "presented via the eye-door," and it is a paramattha dhamma that is characterized after-the-fact to "be" a multi-colored palette. A red part of that scene is known via the mind-door after some mental construction. That observed redness is a sankharic construct. Without knowing those details via our mental deconstruction, our practical knowledge is incomplete, IMO, and, so, I don't downplay the importance of those sankharic operations as do some. The sankharic creation from the sight of a color-mosaic is our means of apprehending the sight in a useful way. It cannot be random, but must be based on the nature of the original sight itself. One sight is apprehended as one mosaic, and another sight is apprehended as a different mosaic. As for arising, stasis, and fading of a rupa, warmth, for example, and identifying it all as "the same" phenomenon, I consider that a convention. But it is a convention I have no problem with. I really don't care whether the warmth at one instant is "the same" or "different" from the warmth at another instant. At any instant, whatever I experience is just what it is. And if what I experience across a span of time has the approximately same character at every instant, I will refer to "it" all by the same name. Ultimately, though, nothing at one instant is exactly the same as anything at any other instant, and identification is really illusion. Each moment is entirely fresh and nameless. But there are similarities to be discerned, and when there is sufficient similarity, our language convention is to use the same name. With metta, Howard #86090 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/5/21 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > > S: Seeing is impermanent, Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is impermanent. >visible object is impermanent I wonder why you say this, because I think the status of an object that is not being attended to is completely unknowable. That attention flits from one object to another does not mean that previous objects of attention have ceased to be. >, eye-base is impermanent, Thinking > hearing and all other realities are impermanent. More thinking. > ========= > H: >However, let mel put it to you that if you do not know what red is > then you certainly don't know what a paramattha dhamma could be. > ========== > > S: What is seen now? > If you are asking me what is being attended to now, what is the content of awareness, I could tell you about the situation I find myself in at the moment, and how that is changing. As in, I'm sitting here typing, I see the keyboard, the screen, my hands etc If you are asking me what visible objects there are now, I cannot answer that. Because I can only know, in order to talk about them, the ones I attend to. No doubt, there is much more going on than what enters awareness, but I cannot tell you about the visible objects of which I am unaware. I hope that clarifies why I believe your post does not address impermanence at all. Cheers Herman #86091 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 8:54 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background kenhowardau Hi James, ------------ <. . .> J: > And, I don't think that we should skip her personal background. It is very important to consider to get an overall view of KS's teaching. ------------ OK, if you insist. In which case I would like to review your review so far: ------------------- <. . .> James: What I read here is that K. Sujin flunked out of college, studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years, and then instantly became a Dhamma teacher. -------------- KH: I don't think that was what you read at all. It seems to me you thought to yourself, "How can I restate this in the most negative way possible?" And this is what you came up with. ------------------- J: > I don't believe that those are sufficient qualifications to become a Dhamma teacher. ------------------- In the case you are referring to, K S was giving lectures at the request of her teacher. Did that make K S herself a teacher? Does everyone who gives a talk - or delivers a lecture - have to be a "teacher?" ---------------------- J: > First, anyone who flunks out of college is not very dedicated to study or to hard work. A quality education is important to every Buddhist, not to mention every Buddhist teacher. ---------------------- This is silly, petty nonsense. I don't think any of your readers will be fooled by it. Performance at university is no measure of a person's worth. We all know good people with no academic qualifications and bad people with plenty of them. We know people who have dropped out of school at an early age and gone back decades later, and we know graduates who have never put their education to use. The combinations and permutations of academic history are endless. They are in no way a measure of good or bad qualities. --------------------- J: > Second, she only studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years before she became a Dhamma teacher. Is that really enough time to learn the Dhamma? I seriously doubt it. --------------------- Sariputta needed just a few seconds of Dhamma study before he become a sotapanna, and just a few more seconds to become an arahant. Some people could study Dhamma for a lifetime and still have no idea of what it's about. So there is no rule as to how much is needed, it depends on what we have doing been in our preceding lifetimes. And what do you mean by "studied for two or three years?" Do you mean full-time study - as in eight or more hours per day? I think two or three years of that kind of study would be an enormous amount. One week of full-time study would be an enormous amount by my standards. So, again, this line of argument tells us nothing. ------------------------------- J: > Third, she studied the Abhidhamma only before she started teaching. She studied the suttas and other texts later as translations became available. So, she is one-sided in her approach to the Dhamma. ------------------------------- As you say, K S has studied both the Abhidhamma and the Suttanta. How does that make her approach one-sided? ------------------------------------ J: > She places far more emphasis on the Abhidhamma then anything else. This makes sense due to her background and conditioning. So, K. Sujin has a lopsided approach to the Dhamma due to her background. ------------------------------------- At this point your readers will need to have some knowledge of the Dhamma before they can judge whether or not you are making sense. The Dhamma is one teaching, not two. There are, however, two main ways of teaching it. The conventional-language way that is found in the suttas can be understood *only* when the technical-language way has been thoroughly understood. Otherwise, people will have to provide their own interpretations of the words used, and the suttas will mean all kinds of things to all kinds of people. -------------------------------------------- J: > I have nothing against K. Sujin as a person. I am sure that she is very nice and it is commendable that she is so dedicated to the Dhamma. But, I don't believe her background makes her a qualified Dhamma teacher. --------------------------------------------- As I was saying, without a proper introduction to the suttas people can come up with all sorts of interpretations of them. When they find out that there is only one true interpretation - and it is not theirs - they will react in different ways. Your way of reacting is typical of many. I won't say any more about it just now. Ken H #86092 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 11:31:56 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: What is Awareness? Best Wishes, Alex .................................................. Hi Alex Are you asking what the "mechanics" of awareness is in terms of physiological events? TG #86093 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/23/2008 12:37:16 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: The Tipitaka, all three parts should be studied together. We can then see that they are in agreement with each other. It depends on inclinations what book one takes up first. I merely said: it is difficult to understand Sutta without Abhidhamma. Nina. ............................................. Hi Nina Although I agree with the limited scope of your statement above, it's often just a one-sided interpretation that comes out. I would also agree that they are for the most part in agreement with each other...yet my understanding would be very different from yours and would not give the credence to some of the commentaries that you do. So, In my view, you slant the Suttas to fit a very tortured reading of them...and then say they "fit" the commentaries. Anyone can make anything say anything if they want to do that. Of course your view is different then mine. TG #86094 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri May 23, 2008 9:22 pm Subject: Re: Photos of Friday the 23rd of May 2008 gazita2002 Hello Sukin and others, this is the monk-Guttasila- who I was asking about during the time Vens. Pannabahulo and Dhammanando were at the foundation in April. thanks for these fotos Sukin. Hope all is well over there, say hello to all for me. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Sarah and All, > > I have just uploaded four photographs from yesterday's discussions. > Vince and Nancy had come last Saturday and told us about Ven. > Gutasila (Evan). Apparently, Ven. Gutasila decided to leave Sri Lanka > to now stay in some up-country temple here in Thailand. This special > session was arranged for him and for Ven. Pannabahulo who had come > down for the regular Saturday discussion but which happened to have > been cancelled. > > Sukin > #86095 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 23, 2008 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Herman Interesting. I find myself on Sarah's side this time. Am I slipping back into the Abhidhammika slope? No, no. You seem, from my perspective, to have a little "phenomenological tunnel vision" here. At any rate, it seemed the Buddha and Arahats and other seasoned monks were able to make broad claims about the impermanence of phenomena without being in direct experience of such. This is, IMO, because they understood the principles of conditionality and knew the "foundation thereof" and therefore could say with certainty that all conditions were impermanent, etc. One other item on their side was they realized that such a vision could lead to the end of suffering. Yet, I don't think it was an "imaginary vision" for that end. I think the idea that we can only know what is immediately being experienced is a grand illusion because it is a whole slew of "unexperienced information" that is supporting that "reasoned position." Anyway, just my thoughts and I hope I did not misread things. TG In a message dated 5/23/2008 9:10:47 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Sarah, 2008/5/21 sarah abbott <_sarahprocterabbott@sarahprocsa_ (mailto:sarahprocterabbott@...) >: > Hi Herman, > > > S: Seeing is impermanent, Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is impermanent. >visible object is impermanent I wonder why you say this, because I think the status of an object that is not being attended to is completely unknowable. That attention flits from one object to another does not mean that previous objects of attention have ceased to be. >, eye-base is impermanent, Thinking > hearing and all other realities are impermanent. More thinking. > ========= > H: >However, let mel put it to you that if you do not know what red is > then you certainly don't know what a paramattha dhamma could be. > ========== > > S: What is seen now? > If you are asking me what is being attended to now, what is the content of awareness, I could tell you about the situation I find myself in at the moment, and how that is changing. As in, I'm sitting here typing, I see the keyboard, the screen, my hands etc If you are asking me what visible objects there are now, I cannot answer that. Because I can only know, in order to talk about them, the ones I attend to. No doubt, there is much more going on than what enters awareness, but I cannot tell you about the visible objects of which I am unaware. I hope that clarifies why I believe your post does not address impermanence at all. Cheers Herman #86096 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 23, 2008 10:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photos of Friday the 23rd of May 2008 sarahprocter... Hi Sukin, Thank you very much for letting us know (and for uploading the pics). We didn't know that Ven Gutasila (who we used to know well) had moved back to Thailand. I know he had been living in the Forest Hermitage (where BB and Ven Nyanaponika etc used to live) in recent years. Pls give him our regards if you see him again. Must have been a good discussion - anything you can report from it? Metta, Sarah --- On Sat, 24/5/08, Sukinder wrote: Suk: > I have just uploaded four photographs from yesterday's discussions. Vince and Nancy had come last Saturday and told us about Ven. Gutasila (Evan). Apparently, Ven. Gutasila decided to leave Sri Lanka to now stay in some up-country temple here in Thailand. This special session was arranged for him and for Ven. Pannabahulo who had come down for the regular Saturday discussion but which happened to have been cancelled. #86097 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 23, 2008 10:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Sat, 24/5/08, Herman Hofman wrote: > S: Seeing is impermanent, ======== H: >Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is impermanent. ========= S: When the eyes are open and there is seeing, it is different from thinking. If there was no seeing of visible objects, there could not be any thinking about those visible objects. Are you suggesting that this isn't what the Buddha taught in suttas even or just that you don't agree with it? =========== >visible object is impermanent H: >I wonder why you say this,..... ========= S: "sabbe sankhara anicca...." Regardless of whether it's known by anyone at all, whether it's a Buddha era or not, the truth remains the same. Metta, Sarah =========== #86098 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:23 am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 264, 265 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 264, 265 Intro: The Visuddhimagga explains in section 264 that conditioned by clinging to sense desires someone develops ruupa-jhaan and aruupa- jhaana and is, due to his attainments, reborn in the fine-material or immaterial Brahmaa-world. In section 265 it is explained that conditioned by clinging to annihilation view someone performs kamma with the belief that the self will be annihilated in a happy sensuous plane, in a ruupa-brahma plane or an aruupa-brahma plane. The result of the kamma he performs is sense-desire becoming, fine-material becoming, and immaterial becoming. -------------- Text Vis. 264: Another hears or conjectures that sense desires come to still greater perfection in the fine-material and immaterial kinds of becoming, and through sense-desire clinging he produces the fine- material and immaterial attainments, and in virtue of his attainments he is reborn in the fine-material or immaterial Brahmaa-world. The kamma that is the cause of his rebirth there is kamma-process becoming. The aggregates generated by the kamma are rebirth-process becoming. But percipient, non-percipient, neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient, one-constituent, four- constituent, and five-constituent kinds of becoming are included in that, too. --------- N: Non-percipient becoming refers to rebirth in the asa~n~na satta plane where there is only ruupa, no naama. One constituent becoming also refers to this plane. Neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient becoming refers to rebirth that is the result of the fourth stage of aruupa jhaana. Four-constituent becoming refers to rebirth in the aruupa-brahma planes where there are only the four naama-khandhas, no ruupa-khandha. --------- Text Vis. :Thus sense-desire clinging is a condition for fine-material and immaterial becoming with its analysis and its synthesis. ------------ Text Vis. 265: Another clings to the annihilation view thus: 'This self comes to be entirely cut off when it is cut off in the fortunate states of the sense sphere, or in the fine-material or immaterial kinds of becoming', and he performs kamma to achieve that. --------- N: The Tiika refers to the different kinds of annihilation view. According to the Brahmajaalasutta (The All-embracing Net of Views, Diigha Nikaaya) there are seven kinds of annihilation view. The first one identifies the self with the physical body of a human and he believes that with the dissolution of the body there is annihilation. The second one is the belief in a self which is divine, having ruupa, and is of the sense sphere. 'Divine' means originating in the world of devas; the deva planes are happy sensuous planes. After passing away there he believes that he will be annihilated. The Tiika refers to the first and second kind of annihilation view together as the belief that the self will be annihilated in the happy sensuous planes (kaamaavacarasampattibhave). As to the third view, this is the belief in a self which is divine, having rupa that is mind-made and after passing away there is annihilation. The Commentary to the Brahmajaalasutta states as to mind-made: through the jhaana mind. This refers to the ruupa-brahma planes. The Tiika to this passage of the Visuddhimagga refers here to the belief in a self who will be annihilated in the ruupa-brahma planes. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh views correspond to existence as result of the four aruupa jhaanas: a self belongs to the base of infinite space and will be annihilated after passing away in that plane, and so on for the results of the other three aruupa jhaanas. He develops the aruupa jhaanas in order to reach annihilation in the corresponding planes. As a result he will be reborn in aruupa brahma planes, but in reality there will not be annihilation after his passing away, he will be reborn again. The person with annihilation view sees annihilation as the ultimate goal; he does not see as his goal the eradication of defilements leading to the end of rebirth. The Tiika explains: as to the expression ‘This self comes to be entirely cut off’, the person with annihilation view wrongly believes that there will be the complete cutting off of the dukkha inherent in the cycle and that there will be no more rebirth. ---------- Text Vis.:His kamma is kamma-process becoming. The aggregates generated by the kamma are rebirth-process becoming. But the percipient, etc., kinds of becoming are included in that too. So [false-] view clinging is a condition for all three, namely, for the sense-desire, fine-material, and immaterial kinds of becoming with their analysis and their synthesis. ---------- N: The Text refers to the percipient, etc., kinds of becoming, and this means: percipient, non-percipient, neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient. As we have seen, non-percipient refers to rebirth the asa~n~na satta plane where there is only ruupa, no naama. Neither-percipient-nor-non- percipient refers to rebirth that is the result of the fourth stage of aruupa jhaana. ------- Conclusion: People develop jhaana with different aims. A person who has annihilation view may follow the right way for the attainment of the different stages of jhaana and these produce rebirth in the relevant planes of existence. But he does not see the right cause that will lead to the right effect. Only lokuttara maggacitta of the different stages of enlightenment can eradicate defilements, and when all defilements are eradicated at the stage of the arahat there will be the end of dukkha inherent in the cycle. ********* Nina. #86099 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:39 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nilovg Hi Alex, Op 23-mei-2008, om 20:54 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > He DID state in DN#16 that "Dhamma-Vinaya" is the guide and that it > doesn't matter what so and so revered teacher (or a group of > teachers) says: Dhamma is the guide. -------- N: Dhamma Vinaya includes the three pi.takas. There were many messages in the past about this subject. I just refer to I cannot add anything else, since I am going away for a few days. Nina. #86100 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nilovg Hi TG, Op 24-mei-2008, om 6:10 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > So, In my view, you slant the Suttas to fit a very tortured reading of > them...and then say they "fit" the commentaries. Anyone can make > anything say > anything if they want to do that. Of course your view is different > then mine. ------ N: You misunderstood my post, I did not mention the commentaries. But now I will not debate about this subject which has been rehashed many times. Nina. #86101 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 24, 2008 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta nilovg Hi Alex, Op 23-mei-2008, om 20:58 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > So what exactly and precisely is "the mere act of thinking itself" ? ---------- N: Cinteti, to think, and here is a word association between cinteti and citta to explain an aspect of citta. It really means: experiencing an object, cognizing an object. Object is that which is cognized or known by citta. Thus, seeing is a citta that experiences visible object. Hearing is another citta, it experiences sound. Without citta nothing in this world would appear. No person would appear, but since there is citta it can think of a person. I quote from Kh Sujin's Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: < When we think that there is the world, beings, people or different things, we should know that this is only a moment of citta which thinks about what appears to seeing, about visible object. Seeing occurs at a moment different from thinking about what appears. For everyone there is citta which arises just for a moment and is then succeeded by the next one, and this happens continuously. Thus, it seems that there is the whole wide world with many different people and things, but we should have right understanding of what the world is. We should know that realities appear one at a time, and that they appear only for one moment of citta. Since cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another very rapidly, it seems that there is the world which does not disintegrate, the world which lasts, with beings, people and many different things. In reality the world lasts just for one moment, namely, when citta arises and cognizes an object just for that moment; and then the world falls away together with the citta. > We should not only read all this, but really consider it for ourselves, and that very often. Otherwise we shall not really understand what citta is. Just reading tetxs and definitions is not sufficient. You can see for yourself whether the quoted passage makes sense to you. I hope others will answer. I take a break. Nina. #86102 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 2:15 am Subject: Re: Metta, Ch 2, no 2. sarahprocter... Hi Connie (Han, Scott, Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > S: I also liked the following which Han wrote: > > "Here, Sayadaw said bhikkhu means not only the monks but it includes everybody who is afraid of samsara and who wants to escape from it. To support the Sayadaw's point of view, please refer to Vism. I.7: "He sees fear (bhayamnikkhati) in the round of rebirths, thus he is a bhikkhu." > > The Pali for this is: "Sa.msaare bhaya.m ikkhatii ti bhikkhu." > > c: I like that, too, but 'fear' is another of those cold shower words. -------- S: I know what you mean, but how else can bhaya be translated? Fearfulness? Horror? Danger? I believe there's another word for danger, so it's a little different. Of course, no fear when there's bhaya ~naana or knowledge of fearfulness, but as discussed wisdom can be a condition for dosa (inc. fear). Maybe this touches on the discussion Scott & Howard were having? Metta, Sarah ======== #86103 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 2:28 am Subject: Re: What I heard. Old Age sarahprocter... Dear Han, (& Nina) I meant to add a note to your question here as well: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Nina, > > > Nina: But Lodewijk and I are getting older and I am thinking about this. I study and consider the Dhamma, but what shall we do if something serious happens to us. > > > Kh S: We should not wait for that moment or think that we have to prepare for it. There is this moment now. > > Han: I can guess what Khun Sujin meant. But to be sure, can you kindly spell it out what she meant by 'there is this moment now.'