#90000 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sukin and Moderators, please acknowledge! ksheri3 Hi Sarah, I don't have that much time to actually follow the entire links. I just have a good understanding of this stuff BECAUSE I love studying it and practicing it. You can consider yourself "Linked" but I wanted to use the consciousness of the "linking" procedure under a joke I just thought of: <...> Thanx. I'll go see what's goin' on in these forums and see if they continue their persecution of my practices and beliefs which is exactly where this piece I wanted to copy came into play. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > I'm glad to see you're following so many of the threads here. <....> #90001 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sukin and Moderators, please acknowledge! sukinderpal Dear Collette, Whatever the reason behind it, I consider it also an honor that you draw my attention to this good post by Sarah. ;-) Thank you. Metta, Sukin colette wrote: > > Hey, I just got done with taking a creationist to task in a "pagan" a > hermetics forum, and read this post. > > Damn, this is the exact wording that would truely benefit the entire > group although I run the risk of being sensored by the moderators > there. > > Do I have the permission to copy and paste this Msg.? > > toodles, > colette > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , sarah abbott > wrote: > > > > Dear Tep (& Han), > > > > > S: Wouldn't you agree that actually there are only dhammas now > and > > the suttas all point to 'dhammas now'? If so, surely whatever we > read > > about has to point us back to an understanding and awareness now. > So > > what can such understanding know? > > >Only the various realities appearing now. > > > > >T: That was beautifully said, Sarah. > > As noted above, it is the same point repeatedly made by the various > > Buddhist authors, scholars, book publishers, meditators, retreat > > instructors, and Forest monks too. I absolutely agree with you and > > them, yet a more important point is whether we are ready for those > > dhammas appearing now; and if we are not, then how to get ready. > > .... > > S: Thank you for your kind and helpful comments, Tep. As you say, > many people talking about awareness now or understanding dhammas, but > this is where I think we need to be a lot more precise in order 'to > get ready' or to have right understanding develop. I'm glad we agree > so far. > > > > What are the realities appearing now, that sati-sampajanan can be > aware of and know, would you say, Tep? > > ... > > > > >S: We need to delve deeper and deeper into terms such as 'dukkha' > > or 'satipatthana' to really understand what is meant by them, I > > find. ... When I read the Satipatthana Sutta, I think it is just > > these different realities that are being pointed to, according to > > different lifestyles and accumulations. > > We see that all possible realities (dhammas) are included - whether > > rupas or namas. the dhamma is very clear and complete.... for the > > wise to see. We need assistance to see it and this is what all the > > teachings are for. > > .... > > T: How do you "delve deeper" to get ready to see the dhammas, the > way > > they really are? > > .... > > S: As Han said before, all the elements, all the realities > appearing through the doorways are spoken of by the Buddha in a sutta > such MN 10, Satipatthana Sutta. The four foundations include all > realities and it is the awareness and understanding of them that is > the "direct path for the purification of beings" as Han stressed. > However, usually we're lost in our ideas about body, postures and > people, so we fail to appreciate that the only realities appearing > through the sense doors are the various rupas and that the only > realities that can ever be known are such rupas or namas (or other > rupas) appearing through the mind door. > > > > So I think we need to "delve deeper" to really understand what is > real, what can be known at this very moment. For example, now visible > object can be known, seeing can be known, but 'computer' can only be > thought about. Again, hardness or heat or tacticle experience can be > known, but 'finger' or 'arm' can only be thought about. > > > > I'd really like to hear where you both agree or disagree so far. > > > > Metta, > > > > Sarah > > ========= > > > > #90002 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:22 pm Subject: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teachings ...) philofillet Hi Howard >there IS a legitimate sense in > which it is correct to say "There is no Ken". Absolutely, of course. Thus I refused to answer when James asked persistently "do people exist or not?" It's not that simple. But I find that Ken and others try to get at the truth of the matter too quickly and thereby are rather blithe about deep realities that would be disturbing to us if we somehow truly saw into them, I suspect. We are all very much believers in self, I think, in deeply ingrained(?) ways that- in my opinion only - very few if any of us will get rid of in this lifetime. But I'm just blithe-ing. Nevermind. That is when Ken is conceived of > as an entity - an existent, individual thing with identity and own-being; > i.e., as having "self". And as much as we are inclined to deny it, that is > usually the way we think about persons. Instead of viewing persons as > ever-changing eddies or vortices within, borrowing from, affecting and being affected by > a larger stream of phenomena, we think of them as things of their own. And > these dreamed of things-of-their-own do not exist. Ph: I will be following up on this sort of thing when I return to the "how do we affect others (or not)" thread I started. In the meantime, Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about mindstreams affecting others or something like that. Could you or anyone point me to a thread where this had been discussed at length so I can familiarize myself with the issue as discussed here? Thanks. > **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. Ph: No, I hadn't heard about that Howard! Sounds lovely! Thanks for letting is know about it! Metta, Phil #90003 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/10/2008 9:22:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Ph: I will be following up on this sort of thing when I return to the "how do we affect others (or not)" thread I started. In the meantime, Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about mindstreams affecting others or something like that. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I did talk about the interaction of mind streams, something I consider obvious and beyond reasonable debate. --------------------------------------------- Could you or anyone point me to a thread where this had been discussed at length so I can familiarize myself with the issue as discussed here? Thanks. ---------------------------------------------- I don't think it's really been discussed at length. I'm not entirely sure what would be the nature of such a discussion though. ------------------------------------------------ > **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. Ph: No, I hadn't heard about that Howard! Sounds lovely! Thanks for letting is know about it! ------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Why, yes, Phil. It's a blog well worth our attending to if not actively contributing to! Spending time on it is my second most favored rite & ritual, actually - right after meditating! ;-P ------------------------------------------------ Metta, Phil =========================== With metta, Howard #90004 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, Ch 10, no 5. egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/9/10 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear friends, > > "Forgetting about oneself conditions the cultivation of kusala", Khun > Sujin said. It is inspiring to be with people like Khun Sujin and > Khun Duangduen who are so kind, patient and considerate. Khun > Duangduen knew that small gestures of kindness are important, she did > not overlook such things. Every day she spoke with Khun Sujin about > giving: what would they give today and to whom? They had brought from > Thailand many useful gifts for the monks. A technical point only, not a disagreement. Selective giving, as in giving to monks only when there is sea of people in need, is not giving. It is an investment by a self for a self, based on the meritless idea of accumulating merit. Cheers Herman #90005 From: "jessicamui" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions regarding Ignorance jessicamui --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Jessica and Han, > Op 8-sep-2008, om 15:13 heeft jessicamui het volgende geschreven: > > > The proper question is that if an "uninstructed > > worlding" is doing a good deed, s/he doesn't have ignorance in some > > of the mind moments according to the fact that "ignorance doesn't > > arise with kusla citta". But if the definition of Ignorance is not > > knowing the 4 noble truth, dependent origination, etc, then for an > > uninstructed worlding, they won't know the Dhamma through making > > dana. So how can they not be "ignorant" for any moment ? > ------- > N: There is the latent tendency of ignorance, avijjanusaya, not yet > eradicated until arahatship. Latent tendencies do not arise, but they > are lying dormant in each citta, from moment to moment. Thus also > when performing dana and the citta is kusala citta, there is still > the latent tendency of ignorance. Latent tendencies do not arise but > they can condition the arising of akusala citta at any time. > Ignorance can only be eradicated when understanding has been fully > developed up to the degree of arahatship. But even now when we begin > to develop understanding of realities, we are on the way eventually > leading to its eradication. > Is there anything not clear yet about this subject, it is a good > question. > Nina. > > > > > Dear Nina (et al), Thank you very much for your reply. I have no more questions for this scenario. But in the area of "Ignorance", I'm still quite ignorant about the nitty-gritty. Perhaps you can shed some lights. The 10 fetters: 1. Sakkaya-ditthi - personality view 2. Vicikiccha - doubt 3. Silabbataparamasa - believes in wrong practice 4. Kama-raga 5. Patigaha - ill will 6. Rupa - raga 7. Arupa - raga 8. Mana - conceit 9. Uddhacca : restless 10. Avijja - Ignorance of the 4 Noble Truth, 3 Marks, etc At the Stream-entry level, one will eradicate the first 5 fetters. Then, Question 1: does the eradication of sakkaya-ditthi mean all 3 kinds of miccha-ditthi are eradicated at the stream entry level ? Question 2 : where does the ditthi vipallasa come into play ? Does this belong to the Avijja category which will be eradicated once reaching the Arahatship ? Or it belongs to the Ditthi category which will be eradicated at the Stream-entry level ? Thank you again for your reply ! Jessica. #90006 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:43 pm Subject: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... philofillet Hi again Howard > Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block > on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about > mindstreams affecting others or something like that. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I did talk about the interaction of mind streams, something I > consider obvious and beyond reasonable debate. > --------------------------------------------- Ph: It may come down to whether we accept Abhidhamma or not, because Scott's explanation of the matter - if it correctly represents Abhidhamma - made sense in the logic of Abhidhamma. Maybe. It's deep and tricky and I'd like to discuss it more to find out if Abhidhamma and possibly Therevada say that. If they do, I will have to move on from them. Also, the technical aspects of how what we do affects others really interests me a lot. The kids' novel I'm writing has a lot to do with how what people do and say ripples on through the world, even after they're gone...so I have a deep personal interest in the subject. I think one of the first posts I wrote here (maybe at another forum) was to ask where my favourite Buddhist quote in those days came from. Maybe I should use it as my signature thing!: "A thousand candles can be lit from a single candle." Metta, Phil #90007 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sukin and Moderators, please acknowledge! ksheri3 Well Hello Sukin, Not often I get the list owner to actually speak w/ me and in such generous praise, but it's still a good thing to have your opinion on this subject. Thanx. I look forward to seeing if the time arises and I'll get the post ready to "cut & paste" in my "Notebook" so that I can find quickly without much trouble. They, the Western neophytes, probably won't like my direct applications of the doctrines to their egotistical dogma. We can try, though. toodles, colette -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Dear Collette, > > Whatever the reason behind it, I consider it also an honor that you draw > my attention to this good post by Sarah. ;-) > Thank you. <.....> #90008 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:17 pm Subject: "Why look, a worm on a hook" ksheri3 Hi Phil, Yep, I'LL BITE! > Absolutely, of course. Thus I refused to answer when James asked > persistently "do people exist or not?" It's not that simple. But I > find that Ken and others try to get at the truth of the matter too > quickly and thereby are rather blithe about deep realities that > would be disturbing to us if we somehow truly saw into them, I > suspect. We are all very much believers in self, I think, in deeply > ingrained(?) ways that- in my opinion only - very few if any of us > will get rid of in this lifetime. But I'm just blithe-ing. Nevermind. > colette: I like that opinion and view. Lets not think that I'm shopping for a new pair of shoes just because I like the POV (point of view), or is that a "PERSPECTIVE"? Why I chose to bite was the end of the thought. > I think, in deeply > ingrained(?) ways that- in my opinion only - very few if any of us > will get rid of in this lifetime. But I'm just blithe-ing. colette: I cannot be sure, off the cuff like this, if this is a true statement. I mean I have been examining the deepest and most significant things within "my" "self" through the un-conscious and/or subconscious EXTENSIVELY since about 1982. Because I have been abandoned and exiled in a world full of people by those same people, I have had more than enough time to perfect and really get into the nuts & bolts of what makes a person tick. <...> I have only come to realize that the Abhidhamma analysis is a perfect reflection of what I have been doing since I ran into the Theosophical society out there in Wheaton IL, ca. 1985-7. I can say that uprooting those manias that were planted in the mind at the youngest of ages is a tireless effort but the fruits of staying mindful of uprooting those manias are unparalleled. gots ta go. thanx. toodles, colette <...