??> ..... S: K.Sujin sometimes says that the hardest thing is not to do anything. The point is that we're always thinking and wondering about 'what to do' and 'what if?' instead of understanding the present realities. When we think about what we'll do, it's only thinking. How ever beautifully we might make our plans, dhammas never follow as we wish or expect. This is of course because they're conditioned and anatta. When we forget about being aware and understanding realities at this moment, we're lost again in stories and concepts about the future or past situations. Is this what you understood by 'there is this moment now' ? Metta, Sarah ========= #86104 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 2:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive sarahprocter... Dear Scott, I'm just catching up with some old correspondence that I'd put aside, iinc. one of yours. You kindly went to the trouble in #85221 of laying out the 2 translations of Vism regarding roots etc. Did you wish to add any further point or summary? I don't really have any comment to add to what I wrote before about the development of panna in animals and so on. Thank you again, Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Here's the comparison of translations for Visuddhimagga XVII, > Exposition of the Plane of Understanding: > > The Path of Purity (Pe Maung Tin): > > "For whatever state renders service to the standing or arising of a > state is said to be its cause. Such words as condition, reason, base, > coming-to-be, source, are the same in meaning, different in form. > Thus it is 'condition' in the sense of a root, 'cause' in the sense of > rendering service, in a word condition-cause is a state which renders > service in the sense of a root. The significance for the teachers is, > that it effects goodness in good states and so on, just as paddy- seeds > the paddy, a blue-coloured stones the blue rays and so on." <...> #86105 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 2:47 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (135) sarahprocter... Dear Connie, Han, Nina & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > continuing Akitti's story: <....> C: > The ascetic Akitti was heedful, he did not want to see what could be a danger to him. We can learn a lesson from this story, we should consider the perfections with regard to our own life. We have a long way to go in order to attain the realization of the four noble Truths and the eradication of defilements. If we do not understand what the perfections really are, we do not have firm determination to study the Dhamma in order to have right understanding, to apply the Dhamma and to practise it with sincerity, which is the perfection of truthfulness. We should study and practise without being disturbed by the worldly conditions of gain, loss, honour, dishonour, praise, blame, happiness and misery. If we are unshakable by these worldly conditions, we are beginning to develop the perfections so that they become more firmly established. .... S: "If we are unshakable by these worldly conditions, we are beginning......" The more understanding and sincerity, the more we can appreciate that it really is "a long way to go". I find these reminders most encouraging rather than discouraging. There can be truthfulness and wisdom any time, even when we are so disturbed by worldly conditions. Metta, Sarah ======== #86106 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:02 am Subject: Re: An introduction. sarahprocter... Hi William, You joined with some good comments and questions and then went quiet. In any case, I wished to respond to a few points in your introduction (#84993). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "William\\Alex" wrote: > > Someone asked me to introduce myself. > > I am 23-years-old. I could consider myself a Buddhist, but recently it > has occurred to me that the notion of a "Buddhist," in terms of > Abhidhamma is a "stream-enterer," which is not a very easy thing to > attain. Merely calling yourself Buddhist, being seen that way, going to > a Sangha, meditating, and so on, does not make you a follower of the Buddha. .... S: Well said! ... > > But rather, a stream enterer -- the beginning of dharma practice -- ... S: The dhamma practice has to begin long before this otherwise there is no chance of ever becoming a sotapanna. What you mean, I think, is that the sotapanna has no more wrong view, is firmly established on the right path and will become fully enlightened for sure. ... >is a > person who has destroyed the fetters of the illusion of self and doubt, > developing notself (anatta) and confidence (saddha). In this regard, I'm > not really a Buddhist, because I'm still attached to the notion of self > and I still have doubt. ... S: Understood and well said. .... <...> >It is totally false to say that Theravada is > selfish, Theravada Buddhists look towards Gautama Buddha, a supreme > buddha ("samma-sambodhi"), as a role-model, not the private Buddha > ("paccekabuddha"). So in this regard, Theravada Buddhists are also > bodhisattvas and they are not separate from the Mahayana. ... S: Actually, the Theravada texts refer to 3 kinds of bodhisatta, referrring to a) the savaka-buddha bodhisatta, the pacceka-buddha bodhisatta and the sammasam-buddha bodhisatta. ... <...> > Attachment to the notion of > "six realms of existence," is not different from attachment to the > notion of, "six realms of existence, which manifest as consciousness." > Being detached from both, I see them both as true, from certain > points-of-view. .... S: What we can say is that attachment is attachment, regardless of the object. It can be with or without wrong view when it arises. Look forward to any further comments/questions. Metta, Sarah ======== #86107 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Very Cold blooded conditionality & pre destination egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/5/21 Alex : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: >> > > But the Buddha did teach moral responcibility which assumes a degree > of choice. Attakaro... > > Not to mention lines such as this: > > 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the > protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that > is hard to gain. Mastery of what? Cheers Herman #86108 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Re: Sense-pleasures: definition? sarahprocter... Dear Antony, I didn't answer your last question (#84947) and I don't think anyone else did: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Antony Woods" wrote: > How do we avoid our Buddhist study and practice becoming sense- pleasures? .... S: Firstly, why do want to avoid such? Is it because we really understand the danger of sense pleasures or is it because of yet more attachment to not having sense pleasures? In any case, the only way that sense pleasures won't arise is through the development of right understanding. This includes understanding and being aware of the sense pleasures/attachments when they arise at this moment. How does this sound? How's life in Sydney these days? Metta, Sarah ======== #86109 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/5/24 Alex : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: >> >> >> > > But what is consciousness itself? > > Consciousness itself is nothing but an abstraction. It doesn't exist or occur. All consciousness is consciousness of something, and leaving out the object is a feat of illusion that thinking is capable of. Such thinking leaves some beings believing there is a consciousness in general, consciousness without an object. It is not even necessary to think in terms of consciousness when it is understood that any object entails consciousness of it. It is enough to refer to the object alone. References to consciousness refer to n-o-t-h-i-n-g, NOTHING :-) Cheers Herman #86110 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi TG, 2008/5/24 : > > Hi Herman > > You seem, from my perspective, to have a little "phenomenological tunnel > vision" here. At any rate, it seemed the Buddha and Arahats and other seasoned > monks were able to make broad claims about the impermanence of phenomena > without being in direct experience of such. This is, IMO, because they > understood the principles of conditionality and knew the "foundation thereof" and > therefore could say with certainty that all conditions were impermanent, etc. > Yes, agreed, and no Arahat made claims about the impermanence of Nibbana. Because they understood that being is not conditional, only knowledge of it is. Anatta, Dependent Origination, conditionality etc is only about the mind, not about the world, IMO. > > One other item on their side was they realized that such a vision could lead > to the end of suffering. Yet, I don't think it was an "imaginary vision" > for that end. > Agreed. Suffering can cease because suffering is mental, and mentality is conditional. If suffering was a characteristic of unconditioned being, then we'd all be stuffed :-) > > I think the idea that we can only know what is immediately being experienced > is a grand illusion because it is a whole slew of "unexperienced > information" that is supporting that "reasoned position." > Agreed. > > Anyway, just my thoughts and I hope I did not misread things. > > Thanks for being careful. But even if you had misread things, your post would still have been fine. Because you have been careful :-) Cheers, Sutta-Man (hope I didn't reveal your true identity :-)) Herman #86111 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: report on Bangkok and Kaeng Krajan sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, Back to #85098 belatedly. We were discussing dana, sila and bhavana. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > There are sutta quotes you would know very well in which the Buddha > describes his "method" (if that is the right word) as; to do good, > to refrain from evil and to purify the mind. Would the Pali be 'dana, > sila and bhavana' I wonder? But it doesn't matter; ... S: Anyway, here's the Pali: Sabbapaapassa akara.na"m (not to do any evil) kusalassa upasampada (to cultivate good) sacittapariyodapana"m (to purify one's mind) eta"m buddhaana saasana"m (this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.) .... >I take your point > about there being many kinds of sila. I can imagine there is a lot > about it in the texts -<...> .... S: like from the Perfections corner #85226 on sila as avoidance (vaaritta) and as performance (caaritta). Lots of good detail. Also, I thought the following as quoted in the Perfections corner too (#84923) might be relevant to the discussions on dana as reality: **** >"The Book of Analysis (the second Book of the Abhidhamma), in Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, 325) explains about different kinds of pa~n~naa,such as wisdom by means of thinking, wisdom by means of hearing, wisdom by means of giving, wisdom by means of siila. The "Dispeller of Delusion" (the Commentary to the Book of Analysis, in Ch 16, 412) explains that understanding associated with the intention or volition (cetanaa) of giving is "understanding based on giving" or "understanding by means of giving" (daanamayaa pa~n~naa). When we read this we should investigate in detail the pa~n~naa which is accompanied by the volition or intention of giving (cetanaa of daana). Pa~n~naa cannot arise with akusala citta, it cannot arise when someone expects a result. We read in the "Dispeller of Delusion": "...that understanding which arises associated in this way with the volition of giving, this is called 'understanding based on giving' (daanamayaa pa~n~naa). But that has three forms, namely, prior volition, volition of relinquishing and subsequent volition, according as it arises in one who thinks: 'I shall give a gift', in one giving a gift or in one reviewing after having given a gift." The "Dispeller of Delusion" speaks in detail about pa~n~naa which accompanies the kusala cittas that are intent on generosity. Kusala citta can be unaccompanied by pa~n~naa or accompanied by pa~n~naa. Kusala citta of the sense sphere accompanied by pa~n~naa cetasika (mahaa-kusala citta ~naa.nasampayutta1) can be kusala citta of the level of daana, of siila, or of bhaavanaa, mental development, including samatha and satipa.t.thaana, which is the development of vipassanaa. When we develop the perfection of generosity, the aim should be the correct understanding of realities as they are, without any expectation of a result for ourselves. This is the condition for pa~n~naa which is understandingbased on daana (daanamayaa pa~n~naa)."< **** Metta, Sarah ============= #86112 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi Sarah (and Howard), 2008/5/24 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > --- On Sat, 24/5/08, Herman Hofman wrote: > >> S: Seeing is impermanent, > ======== > H: >Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is impermanent. > ========= > > S: When the eyes are open and there is seeing, it is different from thinking. If there was no seeing of visible objects, there could not be any thinking about those visible objects. If you are saying that the eyes and eye base should be treated as being identical, then I agree. But I have been a member here for nearly 100,000 years :-), and I get no sense that if I were to say that the eyes and eye base are one and the same that I wouldn't be questioned on that. Not that there is a problem with being questioned, but I do not believe there is any unanimity on this. But my main point was that seeing without object doesn't occur. In that sense, objectless seeing is just thinking. > > Are you suggesting that this isn't what the Buddha taught in suttas even or just that you don't agree with it? > =========== > >>visible object is impermanent > > H: >I wonder why you say this,..... > ========= > S: "sabbe sankhara anicca...." > > Regardless of whether it's known by anyone at all, whether it's a Buddha era or not, the truth remains the same. > Well, is the heart base a sankhara? Is it something the Buddha taught? It seems to me that things that don't exist at all cannot be said to be either permanent or impermanent. But what do I know? Cheers Herman #86113 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) sarahprocter... Hi Colette, Back to an old post of yours to me, #84936 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > Let me get this straight, you want me to comment of the tangibility > of Rupa or an object as being that which is seen through the eye- > consciousness? ... S: I forget what I said, but yes, the rupa of visible object is the rupa which can be experienced by eye-consciousness. So whereas consciousness experiences an object, rupas never do. What we take for self are various realities, some which experience an object (namas) and some which can only ever be experienced (rupas). ... >As a magi of Western traditions I first must inquire > as to what it is you DESIRE, CRAVE, manifested? ... S: We're just discussing the Dhamma here:-) ... > > Then I can go into your questions concerning sound and the qualities > of sound. Does the ear the only part of the body that hears? ... S: Just as it is eye consciousness which experiences visible object, it is hearing consciousness that experiences sound. Without ear-base, however, this would be impossible. ... >sound is > made of a Wave, vibrations, A DISTURBANCE. That which was festering > and stagnating suddenly becomes dynamic and active and set into > motion. Can you actually hear the ripples of the pond after the > pebble or rock was thrown in the drink since the static condition >of a stagnant pond no longer exists <....> .... S: Here, we're moving away from a discussion of realities, a discussion of the Dhamma. It may be interesting, but it won't lead to any insight or liberation. Thx for all your other comments. Metta, Sarah ============ #86114 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:30 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi James, > > ------------ > <. . .> > J: > And, I don't think that we should skip her personal background. > It is very important to consider to get an overall view of KS's > teaching. > ------------ > > OK, if you insist. In which case I would like to review your review > so far: > > ------------------- > <. . .> > James: What I read here is that K. Sujin flunked out of college, > studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years, and then instantly > became a Dhamma teacher. > -------------- > > KH: I don't think that was what you read at all. It seems to me you > thought to yourself, "How can I restate this in the most negative way > possible?" And this is what you came up with. James: I don't know what you mean. This is what was written in the book. She flunked out of college (she couldn't pass her examinations her second year and had to drop out), she taught the Thai language for a few years (I didn't include that because I don't see the relevance) she studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years (her exact words), and then she began to lecture. Maybe you don't like the phrase "flunked out" of college. Well, I don't know of any other way to phrase it. Failed at college? Couldn't pass her examinations in college? What other type of nice way could I phrase it? I am not trying to paint her in a negative light, I am just stating the facts. > > ------------------- > J: > I don't believe that those are sufficient > qualifications to become a Dhamma teacher. > ------------------- > > In the case you are referring to, K S was giving lectures at the > request of her teacher. Did that make K S herself a teacher? Does > everyone who gives a talk - or delivers a lecture - have to be > a "teacher?" James: Well, I think that teaching someone about something (either in a lecture format or in a discussion format) makes that person a teacher. I will discuss this more later. > > ---------------------- > J: > First, anyone who flunks > out of college is not very dedicated to study or to hard work. A > quality education is important to every Buddhist, not to mention > every Buddhist teacher. > ---------------------- > > This is silly, petty nonsense. I don't think any of your readers > will be fooled by it. Performance at university is no measure of a > person's worth. We all know good people with no academic > qualifications and bad people with plenty of them. We know people who > have dropped out of school at an early age and gone back decades > later, and we know graduates who have never put their education to > use. The combinations and permutations of academic history are > endless. They are in no way a measure of good or bad qualities. James: Well, first I never said that failing college makes her a "bad" person. I just said, that to me, it doesn't make her a qualified Dhamma instructor on the surface of things. The Abhidhamma is supposed to be very long (seven books) and complex. I don't have a copy of it myself so I don't know what is in it. I have to trust someone like KS to tell me what is in it. Honestly, I thought that KS must be a pretty smart cookie from her apparent Abhidhamma knowledge and probably had a phd or something. I was quite shocked to find out that she failed college. Now, someone who is talking all the time about the importance of study to learn something, and yet failed college, that sends a red flag up in my mind. Granted, you may not care at all and think that it doesn't matter. Okay, that's fine. You decide for yourself. > > --------------------- > J: > Second, she only studied the Abhidhamma for > two or three years before she became a Dhamma teacher. Is that > really enough time to learn the Dhamma? I seriously doubt it. > --------------------- > > Sariputta needed just a few seconds of Dhamma study before he become > a sotapanna, and just a few more seconds to become an arahant. James: I think you need to do some study on the background of Sariputta. Sariputta meditated for two weeks, and was listening to a discourse by the Buddha, before he became an arahant. And the Buddha didn't declare him capable of teaching the Dhamma to others until he became an arahant. Is KS an arahant? If so, then of course none of this other stuff about her background matters. But, if she isn't, then I think it does matter. Some > people could study Dhamma for a lifetime and still have no idea of > what it's about. So there is no rule as to how much is needed, it > depends on what we have doing been in our preceding lifetimes. James: True, but KS refuses to reveal any of her personal insights or levels of knowledge so I can only go on what she has written. She studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years and then began to lecture on it. Now, take me as an example: I have three college degrees (2 BAs, 1MA) and I have studied the Dhamma for over 15 years, and yet I know that I am in no way qualified to start giving lectures on the Dhamma. Why is it that KS feels that she is qualified? > > And what do you mean by "studied for two or three years?" Do you mean > full-time study - as in eight or more hours per day? I think two or > three years of that kind of study would be an enormous amount. One > week of full-time study would be an enormous amount by my standards. > > So, again, this line of argument tells us nothing. I thought I quoted that. She studied for half days and then met once a week to discuss and ask questions of Ajahn Neb. Maybe that is plenty of time for you, but that doesn't seem like enough for me. Especially when the Dhamma is so vast and deep. > > ------------------------------- > J: > Third, she studied the Abhidhamma only before she started > teaching. > She studied the suttas and other texts later as translations became > available. So, she is one-sided in her approach to the Dhamma. > ------------------------------- > > As you say, K S has studied both the Abhidhamma and the Suttanta. How > does that make her approach one-sided? James: Because she studied the Abhidhamma only before she started teaching. So, he mental orientation was toward the Abhidhamma and she studied the suttas in the light of the Abhidhamma. If she had studied both, at the same time, before teaching, then her teaching would be more balanced- in my estimation. > > ------------------------------------ > J: > She places far more emphasis on the Abhidhamma then anything > else. This > makes sense due to her background and conditioning. So, K. Sujin > has a lopsided approach to the Dhamma due to her background. > ------------------------------------- > > At this point your readers will need to have some knowledge of the > Dhamma before they can judge whether or not you are making sense. The > Dhamma is one teaching, not two. There are, however, two main ways of > teaching it. > > The conventional-language way that is found in the suttas can be > understood *only* when the technical-language way has been thoroughly > understood. Otherwise, people will have to provide their own > interpretations of the words used, and the suttas will mean all kinds > of things to all kinds of people. James: This is a different subject which we could get to later. > > -------------------------------------------- > J: > I have nothing against K. Sujin as a person. I am sure that she > is > very nice and it is commendable that she is so dedicated to the > Dhamma. But, I don't believe her background makes her a qualified > Dhamma teacher. > --------------------------------------------- > > As I was saying, without a proper introduction to the suttas people > can come up with all sorts of interpretations of them. When they find > out that there is only one true interpretation - and it is not > theirs - they will react in different ways. > > Your way of reacting is typical of many. I won't say any more about > it just now. > > Ken H > Metta, James #86115 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:11 am Subject: Re: report on Bangkok and Kaeng Krajan sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, Back to #84938. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > S: > If visible object or thinking or doubt appears, but there's an > idea (however subtle) of trying to be aware or understand an > olfactory object or phassa (contact), for example, it indicates > clinging to awareness/understanding rather than being aware and > understanding the reality right now. It's the same when we're > concerned about having more metta or being aware of breath or seeing > more urgency. This is how the practice becomes 'all about me'. > ----------------------- > > OK, I can see that now, thank you. And there is another point being > made here, isn't there? It's about some objects appearing more > frequently than others. By knowing which types of object appear most > frequently we . . . . What? Understand a little more about what is > appearing now? .... S: Yes, as soon as there's an idea "we......What?" ,the middle way is lost again. "Understand a little more about what is appearing now " [without any expectations] is the only way. ... > Sorry for being so dense! Nina said something to me about not > assuming it was all too hard. Am I not seeing the wood for the trees? > > (One day I will look back and laugh about this.) :-) .... S: I've forgotten what all this is about. Are you laughing now? Any further reflections? I'm actually just trying to tidy up loose threads before we go away at the end of next week. Metta, Sarah p.s How's the surf in Noosa? I still have a problematic hip, so my surfing career may be curtailed before it ever properly started;-) ============ #86116 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: report on Bangkok and Kaeng Krajan sarahprocter... Hi Mike, back to #85278. We were discussing whether concentration appears now --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > It took me a little while, but I think I get it--it ("concentration that is apparent") goes back to our discussion of "what appears now", i.e. > the object of a cognitive process. .... S: Yes. .... > So the minute instances of wholesome consciousness that MIGHT occur when engaged in circumambulating stupas, making offerings or wearing relics > on our heads must be attended by wholesome one-pointedness but will not 'appear'. .... S: ...Except to developed right understanding or insight. .... > For practical purposes anyway, wholesome moments (necessarily of daana, siila or bhaavanaa, as I understand it) are extremely rare in everyday life. > > So if we assume that ekaggataa--like e.g. phassa--doesn't 'appear', then yes, it does make sense "that the concentration which appears now is > akusala concentration", as I see it. .... S: I think I had suggested that right concentration (rather than ekaggataa in general) is unlikely to appear and that it was the wrong concentration which was more readily apparent. Metta, Sarah p.s I listened to a recording yesterday in which KS was using 'appear' to refer to what is experienced.....so it does depend on the context or occasion what is meant:-). ============ #86117 From: han tun Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: What I heard. Old Age hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: K.Sujin sometimes says that the hardest thing is not to do anything. The point is that we're always thinking and wondering about 'what to do' and 'what if?' instead of understanding the present realities. When we think about what we'll do, it's only thinking. How ever beautifully we might make our plans, dhammas never follow as we wish or expect. This is of course because they're conditioned and anatta. When we forget about being aware and understanding realities at this moment, we're lost again in stories and concepts about the future or past situations. Is this what you understood by 'there is this moment now'? -------------------- Han: Yes, this is also what I understood by 'there is this moment now'. I find that “What about now?â€? is the standard counter-question by Khun Sujin, whatever question she is asked. I do not say that understanding of the present realities is not desirable. It is very desirable. But if the “present momentâ€? is brought in all the time it becomes too much. [You will say if someone says something too often I don’t like it. What if I say something too often?:>)] Anyway, I will think about illness before I am sick. I will think about death before I die. I will think about age-related diseases (e.g. age-related macular-degeneration of the eye) before I have them. If “thinkingâ€? is something wrong, I cannot help it. The Buddha said in AN 5.57 Upajjhatthana Sutta, "There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five? "'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. "'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ... "'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ... "'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.' ... "'I am the owner of my actions,1 heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ... "These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html You may say that the Buddha asked us to reflect, not to think. To reflect and to think may be different, but one thing is sure. The Buddha asked us to reflect on (or to think) often BEFORE those events happen. Is reflecting on something before it happens, a story and a concept? Respectfully, Han #86118 From: han tun Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (135) hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: "If we are unshakable by these worldly conditions, we are beginning... ..." The more understanding and sincerity, the more we can appreciate that it really is "a long way to go". I find these reminders most encouraging rather than discouraging. There can be truthfulness and wisdom any time, even when we are so disturbed by worldly conditions. -------------------- Han: I appreciate your cetanaa by including my name in the addressees. At the moment I am still shaken by these worldly conditions. It is not for me, but for others. I am praying that if their suffering is due to their past bad kamma, let it be that they have paid their kamma debt enough! Respectfully, Han #86119 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. jonoabb Hi Herman > I accept that you are trying to answer my question(s), but I remain > unsatisfied, which is no failing of yours. I originally read you to > say that B cannot be killed, unless B has somehow intentionally > participated in this. Did I read you correctly? > My original comment was in response to the stated view that if B suffers a violent and premature death at the hands of A, those circumstances of B's death may be the result of A's kamma (rather than of B's). That view asserts that not everything that comes to one is due to the fruition of one's own kamma; one may be an "innocent victim" of the intentional action of others. My understanding of the law of kamma differs from that. I understand the position to be that the circumstances of a person's death cannot occur unless the kamma to support those circumstances has been committed by the person at some time in the past (i.e, no "innocent victims"). This is what I was trying to say in the statement you picked up on. My apologies for any lack of clarity. Jon #86120 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - In a message dated 5/23/2008 11:10:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Sarah, 2008/5/21 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > > S: Seeing is impermanent, Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is impermanent. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mulling over one's seeing and conversing about it is a matter of thinking, Herman. But you do see, right? ;-) ---------------------------------------------------- >visible object is impermanent I wonder why you say this, because I think the status of an object that is not being attended to is completely unknowable. That attention flits from one object to another does not mean that previous objects of attention have ceased to be. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Herman, what do you think is meant by "visible object"? It's not a conventional "seen" object like "my backyard" - it's not a thought-abstraction, nor is it a thing residing in some repository of visible objects. It is the object-content of mind when seeing and not yet further processing that content. It is a sight, per se, and a sight exists when seeing, and only as the content of that seeing. It is inseparable from the seeing of it. ---------------------------------------------------- >, eye-base is impermanent, Thinking -------------------------------------------------- Howard: To say that and to think it is, certainly, thinking. It is a different matter of whether there is something that arises and ceases corresponding to the name and thought of eye-base. If every statement is met with the reply of "thinking," it seems to me that this is a call to cease all thought and communication. There are times when that is very good to do, but not so great on discussion lists! ;-) ------------------------------------------------- > hearing and all other realities are impermanent. More thinking. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: So is the asserting of "More thinking"! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > ========= > H: >However, let mel put it to you that if you do not know what red is > then you certainly don't know what a paramattha dhamma could be. > ========== > > S: What is seen now? > If you are asking me what is being attended to now, what is the content of awareness, I could tell you about the situation I find myself in at the moment, and how that is changing. As in, I'm sitting here typing, I see the keyboard, the screen, my hands etc ------------------------------------------ Howard: Thinking! LOL! ---------------------------------------------- If you are asking me what visible objects there are now, I cannot answer that. Because I can only know, in order to talk about them, the ones I attend to. No doubt, there is much more going on than what enters awareness, but I cannot tell you about the visible objects of which I am unaware. I hope that clarifies why I believe your post does not address impermanence at all. Cheers Herman ============================== With metta, Howard #86121 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Perfections Corner (162) nichiconn Dear Friends, this is the last part of chapter 4: Listening to the Dhamma is most beneficial if we let ourselves be guided by the Dhamma and investigate our own citta. When we hear about a person's death, it can remind us of the truth and to reflect upon ourselves. The person who died may have been full of attachment, he may have liked paintings, music, or other beautiful objects that were enticing. We should reflect upon our own cittas, and consider whether we are like the person who died. We can be reminded of momentary death, of the shortness of each moment of citta that arises and falls away immediately. If we have a great deal of attachment, if we cling to possessions, we should remember that when visible object appears through the eyes, attachment arises just on account of what we see at a given moment; when a beautiful sound appears through the ears, attachment arises just on account of what we hear. When a delicious odour appears only for an extremely short moment, it conditions attachment to that odour. It is the same with flavour and tangible object. We can see in our daily life that even though ruupa arises and falls away very rapidly, there is still attachment to that ruupa which lasts for such a short moment. Attachment to sense objects is bound to arise so long as pa~n~naa has not been further developed. When we notice a person who is full of dosa, we should reflect upon our own citta, we should consider whether we are often angry, or whether we are irritated and disturbed time and again, or whether we are vengeful towards someone else. We should know that, in truth, that person is not to be found. We have met the person we are angry with only during one life, and after this life is terminated he is no longer there. Should we be angry with him after he has passed away? So long as we see that person we may have angry thoughts about him or be irritated about him, but we should remember that he will not be for a long time in this world and that he will depart for ever; from then that person will no longer be there. When we meet someone, we never know whether this is the last time that we see him and if we do not consider this we may treat him badly. Whereas, if we realize that this may be the last opportunity that we see him, it may condition the citta to be humble and gentle, we can have kindness and compassion. Before we studied the Dhamma we had no understanding of the realities appearing through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense and the mind-door. We had a great deal of ignorance. By listening to the Dhamma we can come to know that realities appear each with their own characteristic and that we should study these realities. We should not merely study them in theory, or merely listen to the explanation about them without carefully considering their true nature. We should remember that at this very moment realities are appearing and that the true characteristics of those dhammas which arise and fall away should be penetrated. Hence we can be reminded that we should listen and thoroughly consider the Dhamma, so that understanding is accumulated. Understanding is a condition for being aware diligently of the characteristics of the dhammas appearing at this moment. If we know that we still have a great deal of ignorance, moha, and that this should be eradicated, we will not be neglectful, but continue to listen to the Dhamma and develop each kind of kusala. .. peace, connie The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment www.zolag.co.uk Copyright © Sujin Boriharnwanaket #86122 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Photos of Friday the 23rd of May 2008 sukinderpal Hi Azita and Sarah, gazita2002 wrote: > > this is the monk-Guttasila- who I was asking about during the time > Vens. Pannabahulo and Dhammanando were at the foundation in April. > thanks for these fotos Sukin. Hope all is well over there, say hello > to all for me. > I don't remember this, otherwise I would have told him about it. Anyway Ven.G and Ivan got to talk some about old times and I'm sure that had you two been here, there would be a lot more. ;-) The discussions yesterday went very well even though there were disagreements. I will convey your hello to all. Metta, Sukin #86123 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Op 23-mei-2008, om 20:54 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > He DID state in DN#16 that "Dhamma-Vinaya" is the guide and that it > > doesn't matter what so and so revered teacher (or a group of > > teachers) says: Dhamma is the guide. > -------- > N: Dhamma Vinaya includes the three pi.takas. There were many > messages in the past about this subject. I just refer to > > > > I cannot add anything else, since I am going away for a few days. > > Nina. > Is there ANY sutta (in DN,MN,SN,AN) where the Buddha states that study of 7 books of AP is nessesery? Please give the sutta name/number (and link if possible). Please no commentaries, no Buddhaghosa, no later sectarian Chronicals. Best wishes, Alex #86124 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/24/2008 7:17:47 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Herman, what do you think is meant by "visible object"? It's not a conventional "seen" object like "my backyard" - it's not a thought-abstractionco nor is it a thing residing in some repository of visible objects. It is the object-content of mind when seeing and not yet further processing that content. It is a sight, per se, and a sight exists when seeing, and only as the content of that seeing. It is inseparable from the seeing of it. ........................................................ Hi Howard, (Herman) Now may I ask, is this your opinion or is there a Sutta that says so? The way I see it is different. The Buddha says paraphrasing "the eye and visible object come together to produce visual-consciousness." This is most pronounced and separated in the "dyads suttas" Now the eye, clearly, is not by itself "visual experience." So why would "visual object," by itself, be already "the content of the mind"? Once its the content of the mind, it visual-consciousness. Why the separation then...why not just say -- eye and visual-consciounsess? So anyway, I can see how it can be looked at both ways....but the Suttas seem to me to say that -- it is the meeting of the three elements the causes visual experience. That must mean (to me) it is possible for the three elements "not to be meeting." Gotta run TG #86125 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/24/2008 11:11:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: In a message dated 5/24/2008 7:17:47 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Herman, what do you think is meant by "visible object"? It's not a conventional "seen" object like "my backyard" - it's not a thought-abstractionco nor is it a thing residing in some repository of visible objects. It is the object-content of mind when seeing and not yet further processing that content. It is a sight, per se, and a sight exists when seeing, and only as the content of that seeing. It is inseparable from the seeing of it. ........................................................ Hi Howard, (Herman) Now may I ask, is this your opinion or is there a Sutta that says so? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I haven't seen it in a sutta. In fact, I've seen no discussion in the suttas of what visible object is. So, yes, it is my opinion. It is the only perspective that makes any sense to me, though, of course, my perpsective could change. ------------------------------------------------------ The way I see it is different. The Buddha says paraphrasing "the eye and visible object come together to produce visual-consciousness." This is most pronounced and separated in the "dyads suttas" ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: And I view the "coming together" as a co-occurrence. ------------------------------------------------- Now the eye, clearly, is not by itself "visual experience." So why would "visual object," by itself, be already "the content of the mind"? Once its the content of the mind, it visual-consciousness. Why the separation then...why not just say -- eye and visual-consciounsess? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why say *these* either? The event of visual contact as I understand it is a co-arising of a triad. There simply is no unseen sight - to be a sight is to be seen. ------------------------------------------------- So anyway, I can see how it can be looked at both ways....but the Suttas seem to me to say that -- it is the meeting of the three elements the causes visual experience. That must mean (to me) it is possible for the three elements "not to be meeting." -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not if they are in mutual dependence. ----------------------------------------------- Gotta run TG =========================== With metta, Howard #86126 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 9:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: report on Bangkok and Kaeng Krajan m_nease Hi Sarah, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , "m. nease" > wrote: > > It took me a little while, but I think I get it--it ("concentration > that is apparent") goes back to our discussion of "what appears now", > i.e. > > the object of a cognitive process. > .... > S: Yes. OK-- > > So the minute instances of wholesome consciousness that MIGHT occur > when engaged in circumambulating stupas, making offerings or wearing > relics > > on our heads must be attended by wholesome one-pointedness but will > not 'appear'. > .... > S: ...Except to developed right understanding or insight. Sure. > > For practical purposes anyway, wholesome moments (necessarily of > daana, siila or bhaavanaa, as I understand it) are extremely rare in > everyday life. > > > > So if we assume that ekaggataa--like e.g. phassa--doesn't 'appear', > then yes, it does make sense "that the concentration which appears > now is > > akusala concentration", as I see it. > .... > S: I think I had suggested that right concentration (rather than > ekaggataa in general) is unlikely to appear and that it was the wrong > concentration which was more readily apparent. Of course. > p.s I listened to a recording yesterday in which KS was > using 'appear' to refer to what is experienced.....so it does depend > on the context or occasion what is meant:-). As usual. Thanks, Sarah, mike #86127 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 10:11 am Subject: Consciousness, from Matter or not? truth_aerator Hi TG and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > The way I see it is different. The Buddha says paraphrasing "the eye and visible object come together to produce visual- consciousness." This is most > pronounced and separated in the "dyads suttas" > > > Now the eye, clearly, is not by itself "visual experience." So why would "visual object," by itself, be already "the content of the mind"? Once its the content of the mind, it visual-consciousness. Why the separation then...why not just say -- eye and visual- consciounsess? > > It is interesting that Buddha seem to teach materialism in sutta such as Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. eye+form-> consciousness Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. eye+form+consciousness = contact http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html Pali experts: what was the pali word that TB used to translate as: "arises" ? Does it mean something which is latent and becomes active or does it mean "produced" (ie: something non existent becomes existent). Interesting thing is that Mind (or intellect) is treated as a sense organ and the "thoughts" are objects on the same "material plane" as 5 sense objects. Of course I think it is possible to wriggle out of it by claiming that "forms" (which eye meets) is merely a mental abstraction until there is consciousness, etc etc... But does the sutta itself MN148 suggest that? --- "It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html --- However there is slight possible contradiction: "There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear- consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body- consciousness, mind-consciousness. With the arising of formations there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of consciousness. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html Although I suspect that at least SOME factors of DO arise together (as in sheaves of reed example) sankhara -> vinnana&namarupa Best Wishes, Alex #86128 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:39 am Subject: Sights and Seeing and Self upasaka_howard Hi, all - A couple sutta quotes to consider - from the Kalaka and Bahiya Suttas: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." and "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. 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." With metta, Howard #86129 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: What are the causes of 4 great elements + space & consciousness 5-6th? truth_aerator Hello all, Does anyone know what is the origin of 4 great elements in the suttas? Also, what is the cause of Space element? What is the cause of Consciousness element stated in MN140? Can someone please explain in MN140: There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize "with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html Thank you, Alex #86130 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/24/2008 1:45:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: You misunderstood my post, I did not mention the commentaries. But now I will not debate about this subject which has been rehashed many times. Nina. ..................................... Hi Nina No problem. Its really the primary subject that gets debated here however it is framed....between those of us who believe certain things in the commentaries (such as Ultimate Realities and Own Characteristics)represent what the Budhda taught and those who don't. Whether you mentioned the commentaries or not is a non-factor because your view of Dhamma is definitely commentary driven. This makes Abhidhamma a necessary link for you to uphold those things in the commentaries I mentioned above. This make Abhidhamma more crucial for you than it necessarily would for someone else. TG #86131 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... Hi Herman (Alex) Interesting post. Basically, if I may Herman, I think you are saying consciousness is "a fully dependent" and is "nothing of itself." I would agree with that...However, that applies to ALL CONDITIONED THINGS. If you are really saying that "consciousness is nothing period" than that I wouldn't agree with. I'm wondering, which is it? :-) TG In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:34:06 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Consciousness itself is nothing but an abstraction. It doesn't exist or occur. All consciousness is consciousness of something, and leaving out the object is a feat of illusion that thinking is capable of. Such thinking leaves some beings believing there is a consciousness in general, consciousness without an object. It is not even necessary to think in terms of consciousness when it is understood that any object entails consciousness of it. It is enough to refer to the object alone. References to consciousness refer to n-o-t-h-i-n-n-o-t-h-i-n-g Cheers Herman #86132 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:50:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Yes, agreed, and no Arahat made claims about the impermanence of Nibbana. Because they understood that being is not conditional, only knowledge of it is. Anatta, Dependent Origination, conditionality etc is only about the mind, not about the world, IMO. ..................................................... TG: But the Buddha describes physical thing after physical thing, in the Suttas, that are impermanent without any reference to the mind. Flat out says -- Whatever arises, that is of the nature to cease. He described weather as wearing out sailboats, adze handles wearing away, mountains wearing away, towns civilizations, etc as impermanent... And -- “Whatever is knowledge of the law of cause, that is also knowledge of that which is by nature perishable, transient, fading away, and tending to cease.â€? (The Buddha . . . KS, vol. 2, pg. 121-122) “…whatever is born, become, compounded (conditioned), is subject to decay – it cannot be that it does not decay.â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 272, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) “…all compound things are impermanent…â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 263, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) “All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 605 – 606, To Dighanakha, Dighanakha Sutta, #74) “…all conditioned things are of a nature to decay – strive on untiringly.â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 270, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) .............................................................................. ......... > > One other item on their side was they realized that such a vision could lead > to the end of suffering. Yet, I don't think it was an "imaginary vision" > for that end. > Agreed. Suffering can cease because suffering is mental, and mentality is conditional. ............................................................... TG: I agree that suffering is an outcome of mentality. By eliminating "this" particular mental interaction ("you," "me," "each individual" etc.) you eliminate the suffering associated thereby. But I view it as supported by the physical...and that the principles of phenomena are identical for both....conditioned, impermanent, afflicted (with impermanence) and nonself. True though, that the "affliction component" only arises when sentience is concerned. OK, That's all. TG Burned out. LOL If suffering was a characteristic of unconditioned being, then we'd all be stuffed :-) > > I think the idea that we can only know what is immediately being experienced > is a grand illusion because it is a whole slew of "unexperienced > information" that is supporting that "reasoned position." > Agreed. > > Anyway, just my thoughts and I hope I did not misread things. > > Thanks for being careful. But even if you had misread things, your post would still have been fine. Because you have been careful :-) Cheers, Sutta-Man (hope I didn't reveal your true identity :-)) Herman #86133 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Herman, All I think the below post was meant for me, but I'm probably wrong. Anyway, I'm just going to go out on a limb here, no matter what criticism comes, call me nuts...but I think "visible-object" is "light." TG In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:11:18 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, TGrand458@ aol.com writes: In a message dated 5/24/2008 7:17:47 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, _upasaka@..._ (mailto:upasaka@...) writes: Howard: Herman, what do you think is meant by "visible object"? It's not a conventional "seen" object like "my backyard" - it's not a thought-abstractionth nor is it a thing residing in some repository of visible objects. It is the object-content of mind when seeing and not yet further processing that content. It is a sight, per se, and a sight exists when seeing, and only as the content of that seeing. It is inseparable from the seeing of it. ........................................................ Hi Howard, (Herman) Now may I ask, is this your opinion or is there a Sutta that says so? The way I see it is different. The Buddha says paraphrasing "the eye and visible object come together to produce visual-consciousnesvisible object co pronounced and separated in the "dyads suttas" Now the eye, clearly, is not by itself "visual experience." So why would "visual object," by itself, be already "the content of the mind"? Once its the content of the mind, it visual-consciousnescontent of the mind, it visua not just say -- eye and visual-consciounsesno So anyway, I can see how it can be looked at both ways....but the Suttas seem to me to say that -- it is the meeting of the three elements the causes visual experience. That must mean (to me) it is possible for the three elements "not to be meeting." Gotta run TG #86134 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Herman In the "dyads Suttas" it is the eye and visual-object that come together to generate visual-consciousness. This is one of the few groups of Suttas that clearly shows this "structural hierarchy." It is not the coming together of the three that generate the other two...or one. No... it is these two that generate the third...visual-consciousness. Basically, Howard, as I understand you, you are saying that visual-consciousness is a co-structurer of visual-object. Its kind of the old philosophical debate, is there any visible phenomena with it being seen? Does a tree falling in the forest make any sound without anyone hearing it? etc. This argument would need to be also applied to the eye...and then the statement would be...there is no eye without visual-consciousness too...would it not? Your position, as I understand it, does not accept "visual-object-phenomena" unless it is "being seen." So the logical result of this position is...that on a bright sunny day, you don't accept that there is "visual-object-phenomena" behind you until you turn around and actually experience it. In my view, its there all the time even when not "seeing." Two sides of a coin I guess. So far, my batting average is 1000. ;-) In your case, you are guaranteeing a 1000 batting average. In other words, you won't even come to the plate unless you already have a base hit. LOL At any rate, since I think "visual-object" is just plain old "light," I have a very simple view of it. TG In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:32:39 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: The way I see it is different. The Buddha says paraphrasing "the eye and visible object come together to produce visual-consciousnesvisible object c most pronounced and separated in the "dyads suttas" ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: And I view the "coming together" as a co-occurrence. ------------------------------------------------- Now the eye, clearly, is not by itself "visual experience." So why would "visual object," by itself, be already "the content of the mind"? Once its the content of the mind, it visual-consciousnescontent of the mind, it vi then...why not just say -- eye and visual-consciounsesno --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why say *these* either? The event of visual contact as I understand it is a co-arising of a triad. There simply is no unseen sight - to be a sight is to be seen. ------------------------------------------------- So anyway, I can see how it can be looked at both ways....but the Suttas seem to me to say that -- it is the meeting of the three elements the causes visual experience. That must mean (to me) it is possible for the three elements "not to be meeting." -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not if they are in mutual dependence. ----------------------------------------------- Gotta run TG #86135 From: han tun Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (161) hantun1 Dear Connie, Nina, Sarah and All, In Perfections Corner (161) I find useful passages with regard to the arising of satipa.t.thaana. (1) Text: Satipa.t.thaana is awareness of the dhammas which are real in our daily life, and through satipa.t.thaana, pa~n~naa can further develop to the degree of realizing the stages of insight. (2) Text: If satipa.t.thaana does not arise in our daily life, and pa~n~naa does not investigate the characteristic of each reality that appears, it is impossible to eliminate wrong view. -------------------- Han: According to No. (1) the arising of satipa.t.thaana presupposes the development of pa~n~naa. According to No. (2) satipa.t.thaana and pa~n~naa are two separate entities. I wish to remember them in that way. Respectfully, Han #86136 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sights and Seeing and Self TGrand458@... Hi Howard I think this Sutta is less about a phenomenological view of experience, that just showing that experiences are just experiences and have "no-self" associated therewith. In other words...I don't think the Buddha here is trying to show "how phenomena work or the "mechanics" of experience," but just how the enlightened mind does not diverge off into conceptual diversification ... which would be based on seeing things as "entities/selves." The ADDED term "object" in brackets is not in the text...and is misleading IMO. TG In a message dated 5/24/2008 11:39:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, all - A couple sutta quotes to consider - from the Kalaka and Bahiya Suttas: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." and "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. 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." With metta, Howard #86137 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: Hi Herman (Alex) > Interesting post. Basically, if I may Herman, I think you are saying consciousness is "a fully dependent" and is "nothing of itself." I would agree with that...However, that applies to ALL CONDITIONED THINGS. If you are really saying that "consciousness is nothing period" than that I wouldn't agree with. I'm wondering, which is it? :-) > 6 sensory consciousness is produced when: internal + external sense base + samannâhâra(guided by Avijja&Asava). ------------- If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement (samannâhâra), then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness [....] If internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html Mn28 So ultimately 6 sensory consciousness is a derived material process guided by ignorance rather than an Ultimate reality. Best wishes, Alex #86138 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background nichiconn alex: Is there ANY sutta (in DN,MN,SN,AN) where the Buddha states that study of 7 books of AP is nessesery? Please give the sutta name/number (and link if possible). connie: what do you think happened at the root of all those trees? sure, sitting... lying, daily life. Sometimes, they must've done the old rote memorizations. Not too much dish washing. alex: Please no commentaries, no Buddhaghosa, no later sectarian Chronicals. connie: Where does the dsg homepage say that!?!?! my apologies, btw, for saying I found you hysterical... today it's subversive. please pardon that, too. Did Buddha say, in those words, to read any written collections? Nah, maybe 'lend ear', but not 'read book'. Maybe a lot of stuff, but who's to say? Here, (may all leaf turners be happy, etc.,) we have texts... and a sort of lecturing. Who is a voice-hearer now? anyone? ps. thanks, James. interesting choice of topics. how's your life? peace, connie #86139 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 1:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What are the causes of 4 great elements + space & consciousness 5-6... TGrand458@... Hi Alex Great questions! In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:58:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, Does anyone know what is the origin of 4 great elements in the suttas? ................................................... TG: No source origin for the 4GE's in the Suttas to my knowledge. But I believe the 4GE's are "foundational" and critically important to understand! ... In terms of their principles. ....................................................... Also, what is the cause of Space element? ............................................................ TG: Once again, my view ... the "space element" is merely "delineated" by physical content and the Buddha is showing that the "world" has depth and dimension...in other words....there is "stuff" out there. In order to describe the "physical world," space is a required element. When the Buuddha discusses the 6 Elements...Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Space, Consciousness; it is a "physical priority" description of all elements; with "consciousness" included to fill out the picture. The Five Aggregates being a "psychological priority" description...and the 'other' "6 Elements" -- eye, ear, nose, etc. being a "phenomenological priority" description. This is my thinking on this. ............................................................. What is the cause of Consciousness element stated in MN140? Can someone please explain in MN140: ............................................................ TG: Contact is the cause of consciousness. Contact between what? ... the sense bases and sense objects. BTW, IMO, CONTACT is a very very important phenomena to investigate. I'm not sure where you're going with these questions...but I'll ride along. LOL TG There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize "with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' " _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://wwwhttp://ww_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html) Thank you, Alex #86140 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/24/2008 6:28:09 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: So ultimately 6 sensory consciousness is a derived material process guided by ignorance rather than an Ultimate reality. Best wishes, Alex .......................................... Hi Alex Ahhhhh This is where I thought you were going with this! And I agree in general! BUT, going to the nitty gritty, I don't consider phenomena to be either material or mental. In fact, I don't even like the word "material." Whether physical or mental, its just phenomena, conditions, taking different formations based on causal interactions. Its just energies in different configurations, meta-morphing in accordance to the causal situations/impacts/contacts. (Sarah will love that.) TG #86141 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > alex: Is there ANY sutta (in DN,MN,SN,AN) where the Buddha states that study of 7 books of AP is nessesery? Please give the sutta name/number (and link if possible). > > connie: what do you think happened at the root of all those trees? sure, sitting... lying, daily life. Sometimes, they must've done the old rote memorizations. Not too much dish washing. >>> Please no changing of the topic. I've asked a legitimate question. > alex: Please no commentaries, no Buddhaghosa, no later sectarian Chronicals. > > > connie: Where does the dsg homepage say that!?!?! >>> Well, after I get the sutta numbers (which I'll read) then we can talk about commentaries, etc. The reason I've added Please no... was because that is what wonderful people on this board post. I've yet to find a sutta which says it. I'll stand 100% behind what suttas say. Remember DN16, 4 criteria. Best Wishes, Alex #86142 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/5/24 Jonothan Abbott : > Hi Herman > >> > > My original comment was in response to the stated view that if B suffers > a violent and premature death at the hands of A, those circumstances of > B's death may be the result of A's kamma (rather than of B's). > > That view asserts that not everything that comes to one is due to the > fruition of one's own kamma; one may be an "innocent victim" of the > intentional action of others. > > My understanding of the law of kamma differs from that. I understand > the position to be that the circumstances of a person's death cannot > occur unless the kamma to support those circumstances has been committed > by the person at some time in the past (i.e, no "innocent victims"). > This is what I was trying to say in the statement you picked up on. My > apologies for any lack of clarity. > Thanks for clarifying, Jon. It turns out you were not unclear because I had understood you to be saying as much the first time around. But I wonder whether it is important for you to reconcile this view of actions committed by a person with the teachings of anatta, which would deny that a person acts? And if you do believe it is important to reconcile those views, how do you do it? Cheers Herman #86143 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta egberdina Hi TG, 2008/5/25 : > > Hi Herman (Alex) > > > Interesting post. Basically, if I may Herman, I think you are saying > consciousness is "a fully dependent" and is "nothing of itself." I would agree > with that...However, that applies to ALL CONDITIONED THINGS. > > > If you are really saying that "consciousness is nothing period" than that I > wouldn't agree with. I'm wondering, which is it? :-) > "Consciousness itself" is nothing. On the other hand, consciousness of objects etc is a process, and not a thing :-) Cheers Herman > TG > > > > In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:34:06 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Consciousness itself is nothing but an abstraction. It doesn't exist > or occur. All consciousness is consciousness of something, and leaving > out the object is a feat of illusion that thinking is capable of. Such > thinking leaves some beings believing there is a consciousness in > general, consciousness without an object. > > It is not even necessary to think in terms of consciousness when it is > understood that any object entails consciousness of it. It is enough > to refer to the object alone. References to consciousness refer to > n-o-t-h-i-n-n-o-t-h-i-n-g > > Cheers > > Herman > > > > #86144 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > In a message dated 5/24/2008 6:28:09 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > So ultimately 6 sensory consciousness is a derived material process guided by ignorance rather than an Ultimate reality. > > Best wishes, > > Alex > .......................................... > > Hi Alex > > > Ahhhhh This is where I thought you were going with this! And I agree in general! > > I am looking over the suttas and I have to say, I have to reconsider my views... :( "The diversity of elements does not arise in dependence on diversity of perceptions…" pg 632 (SN) Dhatusamyutta (Not diversity of quests 8 (8) ) All my idealistic leanings got flushed... Even mental objects are considered to be Dhatu and derived from 5 elements (or 6 with possibly non 6 sensory "Consciousness". >>>> BUT, going to the nitty gritty, I don't consider phenomena to be either material or mental. In fact, I don't even like the word "material." Whether physical or mental, its just phenomena, conditions, taking different formations based on causal interactions. Its just energies in different configurations, meta-morphing in accordance to the causal situations/impacts/contacts. Sarah will love that.) >>>>> It seems that "ultimate realities" as in being most basic are: 1) avijja&asava. No begining point or anything else underlying (except lack of Vijja), see MN#9. Always present until Arahatship. 2) Earth, Water, fire, air, space (?) + (non 6 sensory consciousness?) 3) Elements. I've counted 29 in dhatusamyutta, at least 10 of them are derivative of above point so there maybe far less most basic elements 4) Nibbana 1,2, and 3 form Samsara. Anything else (6 sixes + mental) seem to be derived from the above. WOW... Such a 180 degree turn... Best wishes, Alex P.S. As it was said somewhere, paraphrased: "From dust I came, to dust I shall return"... #86145 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi TG and Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi TG, > "Consciousness itself" is nothing. On the other hand, consciousness of objects etc is a process, and not a thing :-) > > Cheers > > > Herman > "Now if internally the intellect [alex: mind base?] is intact but externally ideas [alex: dhammas?] do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html Corresponding engagement is either due to some consciosness/mind outside of 6 sensory consciousness OR due to Avijja/Asavas. It is more likely the latter for if one has Avijja/Asavas then one would pay attention to forms and sounds, etc etc. Those who are without (or with littel avijja/asava) can easily go into a state without at least 5 consciousnesses since they aren't interested in Engagement with elements and so on. Best wishes, Alex #86146 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/24 : > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > >> >> >> S: Seeing is impermanent, > > Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is > impermanent. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mulling over one's seeing and conversing about it is a matter of > thinking, Herman. But you do see, right? ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------- As a figure of speech, it is fine to say that I see, or I am conscious. As long as it is understood that when I say that I really mean I see something or I am conscious of something. Generic seeing or generic consciousness doesn't occur. I see by virtue of what is seen, and I am conscious by virtue of what I am conscious of. > > > >>visible object is impermanent > > I wonder why you say this, because I think the status of an object > that is not being attended to is completely unknowable. That attention > flits from one object to another does not mean that previous objects > of attention have ceased to be. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Herman, what do you think is meant by "visible object"? It's not a > conventional "seen" object like "my backyard" - it's not a thought-abstraction, > nor is it a thing residing in some repository of visible objects. It is the > object-content of mind when seeing and not yet further processing that content. > It is a sight, per se, and a sight exists when seeing, and only as the > content of that seeing. It is inseparable from the seeing of it. > ---------------------------------------------------- I agree with you, but would want to stress that it is not possible to talk about what you are referring to. Because you are referring to what you infer must have been the case prior to the further processing that has taken place. "Bare" seeing is not remembered, it is not accessible to investigation without that further processing that makes visible object a thought object. > >>, eye-base is impermanent, > > Thinking > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > To say that and to think it is, certainly, thinking. It is a different > matter of whether there is something that arises and ceases corresponding to > the name and thought of eye-base. If every statement is met with the reply of > "thinking," it seems to me that this is a call to cease all thought and > communication. There are times when that is very good to do, but not so great on > discussion lists! ;-) > ------------------------------------------------- Exactly so. I have never seen an eye base arise and fall, have you? I have never even seen a static eye base, for that matter. If we are discussing a model of how the seeing of objects comes about, then it doesn't hurt to point out that we are thinking this is how it happens, not observing how it happens. We simply cannot observe causation in progress. As an aside, I do not believe it is a very useful model, because it explains nothing. Modern physics and neurology do a far better job of it, because it not only thinks about how things might work, as disciplines they actually go and test their ideas, and scrap them if they fail to match the observed outcomes. > >> hearing and all other realities are impermanent. > > More thinking. > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So is the asserting of "More thinking"! ;-) > ----------------------------------------------- > Absolutely. > > >> ========= >> H: >However, let mel put it to you that if you do not know what red is >> then you certainly don't know what a paramattha dhamma could be. >> ========== >> >> S: What is seen now? >> > > If you are asking me what is being attended to now, what is the > content of awareness, I could tell you about the situation I find > myself in at the moment, and how that is changing. As in, I'm sitting > here typing, I see the keyboard, the screen, my hands etc > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Thinking! LOL! > ---------------------------------------------- > Yes, very true. But not only thinking. My expectations about the world are being proved right and wrong. I expect that when I move my hand down to the keyboard that I see, I will feel a resistance, and if I push down harder against that resistance, the appearance of the screen will change where the flashing line is. This whole sequence of events I can have in thought, prior to executing it, and finding it to be so. What, on the other hand, can be said about paramattha dhammas being impermanent other than they are definitions with no possible empirical referents. Why have such a definition? (No need to give me your views on paramattha dhammas again, Howard. I understand your position) Cheers Herman #86147 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/24/2008 7:02:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: "Consciousness itself" is nothing. On the other hand, consciousness of objects etc is a process, and not a thing :-) Cheers Herman ............................................. Hi Herman So, phenomena are processes and not things? That sounds good to me. TG #86148 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... Hi Alex LOL You seem to be pushing the knowledge envelop and that's cool. I wouldn't think of any of these things as "ultimate" though. They are all relative... except perhaps for Nibbana...which may just be the absence of any conditions. In that case, relative or ultimate are both meaningless. TG In a message dated 5/24/2008 7:16:07 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: It seems that "ultimate realities" as in being most basic are: 1) avijja&asava. No begining point or anything else underlying (except lack of Vijja), see MN#9. Always present until Arahatship. 2) Earth, Water, fire, air, space (?) + (non 6 sensory consciousness?2 3) Elements. I've counted 29 in dhatusamyutta, at least 10 of them are derivative of above point so there maybe far less most basic elements 4) Nibbana 1,2, and 3 form Samsara. Anything else (6 sixes + mental) seem to be derived from the above. WOW... Such a 180 degree turn... Best wishes, Alex P.S. As it was said somewhere, paraphrased: "From dust I came, to dust I shall return"... #86149 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Consciousness, from Matter or not? egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/5/25 Alex : > Hi TG and all, > It is interesting that Buddha seem to teach materialism in sutta such > as > From MN121 "And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' What is interesting to me is that there are people today who believe that consciousness is disembodied ie that it happens without the brain. Cheers Herman #86150 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 8:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi TG, 2008/5/25 : > Hi Herman > > > > In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:50:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Yes, agreed, and no Arahat made claims about the impermanence of > Nibbana. Because they understood that being is not conditional, only > knowledge of it is. Anatta, Dependent Origination, conditionality etc > is only about the mind, not about the world, IMO. > > ..................................................... > > > TG: But the Buddha describes physical thing after physical thing, in the > Suttas, that are impermanent without any reference to the mind. Flat out says > -- Whatever arises, that is of the nature to cease. He described weather as > wearing out sailboats, adze handles wearing away, mountains wearing away, > towns civilizations, etc as impermanent... And -- Thanks for all the super quotes. Certainly they are very relevant. But I do not believe that they imply anything other than that compounded forms become uncompounded or part of other aggregated forms. There is change in what is, not creation and annihilation. Cheers Herman #86151 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/5/25 Alex : > Hi TG and Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: >> >> Hi TG, > >> "Consciousness itself" is nothing. On the other hand, consciousness > of objects etc is a process, and not a thing :-) >> >> Cheers >> >> >> Herman >> > > "Now if internally the intellect [alex: mind base?] is intact but > externally ideas [alex: dhammas?] do not come into range, nor is > there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the > corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the intellect is > intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no > corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the > corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the > intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there > is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the > corresponding type of consciousness. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html > > Corresponding engagement is either due to some consciosness/mind > outside of 6 sensory consciousness OR due to Avijja/Asavas. > > It is more likely the latter for if one has Avijja/Asavas then one > would pay attention to forms and sounds, etc etc. Those who are > without (or with littel avijja/asava) can easily go into a state > without at least 5 consciousnesses since they aren't interested in > Engagement with elements and so on. > IMO, the concept of avijja is an absurdity in the context of dependent origination. Little wonder it is completely missing from DN15, which is THE great exposition on DO. And from SN 12:67, a lesser exposition on DO known as "the sheaves of reeds" sutta. It is well worth considering why there can be so many versions of DO in the canon, and just what the understanding is behind the different versions. There is the 10-step DO, and the 12-step DO, and the one that goes round and round like a wheel, and the linear one where the last stage is not a condition for the first stage. These different versions simply cannot happily co-exist as statements of the same state of affairs. Cheers Herman #86152 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 8:05 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background buddhatrue Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > ps. thanks, James. interesting choice of topics. how's your life? > I'm doing fine; thanks for asking. I'm glad that you are enjoying the series. My next posts will examine her appeal (charisma) to her followers and then her teaching which contradicts the Dhamma. It will become more clear as it unfolds. But I will put some time between each of them to let them sink in and allow for some discussion. Metta, James #86153 From: "colette" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 5:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: At the Foundation on 5th April (3) ksheri3 Hi Sarah, Thanks for the reply, from April 20? Maybe it's a problem with your Server or how info goes from you eye consiousness to your mind consciousness. > S: Here, we're moving away from a discussion of realities, a > discussion of the Dhamma. It may be interesting, but it won't lead to > any insight or liberation. colette: WHAT? Are you of the impression that I am focusing on the subtle vibrations that sound make and I am trying to open the door which shows that the profoundly deaf have hearing mechanisms through the feelings in the body. I know what my eyes swollen shut sittling in the waiting area for Swedish Covenent Hosp's ER near Foster & Kedzie, that I could not see but I could feel the presence of others walking, passing, everything, eventhough I could not see; I have been to many rock concerts and I listen to music from my roomates and can tell you that sound has physical sensations, thus ear base is absolutely rediculous to put as a PREREQUISITE for any ear consciousness -- wouldn't it be an OBSCURATION? An obscuration that you manifested and adhere to? Which leads me to the ultimate question that any practitioner is forced to as Theravadans and their addiction to thousands of lifetimes being encountered before progress on the path can be measured, ARen't you ridiculing your own belief structure as if trying to hide behind the flagstaff or post baring your standards when that flagstaff or post does not exist to hide behind and avoid being seen advocate what you are advocating. Especially an advocation of the CAste System, the stratification of members of society, and the wholesale sacrifice of all reasons to enjoy living in the first place. Thanks for reminding me. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > Back to an old post of yours to me, #84936 <....> #86154 From: "colette" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta ksheri3 Hi Boys, Sounds like a heavy relationship there: both Herman and TG agree the consciousness is nothing or NO-Thing other than an Assembly Line patented by Henry Ford, I guess. <...> I sure hope the infared cameras work since you two, TG and Herman, may prefer to "dance in the dark" as Bruce Springstein would say. lol toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/24/2008 7:02:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > "Consciousness itself" is nothing. On the other hand, consciousness of > objects etc is a process, and not a thing :-) <....> #86155 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/24/2008 8:07:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard, Herman In the "dyads Suttas" it is the eye and visual-object that come together to generate visual-consciousness. This is one of the few groups of Suttas that clearly shows this "structural hierarchy." It is not the coming together of the three that generate the other two...or one. No... it is these two that generate the third...visual-consciousness. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: The coming together of the three is what contact is. I agree that visual consciousness is dependent on eye and form, and that is the dependency being emphasized. I don't see that dependency necessarily requiring that eye & form precede the consciousness; i.e., the dependency doesn't require temporal precedence. ----------------------------------------------- Basically, Howard, as I understand you, you are saying that visual-consciousness is a co-structurer of visual-object. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm saying that the idea of unseen sight is an absurdity, as is the idea of the seeing without a sight. They are mutually dependent. This is an instance of the sheaves of reeds . ------------------------------------------------- Its kind of the old philosophical debate, is there any visible phenomena with it being seen? Does a tree falling in the forest make any sound without anyone hearing it? etc. This argument would need to be also applied to the eye...and then the statement would be...there is no eye without visual-consciousness too...would it not? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't take "eye" in this context to mean the organ. It is the "locus" of the seen. ----------------------------------------------- Your position, as I understand it, does not accept "visual-object-phenomena" unless it is "being seen." So the logical result of this position is...that on a bright sunny day, you don't accept that there is "visual-object-phenomena" behind you until you turn around and actually experience it. In my view, its there all the time even when not "seeing." Two sides of a coin I guess. So far, my batting average is 1000. ;-) In your case, you are guaranteeing a 1000 batting average. In other words, you won't even come to the plate unless you already have a base hit. LOL --------------------------------------------- Howard: You are talking about "things in the world" as sights. I understand, at any time, a sight to be the content of visual experience. Apples and oranges, TG. ------------------------------------------ At any rate, since I think "visual-object" is just plain old "light," I have a very simple view of it. TG ========================= With metta, Howard #86156 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sights and Seeing and Self upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/24/2008 8:17:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard I think this Sutta is less about a phenomenological view of experience, that just showing that experiences are just experiences and have "no-self" associated therewith. In other words...I don't think the Buddha here is trying to show "how phenomena work or the "mechanics" of experience," but just how the enlightened mind does not diverge off into conceptual diversification ... which would be based on seeing things as "entities/selves." The ADDED term "object" in brackets is not in the text...and is misleading IMO. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't find it misleading - just superfluous. --------------------------------------------- TG ====================== With metta, Howard #86157 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:32:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/5/24 : > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > >> >> >> S: Seeing is impermanent, > > Seeing is an abstraction, it is thinking. I agree that thinking is > impermanent. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mulling over one's seeing and conversing about it is a matter of > thinking, Herman. But you do see, right? ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------- As a figure of speech, it is fine to say that I see, or I am conscious. As long as it is understood that when I say that I really mean I see something or I am conscious of something. Generic seeing or generic consciousness doesn't occur. I see by virtue of what is seen, and I am conscious by virtue of what I am conscious of. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course! Experiencing and experienced co-occur and are mutually dependent. -------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================== With metta, Howard #86158 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:13:54 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Thanks for all the super quotes. Certainly they are very relevant. But I do not believe that they imply anything other than that compounded forms become uncompounded or part of other aggregated forms. There is change in what is, not creation and annihilation. Cheers Herman .................................... Hi Herman I agree. TG #86159 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi TG, Howard and Alex, 2008/5/25 : > > Hi Howard, Herman > > Your position, as I understand it, does not accept "visual-object-phenomena" > unless it is "being seen." So the logical result of this position is...that > on a bright sunny day, you don't accept that there is > "visual-object-phenomena" behind you until you turn around and actually experience it. In my view, > its there all the time even when not "seeing." Two sides of a coin I guess. > So far, my batting average is 1000. ;-) In your case, you are > guaranteeing a 1000 batting average. In other words, you won't even come to the plate > unless you already have a base hit. LOL MN28 "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness." As Alex's excellent quote shows, when the sufficient conditions for a phenomenon to appear are not there, there is no phenomenon. That in no way means that there were no necessary conditions present. So I agree with Howard that, by definition, any experience must be experienced to qualify for the term. And I agree with TG that we can know what the world is like at any time, without first having to experience it. We know how to achieve a complement of sufficient conditions in order to realise the expected phenomena. Cheers Herman #86160 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... Hi Girl In a message dated 5/24/2008 10:37:45 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Boys, Sounds like a heavy relationship there: both Herman and TG agree the consciousness is nothing or NO-Thing other than an Assembly Line patented by Henry Ford, I guess. <...> ............................................. TG: Consciousness arises due to conditions. And so did Henry Ford's cars. Although the cars and consciousness are different formations....just so your clear on my views about that. ................................................ I sure hope the infared cameras work since you two, TG and Herman, may prefer to "dance in the dark" as Bruce Springstein would say. lol ............................................... TG I don't dance. TG #86161 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta egberdina Hi colette, 2008/5/25 colette : > Hi Boys, > > Sounds like a heavy relationship there: both Herman and TG agree the > consciousness is nothing or NO-Thing other than an Assembly Line > patented by Henry Ford, I guess. <...> > > I sure hope the infared cameras work since you two, TG and Herman, > may prefer to "dance in the dark" as Bruce Springstein would say. lol > What is your take on consciousness, colette? What happened to it when you died back in '78? Cheers Herman #86162 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/24/2008 11:01:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: The coming together of the three is what contact is. I agree that visual consciousness is dependent on eye and form, and that is the dependency being emphasized. I don't see that dependency necessarily requiring that eye & form precede the consciousness; i.e., the dependency doesn't require temporal precedence. ............................................. TG: The Sutta seems pretty clear in indicating a "structural hierarchy," not necessarily a temporal one...but perhaps likely a temporal one....even if fractions of a second. ........................................................ ----------------------------------------------- Basically, Howard, as I understand you, you are saying that visual-consciousnesvisual-consciousness is a co-structur ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm saying that the idea of unseen sight is an absurdity, as is the idea of the seeing without a sight. ........................................................ TG: To follow this logic, we'd have to believe the Buddha said that "visual-consciousness" arises due to "eye" and "sight." THAT would be the absurdity IMO. As "sight" would already be "visual-consciousness." To say that the "visual-object" is "the sight," and to list that as the cause for the "visual-consciousness," is like saying that the cause for the "eye" is the "eye." No thanks, I'll go with "external phenomena" as being the "visual-object" that causes sight when THAT "external phenomena" "contacts" the eye/mind. Hence, we find the "sense organs" being described as "doors" by which phenomena "come through" to make contact. .............................................................. They are mutually dependent. This is an instance of the sheaves of reeds . ------------------------------------------------- Its kind of the old philosophical debate, is there any visible phenomena with it being seen? Does a tree falling in the forest make any sound without anyone hearing it? etc. This argument would need to be also applied to the eye...and then the statement would be...there is no eye without visual-consciousnesbe...there is no eye with -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't take "eye" in this context to mean the organ. It is the "locus" of the seen. ----------------------------------------------- Your position, as I understand it, does not accept "visual-object-"visual-obj unless it is "being seen." So the logical result of this position is...that on a bright sunny day, you don't accept that there is "visual-object-"visual-object-phenomena" behind you until you turn experience it. In my view, its there all the time even when not "seeing." Two sides of a coin I guess. So far, my batting average is 1000. ;-) In your case, you are guaranteeing a 1000 batting average. In other words, you won't even come to the plate unless you already have a base hit. LOL --------------------------------------------- Howard: You are talking about "things in the world" as sights. I understand, at any time, a sight to be the content of visual experience. Apples and oranges, TG. ........................................... TG: No. I am not talking about things in the world as "sights." "Sights" is your word, not mine. Once the term "sight" is used, "visual-consciousness" is what is being referred to IMO. A "visual-object" is what can "potentially" be a "sight" ... and then becomes a "sight" when "contact" is made. The main thing is causality in either case. TG ------------------------------------------ At any rate, since I think "visual-object" is just plain old "light," I have a very simple view of it. TG #86163 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sights and Seeing and Self TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/24/2008 11:02:53 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/24/2008 8:17:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: Hi Howard I think this Sutta is less about a phenomenological view of experience, that just showing that experiences are just experiences and have "no-self" associated therewith. In other words...I don't think the Buddha here is trying to show "how phenomena work or the "mechanics" of experience," but just how the enlightened mind does not diverge off into conceptual diversification ... which would be based on seeing things as "entities/selves.w The ADDED term "object" in brackets is not in the text...and is misleading IMO. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't find it misleading - just superfluous. ...................................................... TG: Of course you don't. Because it potentially acts to fit your viewpoint. But, it is an addition and not part of the Sutta. Without it, the Sutta does not read toward that particular direction...one way or the other. TG ....................................................... --------------------------------------------- TG #86164 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 24, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? egberdina Hi Howard and all, 2008/5/25 : > > > As a figure of speech, it is fine to say that I see, or I am > conscious. As long as it is understood that when I say that I really > mean I see something or I am conscious of something. Generic seeing or > generic consciousness doesn't occur. I see by virtue of what is seen, > and I am conscious by virtue of what I am conscious of. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Of course! Experiencing and experienced co-occur and are mutually > dependent. > -------------------------------------------------- Sorry if I'm dragging this out too far. I just want to be quite clear on the matter. I do not see it as a two-way dependency. Experiencing is conditionality in process, it is cause (and not experienced, for that matter). The experienced is effect, and does not condition it's cause, IMO. Cheers Herman #86165 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 24, 2008 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Herman, Howard, Alex Great Quote. Here we see the Buddha talking about "external forms" as being the content of visual-object. For the Suttas call "form" the visual-object. So, obviously the Sutta is saying that these things arise as phenomena, separately from consciousness, and only become the support for "consciousness" when contact is made. My point exactly. A perfect and conclusive quote for this topic IMO. TG In a message dated 5/25/2008 12:17:58 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: MN28 "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.c #86166 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta ksheri3 HI TG, Thanks for not being offended by my post and taking the time to respond. > > > TG: Consciousness arises due to conditions. colette: [clears throat] what about CAUSES being the counterpart of Conditions? I agree, on the surface we are dealing with the conditions or environments present at the moment but what about those "self fullfilling prophecies", aren't they made from mind-only? You know what I speak of: a person desires something so much that they delude themselves to the reality and actually cause their own creation through their desire. And so did Henry Ford's cars. > Although the cars and consciousness are different formations.... colette: I question whether you or I can differentiate between the production of cars and consciousness? There is a strong similarity between the two processes. Since Scott and I hooked together the other night, I was begining to consider the constitution of "imagination": what are it's constituent parts, is the imagination nothing more than the defilements of the mind, etc? --------------------------------- just so your > clear on my views about that. > colette: thanks for making the statement since now I'm begining to understand how Buddhists view Nama and Rupa but I'm stuck in the Yogacara school or Mahayanist school (see Madhyamaka,etc) which forces me to see both nama and rupa as the same thing through the Ultimate Truth. I can't seperate the two as easily as you can; it takes a lot of work to reach the cognition that the two are seperate but I always end up at the same or similar causation of the Rupa FROM THE Nama i.e. Lobha Mosa and Dosa. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Girl > > > In a message dated 5/24/2008 10:37:45 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > ksheri3@... writes: > > Hi Boys, > > Sounds like a heavy relationship there: both Herman and TG agree the > consciousness is nothing or NO-Thing other than an Assembly Line > patented by Henry Ford, I guess. <...> > > ............................................. > > > TG: Consciousness arises due to conditions. And so did Henry Ford's cars. > Although the cars and consciousness are different formations....just so your > clear on my views about that. <....> #86167 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 1:01 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background kenhowardau Hi James, -------------------- <. . .> KH: > > . . . you thought, "How can I restate this in the most negative way possible?" And this is what you came up with. James: > I don't know what you mean. --------------------- I wasn't saying anything out of the ordinary; people do that sort of thing all the time. It is natural that you will look for a negative side to everything you read about K Sujin (to help prove your claim she is unfit to be a Dhamma teacher). --------------------------------------- J: > This is what was written in the book. She flunked out of college (she couldn't pass her examinations her second year and had to drop out), -------------------------------------------- Yes, that is what was written. But then you added some assumptions of your own. To begin with, you wrote "anyone who flunks out of college is not very dedicated to study or to hard work." You know that isn't true. There are many reasons why people fail exams. Lack of dedication is only one possibility. For all you know, KS may have been very dedicated but encountered extra responsibilities at home or at work etc. ----------------------- J: > she taught the Thai language for a few years (I didn't include that because I don't see the relevance) she studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years (her exact words), and then she began to lecture. Maybe you don't like the phrase "flunked out" of college. Well, I don't know of any other way to phrase it. Failed at college? Couldn't pass her examinations in college? What other type of nice way could I phrase it? I am not trying to paint her in a negative light, I am just stating the facts. ------------------------ I think you might concede now that you embellish the facts. :-) I am not accusing you of a major crime; people do this sort of thing all the time. When they are opposed to someone in principle they try to find faults wherever possible. You also added the assumption that KS was claiming to be a teacher even in the early days while she was studying under Achriya Neb: ------------------------------------ <. . .> KH: > > Does everyone who gives a talk - or delivers a lecture - have to be a "teacher?" > > J: > Well, I think that teaching someone about something (either in a lecture format or in a discussion format) makes that person a teacher. I will discuss this more later. ---------------------- So are you saying all of us who argue (sometimes forcefully) at DSG, for example; are teachers? In that case why would you single out K Sujin for special disapproval? ------------------------------------- <. . .> J: > Well, first I never said that failing college makes her a "bad" person. I just said, that to me, it doesn't make her a qualified Dhamma instructor on the surface of things. The Abhidhamma is supposed to be very long (seven books) and complex. I don't have a copy of it myself so I don't know what is in it. I have to trust someone like KS to tell me what is in it. Honestly, I thought that KS must be a pretty smart cookie from her apparent Abhidhamma knowledge and probably had a phd or something. I was quite shocked to find out that she failed college. Now, someone who is talking all the time about the importance of study to learn something, and yet failed college, that sends a red flag up in my mind. Granted, you may not care at all and think that it doesn't matter. Okay, that's fine. You decide for yourself. ---------------------------------------- But surely, no one seriously thinks all "smart cookies" have a PhD. And why would anyone whose life is dedicated to the Dhamma want a PhD? You are not making sense. ---------------------------- <. . .> J: > I think you need to do some study on the background of Sariputta. ---------------------------- Yes, I apologise for any mistakes in my recollection. I was right in saying Sariputta became a sotapanna after hearing just a few words of Dhamma, but I was probably mistaken about when he became an Arahant. But the fact remains, we can't measure a person's Right Understanding by the number of hours he has spent reading books. ------------------------------------------- J: > Sariputta meditated for two weeks, and was listening to a discourse by the Buddha, before he became an arahant. And the Buddha didn't declare him capable of teaching the Dhamma to others until he became an arahant. Is KS an arahant? If so, then of course none of this other stuff about her background matters. But, if she isn't, then I think it does matter. -------------------------------------------- It was probably a rhetorical question but, as we know from the texts, there are no arahants in the human realm in this present age. And I still insist; all this nonsense about background tells us nothing about K Sujin's ability to explain the Dhamma. --------------------------------. <. . .> J: > ". . . KS refuses to reveal any of her personal insights or levels of knowledge so I can only go on what she has written. -------------------- Ideas of "personal insights" and "personal levels of knowledge" are contradictions in terms. I wouldn't expect you to agree with that, but let me assure you, neither KS or any of her students would have any inclination to boast of personal attainments. What would they prove if they did? ----------------------- J: > She studied the Abhidhamma for two or three years and then began to lecture on it. Now, take me as an example: I have three college degrees (2 BAs, 1MA) and I have studied the Dhamma for over 15 years, and yet I know that I am in no way qualified to start giving lectures on the Dhamma. Why is it that KS feels that she is qualified? ------------------------- I don't know where to begin answering that; it is so wide of the mark! As has been explained to you several times, KS never refers to herself as a teacher (although she makes no objection if people want to regard her that way). And when it comes to Dhamma study I think you will admit you are nowhere near in the same league as K Sujin. Just consider her amazing knowledge of the texts. People from all over the world defer to her superior knowledge; how can you seriously suggest she is not qualified to be called a teacher? Words fail me! :-) Ken H #86168 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 1:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 1: Background egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/5/25 kenhowardau : > Hi James, > > > I wasn't saying anything out of the ordinary; people do that sort of > thing all the time. It is natural that you will look for a negative > side to everything you read about K Sujin (to help prove your claim > she is unfit to be a Dhamma teacher). > I suggest you read James appraisal of KS with as much equanimity as you can muster, KenH. But given the attacks you have previously launched here against BT ( or TB, or whatever his real name is), equanimity is probably in the realm of the impossible. Here's the rub, there's suffering in attachment to views, KenH Cheers Herman #86169 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2008 2:32 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background jonoabb Hi Alex > Is there ANY sutta (in DN,MN,SN,AN) where the Buddha states that > study of 7 books of AP is nessesery? Please give the sutta > name/number (and link if possible). > As I think you know, the classifying of the Buddha's teachings into the 3 Pitakas did not happen until after his death. So obviously there could be no reference by the Buddha himself to any of the Pitakas (Vinaya, Sutta or Abhidhamma). So would you mind re-stating your question to clarify the point you are trying to make. Thanks. Jon #86170 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 3:04 am Subject: Re: Sights and Seeing and Self antony272b2 Hi Howard, I found this article of criticism which draws on the Apadana and commentaries. Bahiya's Teaching: In the Seen is just the seen by Ajahn Brahmavamso http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebmed094.htm with metta / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > A couple sutta quotes to consider - from the Kalaka and Bahiya Suttas: > > > "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe > an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an > [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. > "When hearing... > "When sensing... > "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] > cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] > to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." > and > > > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, > there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In > reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the > cognized. That is how you should train yourself. 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." > #86171 From: "connie" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 5:59 am Subject: Perfections Corner (163) nichiconn Dear Friends, The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment ch5, The Perfection of Energy The Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct" defines energy, viriya, as follows: Energy has the characteristic of striving; its function is to fortify; its manifestation is infatigability; an occasion for the arousing of energy, or a sense of spiritual urgency, is its proximate cause. The cetasika viriya, energy, accompanies almost all cittas, except sixteen ahetuka cittas, cittas that are unaccompanied by beautiful roots or unwholesome roots. Thus, whenever attachment and delight with regard to an object arises, the cetasika of energy accompanies that citta and performs its function of effort or energy for attachment and delight in that object. Be it akusala citta or kusala citta which arises, viriya cetasika accompanies that citta. When akusala citta arises, viriya cetasika is effort for akusala, whereas when kusala citta arises, viriya cetasika performs its function of effort for kusala. The perfection of energy is effort or endeavour for kusala. There should be energy or effort for each kind of kusala and when developed, it can become the perfection of energy. When sati arises and is aware of the characteristics of realities that are appearing at this moment, there is not me or self who makes an effort to be aware, but it is the function of right effort, sammaa-vaayaama. Right effort, viriya cetasika, arises and endeavours to study with awareness, to notice and pay attention to the reality that is appearing. Right effort is effort or energy for pa~n~naa which understands that what appears through the eyes is only a kind of ruupa which does not last; or that the reality which is seeing is only an element, a characteristic of naama-dhamma experiencing what appears through the eyes. This is the perfection of energy that endeavours to study the characteristics of realities appearing one at a time. It does not matter whether the perfection of energy arising with satipa.t.thaana occurs often or seldom, viriya is not weary of the task of studying and noticing the reality that appears. When viriya arises, we are not discouraged; viriya is always performing its task even if the process of development of understanding is extremely slow and difficult. ..to be continued, connie #86172 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/25/2008 2:14:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:13:54 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Thanks for all the super quotes. Certainly they are very relevant. But I do not believe that they imply anything other than that compounded forms become uncompounded or part of other aggregated forms. There is change in what is, not creation and annihilation. Cheers Herman .................................... Hi Herman I agree. TG ================================== In the sense that I believe that the process of cessation and new arising is constant and instantaneous, and not consisting of a staccato procession of discrete, separate things, I agree. But your *emphasis* is not mine. You seem to be emphasizing an ebb-and-flow, continuationist view of change, which I do think is an appealing perspective, but which is slightly off-the-mark in its idea of a substance or process that continues/remains yet becomes other - for when there is "other", nothing continues. I don't countenance continuation of anything even for an instant as the reality of things. What most rings a bell with me is the utter freshness of each instant. It is full and clear awareness of that constant, pristine newness that I suspect provides much of the delight reported in the transition from the state of sleepwalking to the state of bodhi, and I suspect that opening to that freshness may be a means to overcome the long-incarcerated-prisoner fear of release from the constraining but oh-so-familiar jail cell. With metta, Howard #86173 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/25/2008 2:48:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: To follow this logic, we'd have to believe the Buddha said that "visual-consciousness" arises due to "eye" and "sight." THAT would be the absurdity IMO. As "sight" would already be "visual-consciousness." ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not as I understand "sight." Sight is the content of seeing but not the visual consciousness. The act of seeing is tripartite: the consciousness of a sight via visual-channel (usually called "eye door"). -------------------------------------------------- > To say that the > "visual-object" is "the sight," and to list that as the cause for the > "visual-consciousness," is like saying that the cause for the "eye" is the "eye." ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, the sight is what is seen, "the eye" is the medium/channel/locus, and eye-consciousness is the knowing, and the three are interpendent aspects of a single event called "seeing." And there is no causality here, but mutual dependence. The primary cause for the seeing, though I dislike speaking of causes instead of conditions, is kamma. ========================= With metta, Howard #86174 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sights and Seeing and Self upasaka_howard Hi, Antony - In a message dated 5/25/2008 6:05:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, antony272b@... writes: Hi Howard, I found this article of criticism which draws on the Apadana and commentaries. Bahiya's Teaching: In the Seen is just the seen by Ajahn Brahmavamso http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebmed094.htm with metta / Antony. =============================== Thanks for the article, Antony. It is a bit of a popularization, but it does include some elements that I found to be of some interest. With metta, Howard #86175 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 7:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...If you are, however, prepared to accept that your asessment of the situation is not shared by everyone else, this might prompt a revision of the attitude with which you approach certain topics or people." Scott: Sorry for the delay, I hadn't enough time to address this particular reply. What do you think the attitude ought to be in relation to a post such as the one Howard put forward, a post in which a 'personal experience' is used to support a certain notion? I don't think that such a post ought to be beyond question. Do you? Sincerely, Scott. #86176 From: "connie" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 7:52 am Subject: Overview of KS 1: Background nichiconn Dear James, It would be incredible, I'd think, if you could actually spend some time with her in person and then tell us what you think - still, it's good to read about "her teaching". Looking forward to the meat, connie #86177 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 9:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? truth_aerator Dear Howard, TG, and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, TG - > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The coming together of the three is what contact is. I agree that visual consciousness is dependent on eye and form, and that is the dependency being emphasized. I don't see that dependency necessarily requiring that eye & form precede the consciousness; i.e., the dependency doesn't require temporal precedence. ----------------------------------------------- > Can you please explain "Dependent on" and "arises" (implying it didn't exist before?): "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html --- MN38----- Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it's reckoned eye consciousness. On account of ear and sounds arises consciousness, it's reckoned ear consciousness. On account of nose and smells arises consciousness, it's reckoned nose consciousness. On account of tongue and tastes arises consciousness, it's reckoned tongue consciousness.On account of body and touches arises consciousness, it's reckoned body consciousness. On account of mind and ideas arises consciousness, it's reckoned mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as based on whatever fire burns, it is reckoned by that. Fire ablaze with sticks is stick fire. Ablaze with twigs is twig fire. Ablaze with grass is grass fire. Ablaze with cowdung is cowdung fire. Ablaze with grain thrash is grain thrash fire. Ablaze with dirt is dirt fire. In the same manner consciousness on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness on account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness on account of body and touches is body consciousness. Consciousness on account of mind and ideas is mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, do you see, that it has arisen? Yes, venerable sir. Do you see, that it arises supported? Yes, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, Do you see, that if the support ceases, the arising too ceases? Yes, venerable sir. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/038-mahatanhasankhaya-sutta-e1.htm Best Wishes, Alex #86178 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 9:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta truth_aerator Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > IMO, the concept of avijja is an absurdity in the context of dependent origination. Little wonder it is completely missing from DN15, which is THE great exposition on DO. And from SN 12:67, a lesser exposition on DO known as "the sheaves of reeds" sutta. ><>>> Not nesseserily. Clinging&craving ARE aspects of avijja and they are all founded in all versions of DO. Sankhara also may include clinging/craving & avijja as the cause. Furthermore, the "full" DO scheme IS NOT linear. IMHO, for the Pujjhana the "birth" and "aging&death" are the only 2 links separate. One modification I propose is to place Birth as the 1st link and death as the last. Or place aging&death(in the last life) as the first, birth (in this life) as the 2nd and go from there. Vinnana-Nama-Rupa is present in ALL links from birth to death, as well as underlying Avijja with everything else. Ultimately it is very hard, almost impossible to separate any link from any link as a cause that may come before or co-arise together. Of course for an Ariya the DO is broken and it functions only in a residual and "maintenance" mode with Little Avijja or no Avijja (for Arahants). Best wishes, Alex #86179 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 9:35 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > Is there ANY sutta (in DN,MN,SN,AN) where the Buddha states that > > study of 7 books of AP is nessesery? Please give the sutta > > name/number (and link if possible). > > > > As I think you know, the classifying of the Buddha's teachings into the 3 Pitakas did not happen until after his death. So obviously there could be no reference by the Buddha himself to any of the Pitakas (Vinaya, Sutta or Abhidhamma). > While Buddha didn't reference using word "Pitaka" he did mention Sutta and Vinaya. Did the Buddha anywhere state that he taught: Dhammasangani, Vibhanga, Dhatukatha, Puggalapannati, Katthavatthu, Yamaka, Patthana ? Or even more specific: Did the Buddha state anywhere in the suttas that there are 89 or 121 states of citta? 52 Cetasikas? 28 Rupas? 4 Ultimate realities being (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana)? Thank you, Best Wishes, Alex #86180 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 5:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and TG) - In a message dated 5/25/2008 12:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, TG, and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, TG - > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The coming together of the three is what contact is. I agree that visual consciousness is dependent on eye and form, and that is the dependency being emphasized. I don't see that dependency necessarily requiring that eye & form precede the consciousness; i.e., the dependency doesn't require temporal precedence. ----------------------------------------------- > Can you please explain "Dependent on" and "arises" (implying it didn't exist before?): =============================== I think 'dependent on' is pretty clear. It mean to "not exist without." Also, I think 'arises' is clear. What don't you get with regard to 'arises'? With metta, Howard #86181 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Alex (and TG) - > > In a message dated 5/25/2008 12:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Dear Howard, TG, and All, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > Hi, TG - > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > The coming together of the three is what contact is. I agree > that visual consciousness is dependent on eye and form, and that is > the dependency being emphasized. I don't see that dependency > necessarily requiring that eye & form precede the consciousness; > i.e., the dependency doesn't require temporal > precedence. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Can you please explain "Dependent on" and "arises" (implying it > didn't exist before?): > =============================== > I think 'dependent on' is pretty clear. It mean to "not exist without." > Also, I think 'arises' is clear. What don't you get with regard to 'arises'? > > > With metta, > Howard > > The thing is that the sutta says that consciosness arises due to material causes + engagement (attention which can be due to avijja or not)... So interestingly we have this: 1) 4 MahaBhutas are unproduced in general, or at least the most basic category. 2) Avijja was always present and it depends on Avijja (MN9). Self Caused, although breakable. Everything else is dependent on the working combination of the above 2 categories. 3rd) Nibbana is ultimate. Best Wishes, Alex #86182 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 6:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 5/25/2008 12:50:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Alex (and TG) - > > In a message dated 5/25/2008 12:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Dear Howard, TG, and All, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > Hi, TG - > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > The coming together of the three is what contact is. I agree > that visual consciousness is dependent on eye and form, and that is > the dependency being emphasized. I don't see that dependency > necessarily requiring that eye & form precede the consciousness; > i.e., the dependency doesn't require temporal > precedence. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Can you please explain "Dependent on" and "arises" (implying it > didn't exist before?): > =============================== > I think 'dependent on' is pretty clear. It means to "not exist without." > Also, I think 'arises' is clear. What don't you get with regard to 'arises'? > > > With metta, > Howard > > The thing is that the sutta says that consciosness arises due to material causes + engagement (attention which can be due to avijja or not)... ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not interpret that dependence as you do, and I see no mention of the "engagement" you speak of. ------------------------------------------------ So interestingly we have this: 1) 4 MahaBhutas are unproduced in general, or at least the most basic category. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no idea why you would suppose that these are unproduced. That;s certainly nothing I've ever come across the Buddha implying. ---------------------------------------------- 2) Avijja was always present and it depends on Avijja (MN9). ---------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no abstract principle called called avijja, except as an idea. When we misperceive or are unclear in our knowing, we are not knowing properly, and we call that an instance of i-gno-rance (un-know-ing). When knowing is clear and perception is undefiled, we call it wisdom. Thinking of wisdom and ignorance as cosmic principles is rather like identifying the first as God and the second as Satan. It is very "religious"! BTW, a relevant quote from MN 9 would be convenient, rather than having to do a search through the sutta to find what you are alluding to. Certainly ignorance conditions further ignorance, but not as sole condition. When the mind is murky or confused, that is certainly a condition for more of the same. ----------------------------------------------- Self Caused, although breakable. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? -------------------------------------------- Everything else is dependent on the working combination of the above 2 categories. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Neither the 4 great elements nor ignorance are general principles, except as ideas. They, as actualities, are conditioned, with instances arising again & again & again. I see this general-principle business as a bow in the direction of Platonism, which ain't my cup of tea. ;-) -------------------------------------------- 3rd) Nibbana is ultimate. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. :-) ----------------------------------------- Best Wishes, Alex ====================== With metta, Howard #86183 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta TGrand458@... Hi Colette A bunch of opinions below... In a message dated 5/25/2008 1:09:11 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: HI TG, Thanks for not being offended by my post and taking the time to respond. > > > TG: Consciousness arises due to conditions. colette: [clears throat] what about CAUSES being the counterpart of Conditions? ................................................................. NEW TG: I see them as the same for all practical purposes. To see them as different seems to me to imply that there is actually "a something" that arises and is "its own thing." Since I don't view "things as themselves" but rather a "continuous alteration," I believe the cause is the condition and the condition is the cause...for the events unfolding. ...................................................................... I agree, on the surface we are dealing with the conditions or environments present at the moment but what about those "self fullfilling prophecies", aren't they made from mind-only? You know what I speak of: a person desires something so much that they delude themselves to the reality and actually cause their own creation through their desire. ..................................................... NEW TG: Not mind only. Being that the mind is dependent on the physical too, it cannot act "by itself" without consideration of all the conditions in play. The type of desire you refer to above is just delusion setting into play various actions that correspond to the delusion. The mental and physical are supporting structures of that delusion, and objects for that delusion to act upon, and the mental and physical "go along for the ride." In other words, they are "bent" and "molded" by the delusion as the delusion becomes a condition that "act upon" the mental and physical. .............................................. And so did Henry Ford's cars. > Although the cars and consciousness are different formations.. A colette: I question whether you or I can differentiate between the production of cars and consciousness? There is a strong similarity between the two processes. ......................................................... NEW TG: I'd agree. The cause and effect principles are the same. This is why any phenomena can be a subject for insight. Hence, the Buddha gives all sorts of "conventional topics" as insight fodder. ........................................................ Since Scott and I hooked together the other night, I was begining to consider the constitution of "imagination"consider the constitution of "im parts, is the imagination nothing more than the defilements of the mind, etc? ........................................................ NEW TG: Side note: You might be needing a shot of penicillin then. ;-) Yea, I'd say the imagination is nothing other than the "defilement of the mind" accept in the case of an arahat where the imagination would be based on a different type of structure. And by this I mean that an arahat's imagination would perhaps be for a purpose of instructing others, etc. ... and not as a "runaway self view" activity. ......................................................................... --------------------------------- just so your > clear on my views about that. > colette: thanks for making the statement since now I'm begining to understand how Buddhists view Nama and Rupa but I'm stuck in the Yogacara school or Mahayanist school (see Madhyamaka,etc) which forces me to see both nama and rupa as the same thing through the Ultimate Truth. I can't seperate the two as easily as you can; it takes a lot of work to reach the cognition that the two are seperate but I always end up at the same or similar causation of the Rupa FROM THE Nama i.e. Lobha Mosa and Dosa. ........................................................... NEW TG: I don't follow any school of thought...at least not knowingly. But I think the teachings, in the Suttas, most correctly present the nature of phenomena, in such a way that the mind can "see it" and work to overcome suffering. TG #86184 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/25/2008 7:50:37 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: In the sense that I believe that the process of cessation and new arising is constant and instantaneous, and not consisting of a staccato procession of discrete, separate things, I agree. But your *emphasis* is not mine. You seem to be emphasizing an ebb-and-flow, continuationist view of change, which I do think is an appealing perspective, but which is slightly off-the-mark in its idea of a substance or process that continues/remains yet becomes other - for when there is "other", nothing continues. ........................................................... NEW TG: I agree with what you're saying here Howard. What I think you are uncomfortable with is just the language of expression. It is the Buddha that describes things as "persisting while changing." Of course, IMO, there is nothing that is actually persisting, other than "THE APPEARANCE of persisting...due to the quality of "firmness" which allows the mind to perceive things as being a "continuing something or other" for a certain length of time...when in fact they actually aren't. It is largely this "false perspective" that leads to phenomena as being identified as "their own" entities. .................................................................. I don't countenance continuation of anything even for an instant as the reality of things. ......................................................... TG: Agreed! .................................................. What most rings a bell with me is the utter freshness of each instant. It is full and clear awareness of that constant, pristine newness that I suspect provides much of the delight reported in the transition from the state of sleepwalking to the state of bodhi, and I suspect that opening to that freshness may be a means to overcome the long-incarcerated-freshness may be a means from the constraining but oh-so-familiar jail cell. TG: Very Poetic. Sounds good to me. So the mental perspective becomes the unfolding of the unfolding as it unfolds. ;-) (Add or strike one unfolding as you see fit.) LOL TG #86185 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/25/2008 1:35:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 5/25/2008 7:50:37 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: In the sense that I believe that the process of cessation and new arising is constant and instantaneous, and not consisting of a staccato procession of discrete, separate things, I agree. But your *emphasis* is not mine. You seem to be emphasizing an ebb-and-flow, continuationist view of change, which I do think is an appealing perspective, but which is slightly off-the-mark in its idea of a substance or process that continues/remains yet becomes other - for when there is "other", nothing continues. ........................................................... NEW TG: I agree with what you're saying here Howard. What I think you are uncomfortable with is just the language of expression. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that's probably correct. ---------------------------------------------- It is the Buddha that describes things as "persisting while changing." Of course, IMO, there is nothing that is actually persisting, other than "THE APPEARANCE of persisting...due to the quality of "firmness" which allows the mind to perceive things as being a "continuing something or other" for a certain length of time...when in fact they actually aren't. It is largely this "false perspective" that leads to phenomena as being identified as "their own" entities. .................................................................. I don't countenance continuation of anything even for an instant as the reality of things. ......................................................... TG: Agreed! .................................................. What most rings a bell with me is the utter freshness of each instant. It is full and clear awareness of that constant, pristine newness that I suspect provides much of the delight reported in the transition from the state of sleepwalking to the state of bodhi, and I suspect that opening to that freshness may be a means to overcome the long-incarcerated-freshness may be a means from the constraining but oh-so-familiar jail cell. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: That last clause somehow got quite messed up in the process of your quoting it. ;-)) The original was "... I suspect that opening to that freshness may be a means to overcome the long-incarcerated-prisoner fear of release from the constraining but oh-so-familiar jail cell." --------------------------------------------------- TG: Very Poetic. Sounds good to me. So the mental perspective becomes the unfolding of the unfolding as it unfolds. ;-) (Add or strike one unfolding as you see fit.) LOL TG With metta, Howard #86186 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > > The thing is that the sutta says that consciosness arises due to > material causes + engagement (attention which can be due to avijja or > not)... > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: >I do not interpret that dependence as you do, and I see no mention of the "engagement" you speak of. > ------------------------------------------------ > "The diversity of elements does not arise in dependence on diversity of perceptions…" pg 632 (SN) Dhatusamyutta (Not diversity of quests 8 (8) ) Regarding engagment: Now if internally the intellect is intact but externally ideas do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html Engagment is interpreted as "attention" in the Commentaries. I would like to stress that engagement is also dependent on Avijja. Example: When one has kamachanda, then one will notice attractive signs and features of other people. If one at the moment (one is reading or meditating) doesn't have kamachanda (desire) for sounds, then external sounds will not register. In MN#9 we have a self-cause loop. Avijja conditions Avijja (and other things), although it can be broken. > > > > So interestingly we have this: > 1) 4 MahaBhutas are unproduced in general, or at least the most basic > category. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I have no idea why you would suppose that these are unproduced. That;s > certainly nothing I've ever come across the Buddha implying. > ---------------------------------------------- > What is the cause of 4 Elements? Avijja is dependent on Avijja, in that sense it is not produced by another. > > 2) Avijja was always present and it depends on Avijja (MN9). > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: There is no abstract principle called called avijja, except as an idea. >>> Idea is dependently arisen. It is based on mental base + mental object + engagement. > When we misperceive or are unclear in our knowing, we are not knowing > properly, and we call that an instance of i-gno-rance (un-know- ing). When knowing > is clear and perception is undefiled, we call it wisdom. Thinking of wisdom > and ignorance as cosmic principles is rather like identifying the first as God > and the second as Satan. It is very "religious"! > BTW, a relevant quote from MN 9 would be convenient, rather than having > to do a search through the sutta to find what you are alluding to. "Any lack of knowledge with reference to stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the origination of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the cessation of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress. This is called ignorance. There are these three fermentations: the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of *** ignorance ***. This is called fermentation. "From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of ignorance. "From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fermentation. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html >>>>>>>> Certainly ignorance conditions further ignorance, but not as sole condition. >>>> Think about it. It is sole condition, although there CAN be other supportive conditions (which ones?) >>>>>>>>>> When the mind is murky or confused, that is certainly a condition for more of the same. >>>> You didn't say anything new here. Avijja -> Avijja. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Self > Caused, although breakable. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Huh? > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > Everything else is dependent on the working combination of the above > 2 categories. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Neither the 4 great elements nor ignorance are general principles, except as ideas. >>> If ignorance was caused by the mind, then Asanna beings would become enlightened and would go strait to Nibbana... Ideas are dependently arisen, Avijja depends on itself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 3rd) Nibbana is ultimate. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. :-) > ----------------------------------------- We agree on at least one thing! Hooray!!! Best wishes, Alex > > #86187 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 11:11 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Hi Connie & James. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear James, > It would be incredible, I'd think, if you could actually spend some time with her in person and then tell us what you think - still, it's good to read about "her teaching". > Looking forward to the meat, > connie > That isn't the only criteria. Sometimes people who appear to be charming maybe totally different on inside... James, when is part 2 coming out? Best wishes, Alex #86188 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 2:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the reply: S: "...Did you wish to add any further point or summary? I don't really have any comment to add to what I wrote before about the development of panna in animals and so on." Scott: No, I'm good for now on this material as well, Sarah. Not much of substance in recent days to comment on, but I'm still reading and something will come up sooner or later... Sincerely, Scott. #86189 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 3:48 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > 2008/5/25 kenhowardau : > > Hi James, > > > > > > I wasn't saying anything out of the ordinary; people do that sort of > > thing all the time. It is natural that you will look for a negative > > side to everything you read about K Sujin (to help prove your claim > > she is unfit to be a Dhamma teacher). > > > > I suggest you read James appraisal of KS with as much equanimity as > you can muster, KenH. But given the attacks you have previously > launched here against BT ( or TB, or whatever his real name is), > equanimity is probably in the realm of the impossible. Here's the rub, > there's suffering in attachment to views, KenH > Hi Herman, Ven. Thanissaro teaches that anatta does not mean no self.