> > Ph: I will be following up on this sort of thing when I return to > the "how do we affect others (or not)" thread I started. In the > meantime, Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block > on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about > mindstreams affecting others or something like that. Could you or > anyone point me to a thread where this had been discussed at length > so I can familiarize myself with the issue as discussed here? Thanks. <...> #90009 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:45 pm Subject: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... ksheri3 Hi Howard, GOOD POINTS! I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN EFFECT OTHERS WITH THEIR OWN CONSCIOUSNESS, which is a rather large brush to be painting a picture, here, with. THEREFORE: consciousness, in this case, encompasses a mindstream that an individual is participating in with others (a discussion), although a mindstream can have many, many, more applicable definitions than that simple discussion type definition. I have been alluding to this completely for years now, concerning KARMA and ASTRAL PROJECTION since I believe in QUANTUM THEORY, although I haven't even received a Bachelors Degree yet. This is a VERY GOOD TOPIC, a VERY FERTILE TOPIC, and a VERY DEEP TOPIC which I cannot see being discussed enough to even come close to measuring the depths at which it still functions. don't you think so Ron Epstein? I look forward to hearing more about the potential for such discussions. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil - > > In a message dated 9/10/2008 9:22:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > philco777@... writes: > > Ph: I will be following up on this sort of thing when I return to > the "how do we affect others (or not)" thread I started. In the > meantime, Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block > on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about > mindstreams affecting others or something like that. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I did talk about the interaction of mind streams, something I > consider obvious and beyond reasonable debate. > --------------------------------------------- <...> #90010 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:41 pm Subject: Calm & Content = Without Expectation! bhikkhu0 Friends: Expectation inevitably creates Disappointment: How does one create future frustration for oneself? By expecting!!! Ooh May I enjoy such & such form in the future. Ooh May I delight in this & that feeling in the future. Ooh May I experience exactly these lovely things in the future. Ooh May I receive my beloved favourite experiences in the future. Ooh May I relish in only those mental states like by me in the future. Ooh May I be satisfied by solely preferred types of consciousness in the future. Ooh May I Not meet this & that disliked person, event, circumstance, etc... On the contrary: One is always content if without any expectations: Let the past be past, passed & forgotten, for never to return to it again. Let forms, feelings, perceptions, constructions & consciousness here and now in the present be as they may! Let whatever arise & cease... May I relinquish any hope, wish & craving for whatever future forms, feelings, perceptions, constructions & future types of consciousness... May I thus remain just aware, calm, clear, content & unagitated!!! Let is be as it may! Let is come as it comes! Let it go as it goes! Good is contentment with just what one has… It is Always Different than expected! More on calm satisfied Contentment: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Contentment.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Calm_and_Content.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Cause_of_Contentment.htm Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya III 11-12 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?pro d_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) <...> #90011 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:18 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, Ch 10, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, The last day I spent in Sri Lanka was the day the Singhalese celebrated Vesakha: the day of the Buddha’s birth, of his enlightenment and of his parinibbåna. Many people, including children, were wearing white clothes and observed eight precepts at home or in the temple. In Sri Lanka I came to appreciate the observance of the eight precepts, and on Vesakha Day we also observed them, inspired by the example of the Singhalese. One of our hostesses told me that she observed eight precepts once a month in her home, and if the “Uposatha Day” was not convenient for her she would observe them on another day. Observing the eight precepts is a way of cultivating patience. When one observes these presepts one realizes how much one clings to eating at any odd time. Aren’t we impatient also with regard to food? On such a day we are reminded that we are attached to many things we take for granted in daily life, for example, lying on a soft bed, or sitting on one’s easy chair. These moments usually pass unnoticed, we are not mindful of them. The Buddha praised the observance of the eight precepts because on such a day one follows the example of the arahats. We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Eights, Ch. 5, §1, The Observance) : “Monks, the Observance day, when observed and kept with eight qualifications is very fruitful, of great advantage, very splendid, very thrilling. Monks, how is it so observed and kept? Herein, monks, and ariyan disciple reflects thus: “All their lives arahats abandon taking life and abstain therefrom; they dwell meekly and kindly, compassionately and mercifully to all beings, laying aside stick and sword. I, too, now, during this night and day, will abandon taking life and abstain therefrom. I will dwell meekly and kindly, compassionately and mercifully to all beings, and lay aside both stick and sword. So, in this way, I shall follow the example of arahats and keep the Observance....” The same is said about the other precepts. When we observe eight precepts sometimes, it is an opportunity to recollect the excellent qualities of the Buddha and of the arahats who were without clinging. Clinging is bound to arise, but if we are mindful of it when it appears, we shall learn to see it as it is, as a conditioned nåma. ***** Nina. #90012 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, Ch 10, no 5. nilovg Hi Herman, a good point. Op 11-sep-2008, om 5:19 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > A technical point only, not a disagreement. Selective giving, as in > giving to monks only when there is sea of people in need, is not > giving. It is an investment by a self for a self, based on the > meritless idea of accumulating merit. -------- N: Yes, there is certainly such superstition, making lots of merit if one gives to monks. It all depends on the citta. It may be kusala citta, and alternated with akusala citta that has selfish motives. In the case of my example, there was an opportunity to give to the monks who were traveling with us, they were dependent on gifts. Monks are not allowed to make any hints or suggestions. We saw that Phra Dhammadhara was unshaven, he lacked razor blades, but did not suggest anything. So we knew what to give. Or they were in need of pencils. Khun Duangduen is an example of giving that does not select at all. In Thailand she preferred to give poor people, or she gives to dogs all the time. If she does not, the dogs in the compound will become troublesome and people will poison them. She thinks of giving the whole day, truly, whenever there is an opportunity. She does not think: I will gain merit for myself. Nina. #90013 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavi egberdina Hi Sarah (and Tep and Nina), 2008/9/9 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman & Tep, > > --- On Mon, 8/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>> Sarah: On the other-hand, for the wise, there may be wise attention >> and the development of understanding following the kusala vipaka. All >> that are experienced through the body-sense are various rupas, none >> of them a 'body', none of them belonging to anyone. With such >> understanding and detachment, there is kusala kamma. >>.... >> >> Herman: It seems to me that the accumulations that this explanation >> relies upon certainly must belong to someone. Else, how do disembodied >> accumulations lead to action, as you suggest? >> ............ .. > > S: As Nina recently quoted (#89858)in the Vism series: > >>"Thus with its causes this arises; it is painful, > > impermanent, unlasting, fickle and changeable. > > States [dhammas] originate from [other] states as causes; > > no self exists here, nor another. > > As causes, constituents, conditions, > > it is states that produce states. > > And the Buddha taught the Dhamma > > for cessation of [all] causes. > > When causes have been made to cease, > > the round, being cut, revolves no more; > > So here the life of purity [brahmacariya] exists > > to make a [final] end of pain. > > Finding no being, there is neither > > eternity nor annihilation. > It may well be that after seven years I still don't know what you mean when you say things, Sarah, but it seems to me that you do not see a difference between unchanging eternal souls, which the Buddha denied, and ever changing beings, which the Buddha affirmed. You quote something Nina wrote. Nina also recently wrote (I have capitalised what I especially want to draw attention to: As to failure of view, di.t.thivipatti, the Co. refers to dha.sa. 1361. Perhaps you should have a get-to-gether with Nina and deliberate on what you actually believe :-) Cheers Herman #90014 From: "rinzeee" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:28 am Subject: Re: Question regarding "Conceptual" realities rinzeee Dear Alex and Herman My whole reply to your post # 89 788, was focused on the idea of "come out", in your question "Do the "conceptual" realities, COME OUT, from the "ultimate" realities?" Hence the reply is solely focused on, how it "comes out". But reading your reply, and that of Herman's, I notice that, the focus should have been on, "conceptual" vs "ultimate" realities. Nevertheless, seeing this "coming out", is the process of distinguishing, between "conceptual" and "ultimate" realities. And the idea of "coming out" arises, because of the two realities, the "conceptual" and the "ultimate". The Worldling, is entirely oblivious of these two realities. He goes about his day to day affairs, unaware of them. But when he comes to know the Dhamma, and begins to investigate, he would go from the conceptual, to the ultimate, mindfully, say, (Anapana Sati) from Breathing in-out to the psychic equivalent of the Air element (element of motion or distension) and so on. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello Rinzeee and all, > > > did I understand you correctly when you have said > > > >--- "rinzeee" wrote: > > Through Perversions of ultimate realities, > > conceptual "realities" "come out". There are 3 types of perversions > > that a Worldling is subjected to, (1) Perverted perceptions, (2) > > Perverted consciousness and (3) Perverted view, (This is mine, This > > I am, This is myself). > > What about MN1: > > "The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an > uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble > ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no > regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in > their Dhamma — perceives X as X. Perceiving X as X, he conceives > [things] about X, he conceives [things] in X, he conceives [things] > coming out of X, he conceives X as 'mine,' he delights in X. Why is > that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html > > In the place of X we can put so called "paramattha" dhammas. True. And there must be still more paramatha dhammas. There must be layers and layers of consciousness, before we could have conceptualized the Being as we are! Lord Buddha talks of mind-made Beings, who first inhabited the world, from the Abhassara world, in Agganna Sutta in DN 27, where he gives an exposition to the Origin of Things. > Also, > Isn't the talk about "the multiplicity of dhammas taken together to > produce the conceptual reality contradictory to this sutta? I didn't quite understand you here. Perhaps, when you read, what is written below, things will be clear. > "He perceives Multiplicity as Multiplicity. Perceiving Multiplicity , > he conceives things about Multiplicity, he conceives things in > Multiplicity, he conceives things coming out of Multiplicity, he > conceives Multiplicity as 'mine,' he delights in Multiplicity. Why is > that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." - MN1 > > After reading MN#1, how can this be reconciled? The Telecommunication Industry is a classic example of conceiving things about Multiplicity (diversified thinking). This industry has grown since the time when the Telephone was invented in 1849, to the present day mobile phone users. Telegraphy, Telephony, Radio, TV, Internet, WWW, etc; from concepts to still more elaborate concepts, Telecommunication! To conceive is `to think'. The present day generation, have lost the skills needed, even to add a simple grocery bill! They have become slaves to Technology! Therefore we cannot do, without the things, we have become slaves to! Just like the mind-made beings who lost their luminosity! Read Agganna Sutta DN 26, I'm sorry I couldn't find a link to this Sutta. This is my understanding of "Multiplicity" and how we must be conceiving things, and Suffering. Because, the more divorced we are from the mind, the greater the dependence on external paraphernalia, and therefore, the further away from true happiness! > > Is space a mental state, if so why? Why isn't it in rupa or a > paramattha dhamma? It is one of the 28 Rupa kalapas. Space is a "default" mental state! The perception of `Nothing' arises, because there is SOMETHING in nothing, which is Space! If not, we cannot think, let alone talk, of an empty cup! Can you think of a house, room, garden, without thinking `space'! Can you imagine them without space? Everything is in Space, except that we do not notice it. This is because we are either attracted to, or repulsed by the things in space. Unless of course, we think of space objectively, like when designing a house. In the Salleka Sutta MN 8, Lord Buddha talks of peaceful abidings in the present, and conditioning the mind from the gross to the subtle objects, through the 8 attainments, Infinite Space is one such mental state. > > > Best wishes, > > Alex > Metta Rinze #90015 From: "rinzeee" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question regarding "Conceptual" realities rinzeee Dear Herman & Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Rinzee, > > Your thesis is that Mental States are