(!) He maintains anatta was simply a "strategy" invented by the Buddha to prevent meditators from thinking too much. (I.e., from thinking about their own existence or non-existence). He assures us - without exactly spelling it out - that the goal of Buddhist practice is to have our eternal selves live happily-ever-after in nibanna. So, yes, I do warn newcomers about V.T. Who, in their right mind, wouldn't? I might add, however, that I have no interest in discrediting V.T at a personal level. I won't be going back 60 years to dig up some dirt from his university days. :-) (joke) As Dhamma students we are interested solely in knowing the difference between wrong understanding and right understanding. Or, in this case, between wrong explanation of the Dhamma and right explanation of the Dhamma. Ken H #86190 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Surprising (to me) Ultimate Realities in the suttas, WOW. truth_aerator I was reading the Suttas and I have to say, I had to seriously reconsider ontological implications of what the Buddha taught in the suttas. I have thought that citta, cetasika, rupa, Nibbana were the ultimate (as in irreducible and basic) realities. However the suttas seem to say this: 1) Avijja (is cause for itself and goes indefinately back) (MN#9) 2) Great Elements. Don't seem to be caused or composed by anything other than themselves. Their cessation (and by symmetry the origin) is unknown even to Great Brahma and they definately can't full cease until Nibbana (DN#11) 3) Nibbana. Unconditioned. Are ultimate reality. Not six sensory consciousness + mental factors .In many suttas such as MN148, MN28 the sensory consciousness is a derivative from internal+external things + engagement. So Consciousness is composed & derived from a proper interaction of sense organ + sense object + engagement. Sense organs are made mostly from earth element, same with sense objects. So we have matter interacting with matter. Engagement is mostly due to such things as Kamachanda (Avijja in action). When one has sensual desire then eye seem to notice attractive physical features. When one desires to hear, then if ear base is functioning properly and sound object touches it - hearing occurs. But if the person fully removes the desire to hear, then there isn't engagement with the sound and one doesn't hear sounds (ex: in deep meditation, when sleeping or when being super concentrated reading exciting book). "The diversity of elements does not arise in dependence on diversity of perceptions…" pg 632 (SN) Dhatusamyutta (Not diversity of quests 8 (8) ) All my idealistic leanings got flushed... Even mental objects are considered to be Dhatu and derived from 5 elements (or 6 with possibly non 6 sensory "Consciousness". Buddha has taught that higher-level processes (such as a conventional "Person") is made of lower level processes. The conventional "self" who is a complex phenomenon is made up of smaller processes (5 khandas). How can higher-level processes exist, what is their cause? Even more higher-level processes? What is their cause? Even MORE higher level causes? It becomes an infinite (and unanswerable) regress. But if we say that higher level processes (such as atta or consciousness) is caused by LOWER level processes, then we have a finite and terminating causal chain. Also the DO can be shown to have Avijja & MahaBhuta as the most basic & irreducible realities from which derivative realities are made. MahaBhuta: Vinnana, NamaRupa, salayatana, phassa, vedana, jati, jaramarana, dukkha Avijja: Avijja, Sankhara, tanha, upadana, bhava, dukkha somanassa domanasa Also I have much stronger belief in "ultimate realities" as opposed to "ultimate phenomenon" (which has idealistic tendency to it.) The basic building blocks are real, and "the Self" is ultimately unreal. Some Hindu philosophies have reverse: The Self is ultimately real and the world is unreal. Thus we can see how different Buddha's realism goes against idealism of the Hindus. This Buddhist realism really hammers the "No living beings are ultimately found". No wonder that in modern Philosophy the consciousness is such a "Hard Problem". Modern Science can't find consciousness (although it can modify it through physical brain), but they did find things such as "generosity gene" and other material causes for behaviour, which has led some people to conclude that Consciousness & Mental factors do not ultimately exist. Dualism (mind & matter as ultimate) has its own problems, but not monistic picture of the world which can be either pure consciosness or pure matter. Through many suttas we see that Buddha taught the (pure matter + avijja) as most basic facts of Samsaric "Existence". Ultimately consciousness as an ultimate reality doesn't really exist, and neither do mental states. They do "exist" in the same produced fashion as "self or chariot", but not ultimately as irreducible and most basic and nondivisible realities. Anger and Pleasure can be reduced to the pure physical and many other mental states like that. Some more conclussions: Great Elements have objective existence outside of the mind regardless whether we percieve them or not. Avijja is pre or sub-conscious noumenon, more basic than sensory- consciousness. It is like the brick's ignorance about E=MC2. Knowledge is separate from "reality" rather than knowledge & reality being one. Bare mindfulness without studying Buddha's teaching would generally not lead to awakening since the Avijja underlies this observation, Of course Kamma exists and so does Rebirth, but ultimately even they are based on Great Elements Mahabhuta and its derivatives... Wow.... I didn't expect this... Best wishes, Alex #86191 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 4:01 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 1: Background truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Ven. Thanissaro teaches that anatta does not mean no self.(!) >>> Linguistically anatta = a [is not] atta [sk: Atman] . >> He maintains anatta was simply a "strategy" invented by the Buddha to >>> He taught very practical rather than purely theoretical path. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He assures us - without exactly spelling it out - that the goal of Buddhist practice is to have our eternal selves live happily-ever- after in nibanna. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? ---- Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates — form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness — he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1) all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html > >>>>>> As Dhamma students we are interested solely in knowing the difference between wrong understanding and right understanding. Or, in this case, between wrong explanation of the Dhamma and right explanation of the Dhamma. > Ken H > Yeah! Go read the suttas! Best wishes, Alex #86192 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 1:41 pm Subject: Appropriate Appreciation! bhikkhu0 Friends: Appropriate Appreciation Returns in Gratitude! One should be grateful towards one's Parents. Why so? They have worked hard & very long raising one into being! One should be grateful towards one's Teachers. Why so? They do much to make one learn, what one not yet understood... One should be grateful towards one's Friends. Why so? They have shown one an open kindness & much goodwill! One should be grateful towards one's Spouse. Why so? They have loyally accompanied one along the way... What is the future kammic effect of gratitude and ungratefulness? The one who is grateful & appreciates appropriately will receive ever again! The one who is ungrateful & thankless will never receive gifts or favours again! Thankfulness thus pays back! Therefore: Always Say Thanx! ;-) thanx! And on the Contentment: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Contentment.htm How to cultivate Rejoicing Appreciation: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Mutual_Joy.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Rejoicing_Bliss_is_Mudita.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Infinitely_Joyous_Consciousness.htm Appropriate Appreciation! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #86193 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is "activity of consciousness". Q about citta ksheri3 <....> Good Day TG, I immediately thought of that bag of Old Wives Tales down in the basement holding all the children's toys but also ran into the bag marked Stereotyping next to the bag labeled Old Wives Tales. Come now, Scott and I hooked up because of the need to releave suffering, now, one of us sure won't have hairy palms, will we? > > TG: Consciousness arises due to conditions. > > colette: [clears throat] what about CAUSES being the counterpart of > Conditions? > ................................................................. > > NEW TG: I see them as the same for all practical purposes. colette: this goes to my views on/of NAMA/RUPA. Same thing, no? ------------------------ To see them as > different seems to me to imply that there is actually "a something" that > arises and is "its own thing." colette: that is interesting since it is a new way to view Svabhava. A new pair of shoes to wear when pondering Svabhava. Don't new shoes give a person a new perspective or is that Point of View? This reminds me of the movie "48 Hrs" starring Eddy Murphy i.e. "I'm goin' down town, and buy me a brand new pair of shoes". Of course Aleister Crowley is floating around reminding me of Led Zepplin singing "No, no, no, noooooooo-body's fault but my own" from the Presence album where the cover graphics clearly show four different people in the same family looking at the same "object" while all four people have completely different views of the "object". THANKS. ------------------------------------ Since I don't view "things as themselves" but > rather a "continuous alteration," I believe the cause is the condition and the > condition is the cause...for the events unfolding. > > .................................................................... colette: I'm gonna try this to see if it transposes. Sometimes the fit is nice while at other times it needs a little fudging around with. Thanks, lets see how it goes. ------------------------- > > NEW TG: Not mind only. Being that the mind is dependent on the physical > too, it cannot act "by itself" without consideration of all the conditions in > play. colette: WOW, you, as a representation of your peers, show me that you and your peers (group mind) cannot distinguish between "The Mind" and the "Transcendental Mind" (IF this THEN that), which shows me the total impossibility of visualizing the act of TRANSCENDENCE. Zoiks, you and your peers, peer group, cannot see or understand TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION. WOW, WHAT A REALIZATION! Wow, this is an illumination of the obscurations you and your peers have in the basic act of MEDITATION. You are all "book learned", meaning that you learned your trade from a book and a testing process, BOTH HIGHLY FLAWED WAYS OF LEARNING "EXPERIENCE", and so, being that your mind is completely focused and centered on the need for the drug called Materialism and Money you will always be blind and grasping for the Samadhi of Transcendence but you only have two hands and they are frozen, no muscle activity, petrified, to the CLINGING to materialism and money. <....> ----------------------------------- Sorry, I've gotta cut it off here. You are giving me too much of a lesson for me to continually cut off and try to get my hands to move as fast as that river called my mind so that I can maintain a cognition of what is and is not reality. thanks for your help. toodles, colette <......> #86194 From: "Larry" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 4:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sights and Seeing and Self lbidd2 Hi Howard, Here is a short article by a fellow of like mind, but without the Buddhist lingo: ---------------------------- Physical Objects Disappear! George Berkeley's THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS is a remarkable book. It is a short, well written set of dialogues, arguing in exemplary style that there can be no external physical objects which are somehow perceived by our sensory apparatus. And over 20 years ago, it had the most amazing effect on the globality of my experience. Who is Berkeley? You know that old philosophical question about the tree in the forest, would it make a sound if no one were there to hear it? He's the guy in the 18th century who answered "No." Berkeley argued tirelessly that there is no external physical substance. Our thoughts do not point to external objects like rocks and automobiles. Rocks and automobiles do not cause our thoughts. When I was in grad school going for a philosophy doctorate, my teacher Colin Murray Turbayne was acknowledged as one of the world's great Berkeley scholars. But to get a good grade in his class, you could never write anything against Berkeley. So we had to study Berkeley really carefully, because his ideas sounded so utterly unintuitive, crazy really. But after several months, they began to make sense. One day after a lot of reading, Berkeley's arguments crystalized, and it felt like a fog cleared from my mind. The feelings and convictions about supposed external objects vanished! The concepts of material substance and the attandant inside/outside distinction vanished. Nor were they necessary to explain our experiences. I was shaking with excitement, and not just because I thought I'd now get an "A" in Professor Turbayne's class. I went to Professor Turbayne's office. He instantly saw that something was different. He looked questioningly at me, and I could only nod. He smiled and said, "Aha! Now go write about it!" Since that time, over two decades years ago, the inside/outside disctinction has been useless to me. The notion of "material substance" has been just like the notion of "Santa Claus." And amazingly enough, the dissolution of these notions has made it easier for me to interact in what is often called the physical world. Because I haven't seen anything as physical for decades, there has been no fear factor. I learned to rollerblade and ride a bicycle with no brakes in the traffic-filled streets of New York City. Perceptions that are usually called "physical" occur as a kind of language that has no inside or outside, where each concept refers to other concepts in a growing and consistent way. But there's nothing Out There to which any of these ideas refer. In my case, it was an excellent shake-up, like a mental Vege-matic blender, preparing me for non-dualist teachings. http://nonduality.com/goode.htm#western_phil -------------------------------------- Larry: As I see it, this is a path to the realization of anatta that hinges on the idea that all there is that truely matters is this, here, now. This is certainly not in conflict with the principles of insight in abhidhamma. Another slightly more conceptual approach to this sutta might be, when the seen is only the seen there can be no desirable object because the seen is one thing and desire is another. Larry #86195 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 25, 2008 1:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sights and Seeing and Self upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - Thank you *very* much for the following. I was attracted by Bishop Berkeley's work years ago! (The only problem I had with him was what led him to being a cleric - the faith in a Person-God. ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/25/2008 7:31:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, Here is a short article by a fellow of like mind, but without the Buddhist lingo: ---------------------------- Physical Objects Disappear! George Berkeley's THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS is a remarkable book. It is a short, well written set of dialogues, arguing in exemplary style that there can be no external physical objects which are somehow perceived by our sensory apparatus. And over 20 years ago, it had the most amazing effect on the globality of my experience. Who is Berkeley? You know that old philosophical question about the tree in the forest, would it make a sound if no one were there to hear it? He's the guy in the 18th century who answered "No." Berkeley argued tirelessly that there is no external physical substance. Our thoughts do not point to external objects like rocks and automobiles. Rocks and automobiles do not cause our thoughts. When I was in grad school going for a philosophy doctorate, my teacher Colin Murray Turbayne was acknowledged as one of the world's great Berkeley scholars. But to get a good grade in his class, you could never write anything against Berkeley. So we had to study Berkeley really carefully, because his ideas sounded so utterly unintuitive, crazy really. But after several months, they began to make sense. One day after a lot of reading, Berkeley's arguments crystalized, and it felt like a fog cleared from my mind. The feelings and convictions about supposed external objects vanished! The concepts of material substance and the attandant inside/outside distinction vanished. Nor were they necessary to explain our experiences. I was shaking with excitement, and not just because I thought I'd now get an "A" in Professor Turbayne's class. I went to Professor Turbayne's office. He instantly saw that something was different. He looked questioningly at me, and I could only nod. He smiled and said, "Aha! Now go write about it!" Since that time, over two decades years ago, the inside/outside disctinction has been useless to me. The notion of "material substance" has been just like the notion of "Santa Claus." And amazingly enough, the dissolution of these notions has made it easier for me to interact in what is often called the physical world. Because I haven't seen anything as physical for decades, there has been no fear factor. I learned to rollerblade and ride a bicycle with no brakes in the traffic-filled streets of New York City. Perceptions that are usually called "physical" occur as a kind of language that has no inside or outside, where each concept refers to other concepts in a growing and consistent way. But there's nothing Out There to which any of these ideas refer. In my case, it was an excellent shake-up, like a mental Vege-matic blender, preparing me for non-dualist teachings. http://nonduality.com/goode.htm#western_phil -------------------------------------- Larry: As I see it, this is a path to the realization of anatta that hinges on the idea that all there is that truely matters is this, here, now. This is certainly not in conflict with the principles of insight in abhidhamma. Another slightly more conceptual approach to this sutta might be, when the seen is only the seen there can be no desirable object because the seen is one thing and desire is another. Larry #86196 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/26 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "...If you are, however, prepared to accept that your asessment of > the situation is not shared by everyone else, this might prompt a > revision of the attitude with which you approach certain topics or > people." > > Scott: Sorry for the delay, I hadn't enough time to address this > particular reply. What do you think the attitude ought to be in > relation to a post such as the one Howard put forward, a post in which > a 'personal experience' is used to support a certain notion? I don't > think that such a post ought to be beyond question. Do you? > No, certainly not. And I don't think that Howard baulked at answering your questions. But several times he expressed reservations about the attitude which was part and parcel of your questioning, and this didn't seem to prompt a change, so he politely withdrew. Which is fair enough, IMO. Cheers Herman #86197 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 5:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: "No, certainly not..." Scott: I think it was a fair question as well. As for the rest... Sincerely, Scott. #86198 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Sights and Seeing and Self - Citta ultimately doesn't exist truth_aerator Dear Larry and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Physical Objects Disappear! > George Berkeley's THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS is a remarkable book. It is a short, well written set of dialogues, arguing in exemplary style that there can be no external physical objects which are somehow perceived by our sensory apparatus. >>>> The idealism works only if you believe in the Mind, mentality or consciousness as the most basic process underlying everything else. This however has NO place in Buddha's teaching and deserves a place of an interesting and witty outsiders work. The Buddha has clearly stated in MANY suttas that consciousness is dependently arisen from internal+external elements (matter). Just like Atta in ultimate sense doesn't exist, so does consciousness, mental states, volition, feelings and perceptions in ultimate sense simply do not exist. To say that consciousness ultimately exists is like to sneak Ultimate Reality back in where it doesn't belong. Remember the Sati's heresy: ------ Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhu Saati: Saati, is it true, that such an evil view has arisen to you. `As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness tansmigrates through existences, not anything else'.. Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Saati, how is that conscciousness? Venerable sir, this uttering and feeling one, that reaps the results of actions good and evil done here and there. Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit and that will be for your undoing and unpleasantness for a long time. Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it's reckoned eye consciousness. On account of ear and sounds arises consciousness, it's reckoned ear consciousness. On account of nose and smells arises consciousness, it's reckoned nose consciousness. On account of tongue and tastes arises consciousness, it's reckoned tongue consciousness.On account of body and touches arises consciousness, it's reckoned body consciousness. On account of mind and ideas arises consciousness, it's reckoned mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as based on whatever fire burns, it is reckoned by that. Fire ablaze with sticks is stick fire. Ablaze with twigs is twig fire. Ablaze with grass is grass fire. Ablaze with cowdung is cowdung fire. Ablaze with grain thrash is grain thrash fire. Ablaze with dirt is dirt fire. In the same manner consciousness on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness on account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness on account of body and touches is body consciousness. Consciousness on account of mind and ideas is mind consciousness. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/038-mahatanhasankhaya-sutta-e1.htm ---- The eye & form, ear & sound, nose & smells, tongue & tastes, body & touches, the mind-medium & mental objects belong to the Great Elements arranged in a certain and functional way. Buddha has taught that higher-level processes (such as a conventional Living Being) is made of lower level processes. The conventional "self" who is a complex phenomenon is made up of smaller processes (5 khandas). Less complex things produce higher level things, not vice versa. MahaBhuta is lower level thing, consciousness is higher. How can higher-level processes exist, what is their cause? More higher- level processes? What is their cause? Even MORE higher level causes? It becomes an infinite (and unanswerable) regress. But if we say that higher level processes (such as atta or consciousness) is caused by LOWER level processes, then we have a finite and terminating causal links with far greater explanatory power. Just like Buddha refuted the Atta belief, so the consciousness as ultimate is refuted. The computer and all the technology we have is due to realistic outlook of scientists. Realistic worldview has produced a lot, but not Idealism (or solipsism). Idealism doesn't seem to answer much and build predictable, repeatable and testable hypothesis. While scientists find matter (and can show that matter is a nessesery cause) , they can't find consciousness. I wonder why? In the same way that Atta can't be found. Best Wishes, Alex #86199 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun May 25, 2008 6:51 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > Is there ANY sutta (in DN,MN,SN,AN) where the Buddha states that > > study of 7 books of AP is nessesery? Please give the sutta > > name/number (and link if possible). > > > > As I think you know, the classifying of the Buddha's teachings into the > 3 Pitakas did not happen until after his death. So obviously there > could be no reference by the Buddha himself to any of the Pitakas > (Vinaya, Sutta or Abhidhamma). > > So would you mind re-stating your question to clarify the point you are > trying to make. Thanks. > > Jon > Dear Jon I have seen several references to Abhidhamma in say Vinaya for example. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17027 Robert