the basis for perversions of > ultimate reality. Lord Buddha states that Mind precedes everything, that includes both, the wholesome and unwholesome Dhamma. Everything is a construction in the Mind, before it manifest through, Thought, Word or Deed, even the Noble 8-fold path is a conditioned state of the mind. Hence perversions, understood as perverted perceptions, Ditthi, wrong view, is an unwholesome cetasika that arises in the mind, together with the associated cetasikas like the universals etc. >Unless I have missed it, and this is also Alex's > question, you have not addressed where or how concepts or perversion > creeps in as a not-ultimate reality. Concepts `creep in' as objects of thought, as a not-ultimate reality. It's like playing one of these computer games, say Car Racing, for instance. All the thrills of excitement are there, when in reality we are stationary! Similarly with `Personality View'! All the thrills of excitement are there! But when "translated" into "concrete" terms, there is only the 5 aggregates, which we had been holding, and through which we derive the excitement! This is the meaning of "Ultimate Reality". We were really dealing with "thought forms" (concepts), and they are transient. Because they are transient, we have to keep on doing things to derive this excitement (or repulsion). This is suffering! And not-self follows as a matter of course! >You have said that Mental States > are ultimate reality, so I must assume that perversions are ultimate > reality too. > > If I have misunderstood, could you please clarify? Perversions, understood as perverted perceptions / Ditthi / wrong view, is ultimate reality. There is Sath Dhamma and Asath Dhamma. The law of Dhamma is applicable to both, wholesome and unwholesome, skillful and unskillfull. We should see the skillful as skillfull and the unskillfull as unskillfull. Seeing the unskillfull as unskillfull is not possible if not ultimate reality. Note here that the meaning of "Unskillfullness" is vis-à-vis Nibbana. The ordinary sense of unskillfullness can be seen whether ultimate or not. "What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?" "For reflection, sir." "In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection. "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self- affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self- affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do. Ambalanthika-Rahulovada Sutta MN 61 > Cheers > > > Herman > Metta Rinze #90016 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:51 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (26-29), Commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, sutta:Purity of morality and view. (Siilavisuddhi ca di.t.thivisuddhi ca. ------- As to purity of morality, the Co. states that it is siila able to attain purity. It refers to da.sa. Pali: 1365. We read (transl U Kyaw Khine, 1372): “What, in this connection is purity of morality? It is not transgressing in action, not transgressing in speech, not transgressing in both action and speech.This is called purity of morality...” --------- Co: Siilavisuddhiiti visuddhi.m paapetu.m samattha.m siila.m. Abhidhamme panaaya.m ‘‘tattha katamaa siilavisuddhi? Kaayiko aviitikkamo vaacasiko aviitikkamo kaayikavaacasiko aviitikkamo, aya.m vuccati siilavisuddhii’’ti eva.m vibhattaa. ------- N: Siila is only purity of morality, siilavisuddhi, if it is developed together with right understanding of nama and rupa. So long as one takes siila for self it is not siilavisuddhi. ------------- As to purity of view, di.t.thivisuddhi, the Co. states that this is understanding able to attain purity. It refers to da.sa. Pali 1366. We read (transl U Kyaw Khine, 1373): “There are: knowledge that one’s deeds are one’s own (kammassakata ~naa.na); knowledge conducive to the attainment of the four Ariya Truths; knowledge of one who has realized the Path; knowledge of one who has attained Fruition.” ---------- Co: Di.t.thivisuddhiiti visuddhi.m paapetu.m samattha.m dassana.m. Abhidhamme panaaya.m ‘‘tattha katamaa di.t.thivisuddhi? Kammassakata~naa.na.m saccaanulomika~naa.na.m maggasama"ngissa~naa.na.m phalasama"ngissa~naa.na’’nti eva.m vuttaa. -------- N: The Co then adds another aspect of kamma ‘not being one’s own’ or ‘being one’s own’. Akusala kamma is not one’s own, since it destroys what is good, and kusala kamma is one’s own since it leads to benefit. In the case of kusala kamma, one does not depend on another and nobody else can destroy it. This is further explained in the “Expositor” (II, p. 515) and the “Dispeller of Delusion (II, p. 161). It is said of akusala kamma that it destroys benefit and promotes harm. Whereas kusala kamma destroys harm and promotes good. We read in the “Dispeller of Delusion: “ ... when there is this knowledge of ownership of kamma capable of knowing in this way, there is no limit to the number of those who, by knowing it, by giving many gifts, by fulfilling virtue and undertaking the uposatha, experience happiness after happiness, success after success and reach nibbaana.” -------- N: This aspect is an exhortation to develop what is wholesome including right understanding, so that eventually nibbaana can be attained. The subco. elaborates on the benefit (attha) as a consequence of kusala kamma: benefit in this world, in another world and the highest benefit. The Co. mentions under purity of view saccaanulomika~naa.na, conformity knowledge, and this is insight knowledge in conformity with the Truth, or adaptation knowledge. It is pa~n~naa that penetrates one of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha or anattaa. It surely leads to nibbaana, the subco. adds. It is followed by Path-consciousness and Fruition. ---------- Nina. #90017 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior? Failure of Communication dhammanusarin Hello Herman, (Sarah and Nina) - I would like to compare what I discussed with Sarah with your email lately, which points out an unfortunate failure of communication. I hope that Sarah and Nina may respond with a much more effective communication. Quoting the Vism or Co. or Abhidhamma commentaries, etc. without giving a clear and direct reply to the question being asked is not an effective communication. Yet, it still is not too late to try again, even after several years of doubt and confusion (7 years in your case, 5 years in mine). You said in an older message: "It seems to me that the accumulations that this explanation relies upon certainly must belong to someone. Else, how do disembodied accumulations lead to action, as you suggest?" And Sarah replied (#89952): > S: As Nina recently quoted (#89858)in the Vism series: >> "Thus with its causes this arises; it is painful, impermanent, unlasting, fickle and changeable. States [dhammas] originate from [other] states as causes; no self exists here, nor another. As causes, constituents, conditions, it is states that produce states. And the Buddha taught the Dhamma for cessation of [all] causes. When causes have been made to cease, the round, being cut, revolves no more; So here the life of purity [brahmacariya] exists to make a [final] end of pain. Finding no being, there is neither eternity nor annihilation." [endquote] >> >Sarah: Dhammas dependent on dhammas, no beings, no people which they belong to. ............... Tep (after quoting "Anattaa According to the Theravaada" by Nanamoli Thera in #89988) : Sarah, I sincerely hope that you have carefully studied the above precious explanation about self, self views, and how a person can drop sakkayaditthi along with either one of the extreme views : 'There is a self.' and 'There is no self.'. Herman(#90013): It may well be that after seven years I still don't know what you mean when you say things, Sarah, but it seems to me that you do not see a difference between unchanging eternal souls, which the Buddha denied, and ever changing beings, which the Buddha affirmed. Still hoping, Tep === #90018 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Re: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Scott) - In a message dated 9/11/2008 12:43:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again Howard > Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block > on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about > mindstreams affecting others or something like that. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I did talk about the interaction of mind streams, something I > consider obvious and beyond reasonable debate. > --------------------------------------------- Ph: It may come down to whether we accept Abhidhamma or not, because Scott's explanation of the matter - if it correctly represents Abhidhamma - made sense in the logic of Abhidhamma. Maybe. It's deep and tricky and I'd like to discuss it more to find out if Abhidhamma and possibly Therevada say that. If they do, I will have to move on from them. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would certainly be interested in observing a conversation between you two (and others) on this topic. I don't know whether I'd have anything of value to add, but I'll put in a couple cents worth should I come up with something. ---------------------------------------------------------- Also, the technical aspects of how what we do affects others really interests me a lot. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course this is of interest. I'm just not aware of the Buddha having dealt with this at any level more detailed than the ordinary-conversation level, especially as regards moral issues, and it seems to me that the details of such interaction are related to matters very deep and likely beyond our present knowledge (involving presumptions of phenomenalism or "objectivism" or other alternative, fundamental perspectives on the nature of "existence"). Mahayana, with it's "Indra's Net" and other notions seems to attend a bit more to "inter-being" interaction from the philosophical perspective than Theravada, but even there one can't say that there are "technical aspects" given. ------------------------------------------------------------ The kids' novel I'm writing has a lot to do with how what people do and say ripples on through the world, even after they're gone...so I have a deep personal interest in the subject. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I would imagine so. And I do think it is an important matter. ------------------------------------------------------------ I think one of the first posts I wrote here (maybe at another forum) was to ask where my favourite Buddhist quote in those days came from. Maybe I should use it as my signature thing!: "A thousand candles can be lit from a single candle." ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it is a deep truth that each single being effects the whole of existence. There is a Jewish maxim to the effect "To save one being is as to save the world entire." ------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================= With metta, Howard #90019 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:07 am Subject: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... scottduncan2 Dear Phil (and Howard), P: "Scott mentioned that he and TG had been around the block on that topic, and I'm sure you have too since you have talked about mindstreams affecting others or something like that...It may come down to whether we accept Abhidhamma or not, because Scott's explanation of the matter - if it correctly represents Abhidhamma - made sense in the logic of Abhidhamma. Maybe. It's deep and tricky and I'd like to discuss it more to find out if Abhidhamma and possibly Therevada say that. If they do, I will have to move on from them..." Scott: Don't take my 'explanations' for anything, Phil, since I know nothing. I'm just studying. The Dhamma is deep; Abhidhamma is not just an ancient psychology. I take Abhidhamma (rightly or wrongly) to be a distillation of the depth of the Dhamma. I consider the depth of the Dhamma to represent a state of affairs as it actually is. I can't experience things as they actually are but I take it that a Buddha did and then described it. Working to establish as accurate a theoretical understanding of the Dhamma is a start, for me. I take the 'theory', due to lack of development, to be the way it is. Theoretically there is no doer and no experiencer. But there is ruupa, there is citta, there are mental factors, and there are conditions in operation. Out of these, due I suppose to ignorance and whatnot, arises sakkaaya-di.t.thi. 'Mind-streams' are conceptual. Thoughts about 'mind streams' are like thoughts about beings and persons and 'me' and 'you'. I think them all the time. If the Dhamma, which is deep, teaches that there are no doers and no experiencers, only deeds and experience, then I contemplate what I, in a state of ignorance, take as 'my experience' accordingly. I accept, rightly or wrongly, what I take to be the premise expressed by the depth of the Dhamma, and think about things accordingly. The 'crossing of mind-streams' is metaphorical. Given that a single 'mind-stream' is conceptual, then two 'mind-streams' in interaction is poetry. If the depth of the Dhamma points to the absence of doers and experiencers, then to imagine one person having an effect on another person is a process of thinking about the dynamics of ideas and no more than that. And I think this way all the time, as I'm sure you do. However, with the concept of person as object, mettaa can arise and citta can condition the ruupas of the body to compose themselves thus and so such that kusala is 'carried out' in relation to 'beings'. And this will appear as someone acting kindly, for example. And, given that it is truly kusala, the development of kusala will be for that given state and for none other. Rhetoric would have it that to contemplate the world of beings in interaction from the depth of the Dhamma, and to contemplate impersonal dhammas arising and falling away in a heap and in seeming continuity, is to suggest solipsism or psychopathy or worse. I think that such a rhetorical stance is sophomoric at best and is completely beside the point. The fact remains, for me, that while in the ultimate sense there is no doer and no experiencer, kusala develops with the concept of 'other' in mind. True kindness develops because one thinks of 'other' and because one thinks one acts in relation to 'others', but one doesn't have to forget that, no matter how real the illusion seems, the depth of the Dhamma would have it that no 'other' is to be found. I don't think that the way I understand this can be transferred to you by me - and I'm not saying I'm right, its just the way I understand things and this is conditioned. Just as Naomi can't keep you from the internet even when you ask her. We are all alone in the end. What underlies the wish to have an effect on someone? Why should one necessarily seek to get comfort? What sort of arbitrator of truth is whether or not the Dhamma is 'comfortable'? Who seeks 'comfort'? 'Comfort' - whatever constellation of citta and mental factors this should amount to, and whatever object serves to focus these - will arise or not according to conditions, as I see it. Seeking comfort is akusala, and I do it all the time. The comfort I seek and feel I achieve from time to time is not likely at all the same as the peace that arises naturally with true kusala. I understand that, with the slow and painstaking impersonal development of satipa.t.thaana, akusala can be known from kusala. Sincerely, Scott. #90020 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:51 am Subject: Doubts and Siilana szmicio Dear friends, A last days I feel a little depressed. the thinking about bavaana isn't the same as bhavaana. But the thinkin is almost all the day. There are akusala cittas. The Buddha said that siila is siilana a base/root of our practice. So whe should start here. But I cant. I really cant. I cant induce right speech or the other siila. I cant make wrong speech disappeard. Best wishes, Lukas #90021 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Calm & Content = Without Expectation! egberdina Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, 2008/9/11 Bhikkhu Samahita : > > > Friends: > > Expectation inevitably creates Disappointment: > > How does one create future frustration for oneself? By expecting!!! > Ooh May I enjoy such & such form in the future. > Ooh May I delight in this & that feeling in the future. > Ooh May I experience exactly these lovely things in the future. > Ooh May I receive my beloved favourite experiences in the future. > Ooh May I relish in only those mental states like by me in the future. > Ooh May I be satisfied by solely preferred types of consciousness in the future. > Ooh May I Not meet this & that disliked person, event, circumstance, etc... > > On the contrary: One is always content if without any expectations: > Let the past be past, passed & forgotten, for never to return to it again. > Let forms, feelings, perceptions, constructions & consciousness here > and now in the present be as they may! Let whatever arise & cease... > May I relinquish any hope, wish & craving for whatever future forms, > feelings, perceptions, constructions & future types of consciousness... > May I thus remain just aware, calm, clear, content & unagitated!!! > > Let is be as it may! Let is come as it comes! Let it go as it goes! > Good is contentment with just what one has… > It is Always Different than expected! > I sincerely wonder whether your message above is realistic. Why on earth have something like a Bhikkhu Patimokkha if one is always content without expectations? It seems to me that the Bhikkhu Patimokkha embodies expectation (of the behaviour of self and other selves). Cheers Herman #90022 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:17 am Subject: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: Don't take my 'explanations' for anything, Phil, since I know > nothing. I'm just studying. Thanks Scott for the very beautifully composed post. I will print it out and spend a few days with it! Metta, Phil #90023 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:31 am Subject: Re: "Why look, a worm on a hook" philofillet Hi Colette Thanks for biting. I wrote: > > I think, in deeply > > ingrained(?) ways that- in my opinion only - very few if any of us > > will get rid of in this lifetime. But I'm just blithe-ing. > colette: I cannot be sure, off the cuff like this, if this is a true > statement. I mean I have been examining the deepest and most > significant things within "my" "self" through the un-conscious and/or > subconscious EXTENSIVELY since about 1982. Because I have been > abandoned and exiled in a world full of people by those same people, > I have had more than enough time to perfect and really get into the > nuts & bolts of what makes a person tick. <...> Ph: OK, I know as usual I assume too much about other people based on my own experience. Because I don't see into things deeply (except in the good old drug days! sigh...) I assume others are also deprived of penetrative insight. But I always assume too much. > > I have only come to realize that the Abhidhamma analysis is a perfect > reflection of what I have been doing since I ran into the > Theosophical society out there in Wheaton IL, ca. 1985-7. Ph: Ah, if only I could say that about Abhidhamma analysis. For me, it is all theory that is completely foreign to my experience except in a few aspects which are common to the suttanta, and in those aspects I will stick with the suttanta. The other aspects that are beyond (below the surface of?) my experience I take as very beautiful descriptions of the deep understanding of the arahants (unless it is just a beautiful concoction) and therefore at this time pay it less accord than the suttanta... Metta, Phil p.s by the way, you were saying something about gender identity the other day and I wondered if you know the really cool sutta in AN about how we trap ourselves into identifying tight and hard with our masculinity or femininity, in order to get the desired response from the other...you probably know it already... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.048.than.html #90024 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question regarding "Conceptual" realities TGrand458@... Hi All Butting in... There are NO different levels of "realities." There isn't a "ultimate reality" vs a "conceptual reality." This idea of "different realities" is just confusing delusion with non-delusion. A "concept" is mental imagery based on mental activities including memories. Its just conditioned phenomena like any other phenomena...i.e., it arises involuntarily due to conditions! TG In a message dated 9/11/2008 3:28:54 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rinzeee@... writes: Dear Alex and Herman My whole reply to your post # 89 788, was focused on the idea of "come out", in your question "Do the "conceptual" realities, COME OUT, from the "ultimate" realities?" Hence the reply is solely focused on, how it "comes out". But reading your reply, and that of Herman's, I notice that, the focus should have been on, "conceptual" vs "ultimate" realities. Nevertheless, seeing this "coming out", is the process of distinguishing, between "conceptual" and "ultimate" realities. And the idea of "coming out" arises, because of the two realities, the "conceptual" and the "ultimate". The Worldling, is entirely oblivious of these two realities. He goes about his day to day affairs, unaware of them. But when he comes to know the Dhamma, and begins to investigate, he would go from the conceptual, to the ultimate, mindfully, say, (Anapana Sati) from Breathing in-out to the psychic equivalent of the Air element (element of motion or distension) and so on. #90025 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubts and Siilana nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 11-sep-2008, om 14:51 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > The Buddha said that siila is siilana a base/root of our practice. > So whe should start here. But I cant. I really cant. > I cant induce right speech or the other siila. I cant make wrong > speech disappeard. ------ N: No, of course not, it has arisen because of conditions. But listening to the Buddha greatly helps. There are so many excellent discourses on good siila. I am considering what I posted from the Dhammasangani (first Book of Abhidhamma) in the Sangiiti corner: about attainment of siila: < The Co refers to what is formerly said about gentleness, soracca, where the text was mentioned of dha. sa. 1342:< it is non-transgression in action, non-transgression in speech, non-transgression in both action and speech. This is called gentleness. Also all restraint of virtue is gentleness. This is said to be a gentle nature (suratabhaavo). When there is gentleness and kindness to all beings, it conditions the undertaking of siila to a great extent. One will not be inclined to harsh speech or to any speech or action that hurts others. > When we are selfish we are not considerate of others, but mettaa conditions not to harm others. One has repect for one's fellowbeings. Abstaining from what harms others is like a giving a gift. I quote from my 'Sri Lanka Revisited' I am typing out now. You will like it, since I have quotes from Phra Dhammadhara. < We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Eights, Ch IV, § 9, Yields) about five gifts, given by a noble disciple: “Herein, monks, a noble disciple gives up the taking of life and abstains from it. By abstaining from taking life, the noble disciple gives to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, gives them freedom from hostility, and freedom from oppression. By giving to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression, he himself will enjoy immeasurable freedom from fear, hostility and oppression....” The same is said about the other four precepts. By abstaining from stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and the taking of intoxicants one gives to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression. When we see síla as a gift of kindness to others it can inspire us to develop síla together with satipatthåna so that we shall have less selfishness.> When you abstain from wrong speech it is like giving a gift. The Buddha also said that the source of good siila or bad siila is in the citta. When realizing the different cittas that arise we see the value of kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Just now you have been reading the quote above, and this is like listening. It all begins with listening, by listening we hear what we did not hear before. This is the way that understanding can develop and understanding is the most important condition for purity of siila. You said: 'The Buddha said that siila is siilana a base/root of our practice.' Yes, but it is siila developed together with right understanding. Purity of siila, siila visuddhi, is siila with right understanding, because without it we still take it for self. That is not helpful, and it makes depressed. Purity of siila, it is said, is the proximate cause for purity of view. It does not work this way: thinking, now I have to start with siila first so that I can apply myself to bhaavanaa. That is an idea full of self. Nina. #90026 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:41 am Subject: Questions regarding Ignorance nilovg > Dear Jessica, ---------------- The 10 fetters: 1. Sakkaya-ditthi - personality view 2. Vicikiccha - doubt 3. Silabbataparamasa - believes in wrong practice 4. Kama-raga 5. Patigaha - ill will 6. Rupa - raga 7. Arupa - raga 8. Mana - conceit 9. Uddhacca : restless 10. Avijja - Ignorance of the 4 Noble Truth, 3 Marks, etc At the Stream-entry level, one will eradicate the first 5 fetters. ------- N: No, only the first three, wrong view has been completely eradicated. Not 4 and 5. -------- J: Then, Question 1: does the eradication of sakkaya-ditthi mean all 3 kinds of miccha-ditthi are eradicated at the stream entry level ? ------- N: Yes, all kinds of di.t.thi. The other wrong views are condiitoned by personality view, sakkaya-ditthi. ------- Question 2 : where does the ditthi vipallasa come into play ? Does this belong to the Avijja category which will be eradicated once reaching the Arahatship ? Or it belongs to the Ditthi category which will be eradicated at the Stream-entry level ? ------ N: The last one. All that has to do with wrong view is eradicated by the sotaapanna. See Buddhist Dict. Nyanatiloka: vipallÄ?sa: 'perversions' or 'distortions'. - ''There are 4 perversions which may be either of perception (saññÄ?-vipallÄ?sa), of consciousness (citta v.) or of views (diá¹¹-v.). And which are these four? To regard what is impermanent (anicca) as permanent; what is painful (dukkha) as pleasant (or happiness-yielding); what is without a self (anattÄ?) as a self; what is impure (ugly: asubha) as pure or beautiful'' (A. IV, 49). - See Manual of Insight, by Ledi Sayadaw (WHEEL 31/32). p.5. "Of the perversions, the following are eliminated by the 1st path- knowledge (SotÄ?patti): the perversions of perception, consciousness and views, that the impermanent is permanent and what is not a self is a self; further, the perversion of views that the painful is pleasant, and the impure is pure. By the 3rd path-knowledge (AnÄ?gÄ?mitÄ?) are eliminated: the perversions of perception and consciousness that the impure is pure. By the 4th path-knowledge (Arahatta) are eliminated the perversions of perception and consciousness that the painful is pleasant" (Vis.M. XXII, 68).> ------- Nina. #90027 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior? nilovg Dear Tep, Op 8-sep-2008, om 20:42 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > T: If vipaka could condition new kamma, then it would mean that > results can again become "the causes of new results, and so ad > infinitum" as Ven. Nyanatiloka explained in the quote below. ------- N: Kamma produces vipaaka, and this is kamma-condition. Vipaaka does not produce anything else, it is mere result. When I spoke about vipaaka that can be a condition for kusala citta or akusala citta I mean something else: it can influence one's attitude, and this depends on one's accumulated inclinations. These are natural decisive dependence-condition. I went to the Thai website and found that the conditions are treated too shortly. Decisive dependence-condiiton is mentioned: upanissaya paccaya, but it is not subdivided into: decisive dependence-condition of object, decisive dependence-condition of proximity and natural decisive dependence-condition. -------- Nina. #90028 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavi nilovg Hi Herman, Op 11-sep-2008, om 11:23 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Nina also recently wrote (I have > capitalised what I especially want to draw attention to: > > As to failure of view, di.t.thivipatti, the Co. refers to dha.sa. > 1361. > benefit of offering... > This is wrong view, destroying right view. > ---------- > Di.t.thivipattiiti ''tattha katamaa di.t.thivipatti? Natthi dinna.m > natthi yi.t.tha''nti eva.m aagataa sammaadi.t.thivinaasikaa > micchaadi.t.thi. > -------- > The Co. gives a shortened version of the text of the dha. sa. we find > also in the "Middle Length Sayings" 117, "Discourse pertaining to the > Great Forty": > > < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, > nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no > this > world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn > spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have > realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and > the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> ------ N: no mother or father, this is the idea, as was said before here in dsg, that it is not necessary to berespectful to parents, since one has the wrong view that kamma does not produce result. The words persons and beings is used in the suttas, it is suttanta method: in everyday language realities, such as here wrong view (an akusala cetasika) are explained. Two methods: suttanta method and abhidhamma method, and no contradiction. ----- Nina. #90029 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior? dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Sarah), - Thank you for the clarification below. >N: Kamma produces vipaaka, and this is kamma-condition. Vipaaka does not produce anything else, it is mere result. When I spoke about vipaaka that can be a condition for kusala citta or akusala citta I mean something else: it can influence one's attitude, and this depends on one's accumulated inclinations. T: I also told Sarah the same that vipaka of a kamma did not produce a new kamma, otherwise there would be no cessation of dukkha. Thanks. Tep === #90030 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:27 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behavi dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Sarah, Herman, Swee, KenH, Scott, Sukin), - Herman had an earlier discussion with Sarah : >> Sarah(#89952): Dhammas dependent on dhammas, no beings, no people which they belong to. >Herman(#90013): "It seems to me that the accumulations that this explanation relies upon certainly must belong to someone. Else, how do disembodied accumulations lead to action, as you suggest?" >It may well be that after seven years I still don't know what you mean when you say things, Sarah, but it seems to me that you do not see a difference between unchanging eternal souls, which the Buddha denied, and ever changing beings, which the Buddha affirmed. You quote something Nina wrote. Nina also recently wrote (I have capitalised what I especially want to draw attention to: < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> >Herman: Perhaps you should have a get-to-gether with Nina and deliberate on what you actually believe :-) ..................................... T: And you replied in message #90028 as follows. N: no mother or father, this is the idea, as was said before here in dsg, that it is not necessary to be respectful to parents, since one has the wrong view that kamma does not produce result. The words persons and beings is used in the suttas, it is suttanta method: in everyday language realities, such as here wrong view (an akusala cetasika) are explained. Two methods: suttanta method and abhidhamma method, and no contradiction. ..................................... T: I think you essentially deny the Buddha's definition of "wrong view" in MN 117 (quoted above). The Buddha taught Suttanta and Abhidhamma: same dhammas are found in both; therefore it is clear that there is no contradiction between the two pitakas. The big implication of "no contradiction" is that the inviduals in the world, mother, father, beings must exist as realities in both the "everyday language realities" AND the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma language. I do not doubt the Buddha's words, so I suggest that you please re-examine the absurd duality of conventional truth versus ultimate truth; because the Greatest Sage taught only the Four Noble Truths. "Good, good, Anuraadha. As before, so now I proclaim just suffering and the ceasing of suffering." [SN 22.86] "Bhikkhus, it is through not realizing, through not penetrating the Four Noble Truths that this long course of birth and death has been passed through and undergone by me as well as by you. What are these four? They are the noble truth of dukkha; the noble truth of the origin of dukkha; the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha; and the noble truth of the way to the cessation of dukkha. But now, bhikkhus, that these have been realized and penetrated, cut off is the craving for existence, destroyed is that which leads to renewed becoming, and there is no fresh becoming." [ DN 16] Sincerely, Tep === #90031 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:09 pm Subject: Panna isn't absolute truth_aerator Hello all, > TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi All > > >There are NO different levels of "realities." There isn't >a "ultimate reality" vs a "conceptual reality." This idea >of "different realities" is just confusing delusion with non- >delusion. A "concept" is mental imagery based on mental activities >including memories. Its just conditioned phenomena like any other >phenomena...i.e., it arises involuntarily due to conditions! > > > TG In MN43 it is stated that Vinnana & Panna are not separateble. Since Vinnana is dependently arisen, then so is Panna - dependently arisen due to causes & conditions. Something which is dependently arisen isn't absolute, thus cannot provide "absolute ontological knowledge." An absolute or "ultimate" truth would require an equally absolute or "ultimate" vinnana - which is impossible. ======================================================= "Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them." - MN43 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html Best wishes, Alex #90032 From: "Justin Whitaker" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Calm & Content = Without Expectation! helenaheretics Dear Herman, et al. I've been a lurker for some time now but thought I might kindely jump in here. (I'll give a short bio below) On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Herman Hofman wrote: > Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, > > 2008/9/11 Bhikkhu Samahita : >> >> >> Friends: >> >> Expectation inevitably creates Disappointment: >> >> How does one create future frustration for oneself? By expecting!!! >> Ooh May I enjoy such & such form in the future. >> Ooh May I delight in this & that feeling in the future. >> Ooh May I experience exactly these lovely things in the future. >> Ooh May I receive my beloved favourite experiences in the future. >> Ooh May I relish in only those mental states like by me in the future. >> Ooh May I be satisfied by solely preferred types of consciousness in the future. >> Ooh May I Not meet this & that disliked person, event, circumstance, etc... >> >> On the contrary: One is always content if without any expectations: >> Let the past be past, passed & forgotten, for never to return to it again. >> Let forms, feelings, perceptions, constructions & consciousness here >> and now in the present be as they may! Let whatever arise & cease... >> May I relinquish any hope, wish & craving for whatever future forms, >> feelings, perceptions, constructions & future types of consciousness... >> May I thus remain just aware, calm, clear, content & unagitated!!! >> >> Let is be as it may! Let is come as it comes! Let it go as it goes! >> Good is contentment with just what one has… >> It is Always Different than expected! >> > > I sincerely wonder whether your message above is realistic. Why on > earth have something like a Bhikkhu Patimokkha if one is always > content without expectations? It seems to me that the Bhikkhu > Patimokkha embodies expectation (of the behaviour of self and other > selves). > > Cheers > Herman > My sense is that this is one of those teachings meant to break some of the listener's attachments here and now. Think about the things you hold expectations for. Are those expectations sometimes consuming your mind, taking you out of the moment, perhaps already causing agitation and suffering? It's clear that even many of the Bhikkhus over the years have had expectations and ideas and actions that caused themselves and others suffering - hence the development of the Patimokkha. Yet that is not to say that we cannot or should not strive to overcome our expectations and as such to live fully in the present. Also, I had a similar discussion with students a few weeks back, asking: if Buddhism is all about 'being present' then why do they hold on to views of future lives/pure lands, etc? One of my brightest quoted Surya Das to the effect that even in being present, we still make plans! But plans are different from expectations - they are made, in the present, while present, and then allowed to unfold. Expectations, I take it, are rooted in tanha, thirsting, for certain future outcomes. Bio - some of that is below (student, administrator). I have practiced for eight years now in various traditions: FWBO, Tibetan Gelug under Geshe Michael Roach, Vipassana with Matthew Flickstein, and some others here and there. Most of my practice now is simple mindfulness of breathing and cultivation of loving-kindness, sometimes also doing Vipassana. I live in beautiful Missoula, Montana, where I've also studied plenty of Western philosophy and ethics. Greetings and best wishes to you all, Justin -- Justin Whitaker PhD Candidate, Buddhist Ethics Goldsmiths, University of London Administrative Officer The Center for Ethics The University of Montana-Missoula #90033 From: "colette" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:25 am Subject: Re: "Why look, a worm on a hook" ksheri3 Hi Phil, Now you're showing and applying DEPENDENT ORIGINATION which gets me into Shunyata and the Madhyamika et al. > > Ph: OK, I know as usual I assume too much about other people based > on my own experience. Because I don't see into things deeply (except > in the good old drug days! sigh...) colette: okay, lets go with just this part. You associate or find a connection between your days of youth and the use of chemicals which helped you to examine and analyse things differently from your standard operating procedure today. We could go with Past Dharma and Present Dharma which would give us ideas or misconceptions concerning the Future Dharma, but I want to focus on the concept of TRANSCENDENCE. Obviously you equate an ability that an individual possesses in their youth or younger days that can "see" things in a more advantageous way. You also apply the use of chemicals as a vehicle or means to enhance that ability. What has changed? Does time exist or are you forcing time to conform to your preconceptions? How is the Past Dharma different from the Present Dharma? In this situation it would be better phrased as How would your past differ from your present? How has the doctrine changed since you became aware of this ability that a youth or the youth has in relation to the doctrine as it stands and is issued today? Is the use of chemicals to achieve a transcendental state different today from yesterday or is it your opinion that the use of a vehicle to change or alter your conscious condition THAT HAS CHANGED? If so, then you suggest that the usage of any vehicle to achieve enlightenment or a transcendental state of consciousness IS WRONG, which means that a lot of actual Lineages are destined to produce eveidence that their philosophy is not a vehicle that alters an individual's state of consciousness. --------------------------------------------- I assume others are also > deprived of penetrative insight. colette: GOOD ASSUMPTION, however that logic which led you to this enlightened truth is a flawed and false logic. Here we can get into the addiction that the Therevadan movement has to maintaining a strict code of "heirarchy" and "chain-of-command" in it's ranks as a means of maintaining order,<....> They maintain a rule that a person cannot achieve enlightenment if they have not gone through countless lifetimes of the cycle of Birth- Life-Death AND they, Theravadans, are very opposed to any vehicle that may give hope to a student that enlightenment is possible in their lifetime i.e. vajrayana, or Tibetan Buddhism, etc. -------------------------------------------------- But I always assume too much. > colette: who doesn't? --------------------------------- > > > > > I have only come to realize that the Abhidhamma analysis is a > perfect > > reflection of what I have been doing since I ran into the > > Theosophical society out there in Wheaton IL, ca. 1985-7. > > > Ph: Ah, if only I could say that about Abhidhamma analysis. For > me, it is all theory that is completely foreign to my experience colette: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! AGAIN, I HAVE BEEN VINDICATED! <....> Lets just apply here as CAUSE & CONDITIONS. -------------------------------- > except in a few aspects which are common to the suttanta, and in > those aspects I will stick with the suttanta. The other aspects that > are beyond (below the surface of?) my experience I take as very > beautiful descriptions of the deep understanding of the arahants > (unless it is just a beautiful concoction) colette: As Frank Zappa said in his song TITTIES AND BEER: "And up jumped the devil" (Titties and Beer is on the same album that THE ILLINOIS ENEMA BANDIT is on) "a beautiful concoction" you say? Do I detect a lack of faith and belief in the doctrine? Is there a shade of hesitation on your part to release your belief and faith in Shunya or Sunya, to abandon this Atman or Atta you place so highly? ---------------------------------------- and therefore at this > time pay it less accord than the suttanta... > colette: What ever floats your boat, I guess. ---------------------------------- colette: heavens, what's this? A "post script"? Hmmmm, lets read or is dig into the dirt? > > > Metta, > > Phil > > p.s by the way, you were saying something about gender identity the > other day and I wondered if you know the really cool sutta in AN > about how we trap ourselves into identifying tight and hard with our > masculinity or femininity, in order to get the desired response from > the other...you probably know it already... > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.048.than.html > colette: my, this could be a tastey morsel! I look forward to partaking of it soon. Thank you. toodles, colette #90034 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/11/2008 6:09:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, > TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi All > > >There are NO different levels of "realities." There isn't >a "ultimate reality" vs a "conceptual reality." This idea >of "different realities" is just confusing delusion with non- >delusion. A "concept" is mental imagery based on mental activities >including memories. Its just conditioned phenomena like any other >phenomena...i.e., it arises involuntarily due to conditions! > > > TG In MN43 it is stated that Vinnana & Panna are not separateble. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Pa~n~na never occurs without vi~n~nana. When pa~n~na occurs it is as a concomitant to vi~n~nana. One can't know something wisely, as it is, without knowing it. The converse doesn't hold, however. -------------------------------------------- Since Vinnana is dependently arisen, then so is Panna - dependently arisen due to causes & conditions. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: This isn't needed as a reason. There is but one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. So, indeed, pa~n~na is conditioned. ------------------------------------------------ Something which is dependently arisen isn't absolute, thus cannot provide "absolute ontological knowledge." ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It isn't absolute, I agree, for it is dependent and conditioned. It's existence is not absolute. But it is a non sequitur, I believe, to say that pa~n~na may not provide absolute ontological knowledge. There can be wisdom that is perfect. I presume that the wisdom of the Buddha was perfect. (Of course, perhaps I don't know what you mean when you speak of "absolute ontological knowledge.") ----------------------------------------------- An absolute or "ultimate" truth would require an equally absolute or "ultimate" vinnana - which is impossible. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Are you saying that pa~n~na is incapable of knowing things exactly as they are, and saying so because it isn't the asankhata dhamma? If that is your claim, I see no basis for it. --------------------------------------------- ======================================================= "Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them." - MN43 _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html) Best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard #90035 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:35 pm Subject: Re: to Howard: [dsg] Question regarding "Conceptual" realities egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/11 : > Hi, Herman - > > > I think it is a fundamental mistake to ascribe unity or wholeness to > consciousness. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No need to ascribe unity/wholeness. A state of consciousness consists of > all the then-present mental phenomena. When any aspect changes, it is no > longer the same state. > ------------------------------------------------ > > Consciousness is not reducible to a single state. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't understand what you mean by that. > ----------------------------------------------- I am applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to consciousness. If we determine consciousness to be in a certain state, then we can say nothing about it's momentum, and if we determine consciousness to have a certain momentum, then we can say nothing about it's state. In this framework, the momentum of consciousness, is identical with anicca. Of course, at a macroscopic level there is no need to be concerned about reifying conscious states, as long as we know that at a microscopic level there is no discreet state, the system (so to speak) is in a state of anicca. As an illustration, one cannot tell from a photo of a car (taken with a high speed shutter) whether it is moving or stationary. In the same way, a conscious state is a reification, not a reality. (again, which is not a problem for the sake of discussion when the underlying anicca is kept in mind) > > We > could draw a comparison between consciousness and the sky. They are > both complex phenomena. > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I certainly agree. (I assume, BTW, that by 'consciousness' you mean not > only the operation of knowing, but the entire mental complex.) > ----------------------------------------------------- Yes > > There are not two skies. But neither is there > one whole sky. We would not say that one sky has to fall away for the > next sky to arise. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm really not following you. The sky changes, period. Change requires > that what was before no longer is. > -------------------------------------------------- But not all of the sky changes at once. Neither does all of consciousness change at once. > > The human > brain is the most complex organ to be found in the known universe, and > questions like "is there seeing now?" as though such a unitary > phenomenon is detectable or even possible to isolate meaningfully from > the field of consciousness fails to acknowledge what is well known and > well accepted, namely that there are multiple interrelated visual > areas in the brain, consisting of billions of synaptic connections, > that all co-ordinate to create the visual field. Not to mention the > eyes with their millions of rods and cones. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > As a Buddhist I'm not especially interested in the brain. > -------------------------------------------------- > Do you say this because the brain is not recognised as one of the ayatanas in Buddhism, or because Buddhism, in your view, is not interested in biological bases for consciousness? > > > The point is that if one starts with a simple model of a most complex > phenomenon, then all conclusions drawn from that model are going to be > useless :-) > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I agree, or, if not utterly useless, then certainly of only limited use. > (Newtonian mechanics is relatively simpIe and fundamentally flawed yet > useful in limited but significant contexts.) I think that all models are > inadequate, and only "the thing itself" is good enough. > ---------------------------------------------- > Well said. Cheers Herman #90036 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Calm & Content = Without Expectation! egberdina Hi Justin, 2008/9/12 Justin Whitaker : > Dear Herman, et al. > > I've been a lurker for some time now but thought I might kindely jump > in here. (I'll give a short bio below) > Thank you very much for changing your status from lurker to poster :-), and thank you for introducing yourself. I will reply to the gist of yourr post in a day or so. I just wanted initially to welcome you aboard, and to say that I look forward to many fruitful discussions with you. Cheers Herman #90037 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute egberdina Hi Howard and Alex, 2008/9/12 : > Hi, Alex - > Sorry for barging in here, Alex, but I just couldn't resist this. (Not that I tried very hard :-) > Howard: > It isn't absolute, I agree, for it is dependent and conditioned. It's > existence is not absolute. But it is a non sequitur, I believe, to say that > pa~n~na may not provide absolute ontological knowledge. There can be wisdom that > is perfect. I presume that the wisdom of the Buddha was perfect. (Of course, > perhaps I don't know what you mean when you speak of "absolute ontological > knowledge.") > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > An absolute or "ultimate" truth would require an equally absolute > or "ultimate" vinnana - which is impossible. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Are you saying that pa~n~na is incapable of knowing things exactly as > they are, and saying so because it isn't the asankhata dhamma? If that is your > claim, I see no basis for it. > --------------------------------------------- > The way I see it is that panna, or any knowing of any kind, cannot know being. And it is being that is exactly the way things are. Consciousness is limited to the knowing of characteristics, and all characteristics are anicca. Nibbana on the other had, is void of all characteristic. Panna can know anicca, but it cannot know nibbana. Could I ask on what you base a claim that being is knowable? Or in other words, what is/are the characteristic(s) of being? Cheers Herman #90038 From: "jessicamui" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:07 pm Subject: Re: Questions regarding Ignorance jessicamui --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > "Of the perversions, the following are eliminated by the 1st path- > knowledge (Sot?patti): the perversions of perception, consciousness > and views, that the impermanent is permanent and what is not a self > is a self; further, the perversion of views that the painful is > pleasant, and the impure is pure. By the 3rd path-knowledge > (An?g?mit?) are eliminated: the perversions of perception and > consciousness that the impure is pure. By the 4th path-knowledge > (Arahatta) are eliminated the perversions of perception and > consciousness that the painful is pleasant" (Vis.M. XXII, 68).> > Dear Nina, Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Looked at the Visuddhimagga (all its reference to Perversion), and it makes sense to me. I start to read Ledi Sayadaw's Manual Of Insight, and realize that it addresses some of my questions while studying Majjhima Nikaya sutta #1. Thank you for the good reference as well. With Much Metta, Jessica. #90039 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >It isn't absolute, I agree, for it is dependent and conditioned. >It's existence is not absolute. But it is a non sequitur, I >believe, to say that pa~n~na may not provide absolute ontological >knowledge. Considering the relativity of sense organ functioning and all the interactions that happen, it is impossible to know things (especially past & future) totally and without any "corruption" or "interpretation" on the part of the sense organs and the mind. > There can be wisdom that is perfect. I presume that the wisdom of >the Buddha was perfect. (Of course, perhaps I don't know what you >mean when you speak of "absolute ontological >knowledge.") > ----------------------------------------------- Well, He did need to ask for Directions and ask people's names - didn't he? There is a difference between Nanas, Knowledge of destruction of cankers VS directly knowing objects in and of themselves in past & future. > An absolute or "ultimate" truth would require an equally absolute > or "ultimate" vinnana - which is impossible. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: Are you saying that pa~n~na is incapable of knowing >things exactly as they are, and saying so because it isn't the >asankhata dhamma? If that is your claim, I see no basis for it. > --------------------------------------------- Developed Panna can know things as the've became, at least from a non-greed,non-hate, non-delusion, Vijja perspective. However panna isn't absolute in a sense of omniscient knowing of noumenon. Best wishes, Alex #90040 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute truth_aerator Hi Herman, >--- "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > > > > The way I see it is that panna, or any knowing of any kind, cannot > know being. What exactly do you mean by "being"? Is it a noun or verb? == What I've wanted to say is that "Knowing or wisdom" is conditioned and as such isn't permanent and ALL-knowing. Different conditions cause different views to arise and different personal preferences can further sort out info that is disliked and pay attention only to the "liked" data to contruct a psychologically satisfying ontological view of the world. Best wishes, Alex #90041 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Alex) - In a message dated 9/11/2008 8:05:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: The way I see it is that panna, or any knowing of any kind, cannot know being. And it is being that is exactly the way things are. Consciousness is limited to the knowing of characteristics, and all characteristics are anicca. Nibbana on the other had, is void of all characteristic. Panna can know anicca, but it cannot know nibbana. Could I ask on what you base a claim that being is knowable? Or in other words, what is/are the characteristic(s) of being? =============================== What is this "being" you are speaking of? If you are identifying nibbana as "being," that appears to be making it the sat of the sat-chit-ananda that is the Brahman of Vedanta. I do not conceive of nibbana as being. If anything, it is closer to emptiness. With metta, Howard #90042 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/11/2008 8:55:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >It isn't absolute, I agree, for it is dependent and conditioned. >It's existence is not absolute. But it is a non sequitur, I >believe, to say that pa~n~na may not provide absolute ontological >knowledge. Considering the relativity of sense organ functioning and all the interactions that happen, it is impossible to know things (especially past & future) totally and without any "corruption" or "interpretation" on the part of the sense organs and the mind. > There can be wisdom that is perfect. I presume that the wisdom of >the Buddha was perfect. (Of course, perhaps I don't know what you >mean when you speak of "absolute ontological >knowledge.") > ----------------------------------------------- Well, He did need to ask for Directions and ask people's names - didn't he? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: He used a very early version of Google, I believe. ------------------------------------------- There is a difference between Nanas, Knowledge of destruction of cankers VS directly knowing objects in and of themselves in past & future. > An absolute or "ultimate" truth would require an equally absolute > or "ultimate" vinnana - which is impossible. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: Are you saying that pa~n~na is incapable of knowing >things exactly as they are, and saying so because it isn't the >asankhata dhamma? If that is your claim, I see no basis for it. > --------------------------------------------- Developed Panna can know things as the've became, at least from a non-greed,non-hate, non-delusion, Vijja perspective. However panna isn't absolute in a sense of omniscient knowing of noumenon. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm really not following you. Realization of nibbana is what, then? Is that not a matter of supermundane wisdom that know reality? I think that Theravada and Mahayana are in agreement on this. Such wisdom removes all defilements, most especially avijja. -------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Alex ============================ With metta, Howard #90043 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Alex) - In a message dated 9/11/2008 8:56:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Herman, >--- "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > > > > The way I see it is that panna, or any knowing of any kind, cannot > know being. What exactly do you mean by "being"? Is it a noun or verb? == What I've wanted to say is that "Knowing or wisdom" is conditioned and as such isn't permanent and ALL-knowing. Different conditions cause different views to arise and different personal preferences can further sort out info that is disliked and pay attention only to the "liked" data to contruct a psychologically satisfying ontological view of the world. Best wishes, Alex ============================== Herman, in reading this post I think I may have misunderstood who it was that you were addressing in the last post of yours that I relied to. With metta, Howard #90044 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubts and Siilana szmicio Dear Nina, Thank you for you answer. Can you say something about panja of samatha?? It can appear with kusala citta and it can know the diffrence between kusala and akusala citta. And it can know a conditions wich make kusala and akusala arise???? So if that's true there is a real chance to develop kusala , but there is nobody who develops, just amoha cetasika arise and knows. During my daily day I am so busy, I have to do this to do that, and the kusala citta doesn't arise. I wonder is it posible to develop kusala in such circumstances?? Can you say anything about acummulated tendencies? Best wishes Lukas #90045 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:08 pm Subject: more of no e-cards gazita2002 Hello Dhamma friends, We had a mid week get together @ Ivan/Elles house, with T.A.Sujin. It was most comfortable and relaxed. Fortunately it didnt rain as it had the evening prior, which caused major - well not quite - flooding in the house. Not to mention some of the streets outside. If the seas rise due to global warming I think mayb the City-of-Angels will just float away! A question raised about uposatha observance sutta from AN. How does one imitate the arahants in observing these 8 precepts? The question was asked back - what is it that observes precepts? We always want to insert an 'I' eg. I'm keeping precepts; my kusala deeds; Only citta, cetasikas and rupa at any given moment, and citta being either kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya. Unless these details are poiinted out time and timne again, there will be wrong view time and time again; accummulating more and more wrong view about the anatta-ness of all realities. Until the moment of sotapattimagga citta ( which is just another citta which arises and falls away - albeit lokuttara citta having NIbbana as object) there will be wrong view bec it has not yet been eradicated. Slowly, slowly by getting to know the realities now, will understanding grow and accummulate to one day have the power (bala) to eradicate defilements. Better than all the gifts in the world donated to the Buddha and the Sangha ..."and as great as all this might be, it would be even more fruitfull still if one would develop the perception of impermanence just for the time it takes to snap one's fingers." (AN 9.20) Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #90046 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:13 am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 299, 300 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 299, 300 Intro: The text of section 300 treats the four truths according to the method of the Abhidhamma, referring to the ‘Book of Analysis’ (Vibhanga), Ch 4, Analysis of the Truths. There is a difference in method of analysis between Suttanta and Abhidhamma, but there is no contradiction. In the suttas dukkha is explained in everyday language: birth, ageing, death, etc. The origin of dukkha is craving. In the analysis of the Abhidhamma, not the term ‘noble truths’ is used, but simply: the four truths. As to order, the origin of dukkha is explained first and then dukkha itself. Iggleden in his Intro to the Vibhanga explains that more important than the manifestation of dukkha is the understanding of its cause from a practical point of view. The Abhidhamma method is directed to the practice leading to the eradication of the cause, that means liberation from the cycle. The Vibhanga in “Analysis of Truth” (p. 143) states about the cause of suffering: ‘Craving, the remaining corruptions, the remaining bad states, the three good roots that are objects of the defilements and the remaining good states that are objects of the defilements.’ As to the first truth, dukkha, it states: ‘The resultants of good and bad states that are objects of the defilements, whatever inoperative states there are neither good nor bad nor the resultants of action, and all material qualities.’ As to the text of the Vis. 300, we should keep in mind the links that were classified before as a fivefold cause (ignorance, kamma- formations, craving, clinging and volition which is kamma-process becoming and the links that were classified as a fivefold fruit: rebirth-linking, which is 'consciousness', descent [into the womb], which is 'mentality-materiality', sensitivity, which is 'sense base', contact and feeling. Those classified as cause are here called the second truth, the origin of dukkha, and those classified as result are here called the first truth, dukkha. We read in the text about the source, pabhava, and this refers to the way a preceding link conditions a following link. As was explained before, there are different types of conditions and sometimes the preceding link that conditions the following one is conascent with it, sometimes not. Text Vis.299: As it spins thus: (1) As to the source in the [four] truths, (2) As to function, (3) prevention, (4) similes, (5) Kinds of profundity, and (6) methods, It should be known accordingly. ----------------- Text Vis.300. 1. Herein, ['as to source in the truths':] profitable and unprofitable kamma are stated in the Saccavibha"nga (Vbh. 106f.) without distinction as the origin of suffering, -------- N: The Tiika explains, as to kusala kamma and akusala kamma, that, in the exposition about the cycle, they should be understood as ‘with aasavas” (saasava), and that is: objects of defilements, aasavas. The text refers to the Vibhanga where it is mentioned that good roots and good dhammas that are objects of defilements are included in the truth of the origin of dukkha. So long as defilements are not eradicated even kusala is object of defilements and thus they are the origin of dukkha, they lead to continuation of the cycle. Since all kusala kamma and akusala kamma are included in the truth of the origin of dukkha, no distinction is made in this respect, according to the Tiika. The Tiika refers to the Vibhanga, where it is said that craving, the remaining corruptions, the remaining kusala dhammas that are objects of defilements are the cause of dukkha (Vibhanga 210). It is also said that all kilesas and all kamma leading to becoming are the truth of the origin of dukkha. Text Vis.: and so formations due to ignorance [stated thus] 'With ignorance as condition there are formations' are the second truth with the second truth as source. ------- N: Kamma-formations, no matter these are kusala kamma or akusala kamma are the origin of dukkha since they keep us in the cycle. Ignorance as source is also called the second truth, it conditions the performance of kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma (aruupajhaana). --------- Text Vis. : Consciousness due to formations is the first truth with the second truth as source. ----------- N: Formations are the second truth, they are cause. Consciousness is vipaakacitta at rebirth and in the course of life, this is the first truth, dukkha. Text Vis.: The states beginning with mentality-materiality and ending with resultant feeling, due respectively to consciousness, etc., are the first truth with the first truth as source. ------- N: They are results conditioned by consciousness which is also result, and thus, classified here as the first truth, dukkha. --------- Text Vis.: Craving due to feeling is the second truth with the first truth as source. Clinging due to craving is the second truth with the second truth as source. ------- N: Craving is cause, thus the second truth, and it is conditioned by feeling which is the first truth, thus, it has the first truth as source. Clinging and craving are both cause, the second truth, and since craving conditions clinging, clinging has craving as source. -------- Text Vis. Becoming due to clinging is the first and second truths with the second truth as source. -------- N: Clinging is the second truth which is the source, the condition, for becoming. Bhava, becoming, has two meanings, as we have seen: kamma-process becoming, kamma-bhava, the second truth, and rebirth- process becoming, upapatti-bhava, the first truth. The Tiika refers to the text which has: the pair (dvaya) of the first and second truth (pa.thamadutiyasaccadvaya.m) and explains the two meanings of becoming, bhava. That is why it is said that becoming is the first and second truths. --------- Text Vis.: Birth due to becoming is the first truth with the second truth as source. ------ N: Here kamma-process becoming is meant. This is the cause of birth which is dukkha, the first truth. ---------- Text Vis.: Ageing-and-death due to birth is the first truth with the first truth as source. This in the first place is how [the Wheel of Becoming] should be known 'as to ... source in the four truths' in whichever way is appropriate. --------- Conclusion: Ignorance of the four truths leads to continuation of the cycle. Even kusala kamma that is still object of defilements is the cause of dukkha, it keeps us in the cycle. At this moment the sense- objects and the sense-cognitions of seeing etc. arise and fall away, they are dukkha. Dukkha has to be understood as it occurs in our daily life. The text reminds us all the time that being in the cycle is sorrowful. Old age and death are the consequence of birth. Whatever arises has to fall away and when this is fully understood, there will not be disturbance or agitation anymore on account of the impermanence of dhammas. Understanding of the four noble truths leads out of the cycle. At this moment a beginning can be made to develop understanding of nama and rupa. ******** Nina. #90047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, Ch 10, no 7 nilovg Dear friends, On Vesakha Day we offered food to the monks in the “Buddhist Information Center” and afterwards we visited a few temples. In one temple we saw tiny fragments of the Buddha’s bowl which had been excavated from the ruins of Sopara Stupa, near Bombay. In another temple we visited, relics of Såriputta and Moggallåna had been enshrined. In Sri Lanka there are many opportunities to recollect the excellent qualities of the Buddha and of the arahats. In the afternoon a Dhamma discussion was held in the Information Center. The topics were visible object, seeing, hearing and the other realities which appear. Khun Sujin emphasized that the experience of visible object is not different from seeing now. It seems difficult to know the characteristic of seeing, we are inclined to think that it is different from seeing at this moment. Khun Sujin said: “Study it, this very moment. When hearing appears, the element which hears should be studied, not the element which sees. When we are forgetful, not aware, there is ignorance. When awareness arises, right understanding begins to develop.” Khun Sujin said that right understanding of the object of mindfulness is very important. For example, we should know what seeing is. Often it seems that we see people and things, but that is not seeing. It is paying attention to shape and form, which is thinking of concepts. Thus, if we take for seeing what is not seeing, there is not right awareness of the right object. We should not be discouraged about our ignorance. When we know that there isn’t right awareness, we can be reminded to be aware of what appears now, be it thinking, doubt or any other reality. When awareness arises, it is aware of only one object at a time; at that moment one is not confused as to the distinction between different objects. One does not confuse seeing with visible object, or seeing with paying attention to shape and form. We should not be surprised if there is not right awareness yet, because there has to be study of different characteristics with great patience. Only in that way can paññå grow. Captain Perera and Sarah saw me off at the airport. On the way to the airport we saw the illuminations and the statues people had put up for the celebration of Vesakha. At the airport Sarah reminded me that when we think of the people we are attached to and of the country we like, we think of concepts and we tend to be upset. But if we realize that life exists in only one moment of experiencing and that this moment falls away immediately, we have more understanding of reality. Sarah said: “Sri Lanka and all the people we are attached to, all the last five weeks, it is all in just one moment now, one thought now, and then gone.” Life exists in only one moment, the present moment. (the end) ****** Nina. #90048 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavi sarahprocter... Hi Herman, > --- On Mon, 8/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>> Sarah: On the other-hand, for the wise, there may be wise attention >> and the development of understanding following the kusala vipaka. All >> that are experienced through the body-sense are various rupas, none >> of them a 'body', none of them belonging to anyone. With such >> understanding and detachment, there is kusala kamma. >>.... >> >> Herman: It seems to me that the accumulations that this explanation >> relies upon certainly must belong to someone. Else, how do disembodied >> accumulations lead to action, as you suggest? >> ............ .. > > S: As Nina recently quoted (#89858)in the Vism series: > >>"Thus with its causes this arises; it is painful, > > impermanent, unlasting, fickle and changeable. > > States [dhammas] originate from [other] states as causes; > > no self exists here, nor another. <...>" .... H:> It may well be that after seven years I still don't know what you mean when you say things, Sarah, but it seems to me that you do not see a difference between unchanging eternal souls, which the Buddha denied, and ever changing beings, which the Buddha affirmed. .... S: I understand that the Buddha just taught about ever changing dhammas. As the quote above, and the other ones I gave, inc. from the Brahmajala Sutta, indicate, there are only dhammas conditioning other dhammas. There is no self, no being, no other beings at all. We think we live with other people in the world and usually we're so concerned about how they act and behave, but in truth, we just live alone with our own thinking, dreaming about people and changing beings. Now, there is just seeing which sees visible object, no people in it at all. As Ray recently quoted the bhikkhuni Vajira as saying: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found." I hope this clarifies a little more:-) Metta, Sarah ======== #90049 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:49 am Subject: Appropriate Attention, Yoniso-manasikara dhammanusarin Hi all friends, - Below please find a Web link that points to a sutta which the Buddha gave his son, Rahula. Essentially, this teaching is about a practice to become perfect in wholesomeness in body action, speech, and thinking. The three perfectly-good conducts depend on "appropriate attention" (yoniso manasikara). When you know what dhamma you should attend to such that an unwholesome deed can be avoided, and a wholesome deed may result, then such an attention is "appropriate" or morally right. Appropriate attention helps you abandon greed, aversion and delusion; it will take you closer to Nibbana, according to the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher : "Appropriate attention as a quality of a monk in training: nothing else does so much for attaining the superlative goal. A monk, striving appropriately, attains the ending of suffering (dukkha)." Appropriate attention is the food for mindfulness and alertness. When you have mindfulness and alertness, there are no hindrances. The food for appropriate attention is true conviction (faith) in the Buddha's Teachings. You have true & unshakable conviction in the Teachings if you clearly understand wholesomeness and unwholesomeness. With true conviction you will always give appropriate attention to every bodily action, speech and thought that you are going to do, while you are doing each action/speech/thought, and after that ( by reflecting, analyzing). The Buddha taught his son (Rahula) how to train appropriate attention in the following sutta. Just read on. MN 61 Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html Tep === #90050 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Calm & Content = Without Expectation! sarahprocter... Dear Justin, Welcome to DSG! --- On Thu, 11/9/08, Justin Whitaker wrote: J:> It's clear that even many of the Bhikkhus over the years have had expectations and ideas and actions that caused themselves and others suffering - hence the development of the Patimokkha. .... S: Good points. I won't say more because I'd like to see how your discussion with Herman unfolds. I like all the teachings on contentment - contentment with what has arisen now, already, as Ven S's post was pointing out. (#90010) .... S: Many thanks for your intro and bio below: ... J:> Bio - some of that is below (student, administrator) . I have practiced for eight years now in various traditions: FWBO, Tibetan Gelug under Geshe Michael Roach, Vipassana with Matthew Flickstein, and some others here and there. Most of my practice now is simple mindfulness of breathing and cultivation of loving-kindness, sometimes also doing Vipassana. I live in beautiful Missoula, Montana, where I've also studied plenty of Western philosophy and ethics. .... S: You'll find all these 'topics' get discussed here, A LOT! Yes, I hear the mountains in Montana are very beautiful - a couple of other occasional posters spend time there (Shakti and Dan). Look forward to further discussions later. Metta, Sarah ========= #90051 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- On Thu, 11/9/08, Tep wrote: >Given that one has no clinging to the aggregates (the "burden"), then there is neither aggregates of clinging (upadanakkhandhas) nor "embodiment view" (sakkaya-di. tthi or attavadupadana) . .... S: I'm not quite sure how this fits into the thread we were discussing about kamma, vipaka, accumulations and anatta (and the quotes I gave), but in any case I don't quite understand your comment above. Perhaps you'd like to indicate how it fits in and what the meaning is. Are you suggesting that when there is no more clinging (i.e the arahant), that there is no more wrong view and no more unpadana khandhas? Of course, even a sotapanna has no more wrong view (sakkaya-di. tthi or attavadupadana), but even the khandhas of the arahant are subject to clinging (by others). It's good to share our different understandings, rather than just speculating on our own, so I appreciate all your comments and Ven Nanamoli's article you shared. In your other message to Nina (and me), you wrote: >"T: I also told Sarah the same that vipaka of a kamma did not produce a new kamma, otherwise there would be no cessation of dukkha." S: Just to clarify, I haven't seen anyone suggest that "vipaka of a kamma" "produced new kamma". I certainly didn't. I wrote about the 3 rounds of kilesa, kamma and vipaka and how kamma is cetana cetasika arising with kusala and akusala cittas. Nina and I also indicated that conditions are very complex and pointed out ways that vipaka can be a condition for kilesa and further kamma, such as by natural decisive support condition. However, we should be very clear that vipaka cittas are results of kamma only. The cessation of dukkha comes about through the eradication of ignorance and attachment, as you know. In this way, no dhammas at all (whether any kind of rupa or nama) can be the object of attachment anymore, no further kamma can be produced and therefore no further vipaka cittas can follow at the end of that life-span. Metta, Sarah ========= According to Ven. Nanamoli: "Many suttas classify the conflicting notions of the nature of self held by opponents of the Buddha. It could be, and apparently was, for instance, claimed that it had materiality, or was immaterial; or both, or neither; was percipient of oneness, or of plurality, or of the limited or of the measureless; was eternal, or uneternal, or both, or neither; had only pleasure, or only pain, or both or neither; each of these theories being maintained by its propounder as "the only truth and all else wrong" (M. 102, etc.). Or else it could be described as having materiality either limited or infinite, or as immaterial and either limited or infinite. And then whichever of these four is adopted, it may be seen as such now, or due to be such (upon rebirth), or in this way "Though it is not yet real, still I shall contrive for its reality" (D. 15/vol. ii. 64). "All these rationalized views (di.t.thi) stem from uncritical acceptance or overlooking of an underlying tendency (anusaya), or fetter (sa"myo jana) â€" a natural predisposition â€" to regard, to identify, some aspect or other, in the situation of perceiving a percept, as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" (e.g. M. 22). ** These two levels â€" the self-view and the I-sense â€" are respectively what are called the "(lower or immediate) fetter of views" (di.t.thi-sa" myo jana) and the "(higher or remoter) fetter of conceit" (maana-sa"myo jana).** "The first is abandoned with the attainment of the first stage of realization (the path of stream-entry) while the second is abandoned only with the fourth and final stage (the path of arahantship: see D. 33). It may be noted here in parenthesis that the rendering of maana by "pride," though not wrong, severs the semantic relationship with ma~n~nati and ma~n~nanaa, which it is most important to preserve intact for the understanding of this situation. "The overlooked fundamental conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) â€" a mirage that, in the act of perceiving, is conceived will fulfil its counterpart, the intuitive sense of lack, which is craving â€" in the basic ontological structure of ordinary perception provokes the ordinary man with no knowledge of the Buddha's teaching to indulge in uncritical speculation about what this may be that "I am," and consequently to build up self-theories. "He perceives (sa~njaanaati) : but the very act of his perceiving is tendentious so that he simultaneously conceives (ma~n~nati) his percepts with an I-tendency. But a stream-enterer, who has attained the first stage of realization, has direct acquaintance (abhijanaati) where the ordinary man has perception, owing to which fact the former has the possibility of hastening his attainment of arahatship; and an arahant has no more conceivings (ma~n~nanaa) at all. "So long as a man leaves intact this fundamental tendency to conceive in the very act of perceiving, accompanied by the tendency to formulate views, he will look for answers to the questions that these two tendencies together prompt him to ask, and he will invent them and try to prove them: "This is how he gives unreasoned attention (ayoniso- manasikaara) : 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is doubtful in himself about the presently arisen extent thus: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Whence will this creature have come? Whither will it be bound?' "When he gives unreasoned attention in this way one of the six kinds of view arises in him: the view 'A self exists for me' arises as true and established, or the view 'No self exists for me'... or the view 'I perceive self with self'... or the view 'I perceive not-self with self'... or the view 'I perceive self with not-self" arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as 'It is this my self that speaks and feels and that experiences here and there the ripening of good and bad actions; but this my self is permanent, ever lasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' This field of views is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. No untaught ordinary man bound by the fetter of views is freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair: he is not freed from suffering, I say." â€" M. 2/vol. i, 8 "In assuming that "I was" etc. cannot be analyzed, all these philosophical systems attempt to settle with unilateral certainty the dialectic questions "what was I?" and the rest and to dispose of them on an inadequate ontological basis of self-identity without querying how the questions come to be put in the first place or what is the structural nature of being. But any one answer, "I am this" cannot as it happens be decisively established over its contrary opposite, though it can be fortified by arguments, more or less logical or emotional, introducing "my self" and defining relations between it and what it is considered not to be, endowing it then with certain qualities and values and with either eternal or temporary permanence according to bent. The impossibility of establishing absolutely any one of these views as the only truth may lead to abuse and even to violence in the end, since it is often thought important to be right. "The pre-rational conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) is a "fetter but not a view" (Ps. Di.t.thikathaa/ vol. i, 143). To perceive is to recognize and identify (see Vis. Ch. XIV/p. 462). In perceiving a percept the "untaught ordinary man" automatically conceives in the positional terms of "I," which then must seem involved in an I-relationship to the percept: either as identical with it, or as contained in it or as separate from it, or owning it as "mine." That relationship so conceived is relished (favored and approved) through want of full knowledge of the situation (M. 1; cf. M. 49). "The rational self-view (attaanudi.t. thi) is both a "fetter and a view." Though the conceit "I am" is normally associated with the tendency to formulate views, these views need not by any means be definitely formulated; but whenever they are, none can be specifically described without reference to the five categories affected by clinging (upaadanakkhandha: see S. XXII, 47 cited below). For that reason they can all be reduced to one of the types of what is called the "embodiment view" (sakkaya-di. tthi, from sat (or sa"m) plus kaaya = "true (or existent) body") which is set up schematically as follows: "The untaught ordinary man who disregards the ariyas... sees materiality (ruupa) as self, or self as possessed of materiality, or materiality in self, or self in materiality. [And likewise with feeling (vedanaa), perception (sa~n~naa), formations (sankhaaraa) , and consciousness (vi~n~naana] " (M. 44/vol. i, 300). These four self-identification s embracing the five categories make twenty types. For each of the four basic modes of identifying, the Pa.tisambhidaamagga gives a simile as follows: "How does he see (say, materiality) as self?... Just as if a man saw a lighted lamp's flame and color as identical thus 'What the flame is, that the color is; what the color is that the flame is'... How does he see self as possessed of (say, materiality) ?... Just as if there were a tree possessed of shade such that a man might say 'This is the tree, this is the shade; the tree is one, the shade another; but this tree is possessed of this shade in virtue of this shade'... How does he see (say, materiality) in self?... Just as if there were a scented flower such that a man might say 'This is the flower, this is the scent; the flower is one, the scent another; but the scent is in this flower'... How does he see self in (say, materiality) ?... Just as if a gem were placed in a casket such that a man might say 'This is the gem, this is the casket; the gem is one, the casket another; but this gem is in this casket.'" â€" Ps. Di.t.thikathaa/ vol. i, 144-5 "Self so viewed is then taken either as eternal thus "This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, ever-lasting. .." (M. 22 cited below) or as temporarily permanent but eventually annihilated, for instance; thus "As soon as this self is annihilated. .. that is peace..." (Iti, II. ii, 12). All possible views of whatever shade are again classified under sixty-two types in the first Sutta of the Diigha-Nikaaya called Brahmajaala Sutta or the "Divine Net." In this "net" all possible views are "caught" and so it can be seen how they come to be. "Now all these views â€" and all these standpoints for views (di.t.thi.t. thana) â€" are formed (or conditioned; sankhata) because "it is impossible that anyone shall experience (them) apart from contact (phassa)... and with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving (ta.nhaa); with craving as condition, clinging (upaadaana); with clinging as condition, being (bhava); with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition aging and death come to be, and also sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair; that is how there is an origin to this whole aggregate-mass of suffering" (D. 1/vol. i, 43-5). The structure of the conceit "I am" and the views to which it gives rise, is, in fact nothing else than the structure of being, the structure of what is "impermanent, formed, and dependently originated." "A Tathaagata understands that thus '(These views) are formed and (consequently) gross; but there is cessation of formations: there is that.' By knowing and seeing the escape from them a Tathaagata transcends them (tad upaativatto) " (M. 102/vol. ii, 229-30). "The Buddha explains how he uses the word attaa (self) in the second sense, namely, the "person" or "individual" noted above: "There are these three kinds of acquisition of self (atta- patilaabha): gross, constituted of mind, and immaterial.. . The first has materiality and consists of the four great entities (elements of earth, water, fire, and air), and consumes physical food; the second is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty; the third consists of perception.. . I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding' s perfection.. . If it is thought that to do that is an unpleasant abiding, that is not so: on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness and a pleasant (blissful) abiding... These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions by which a Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending them." â€" D. 9/vol. i, 195-202 abbr. "It is only after this sketch of views that we can treat of the doctrine of not-self (for views in general see especially D. 1 and 2; M. 102; Di.t.thi-Sa" myutta; Ps. Di.t.thikathaa; and Vbh.) [From "Anattaa According to the Theravaada" by Ã`anamoli Thera] ............ ......... ......... ....... Sarah, I sincerely hope that you have carefully studied the above precious explanation about self, self views, and how a person can drop sakkayaditthi along with either one of the extreme views : 'There is a self.' and 'There is no self.'. Tep === #90052 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:24 am Subject: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment upasaka_howard Hi, all - This is a brief post. (The subject line is almost longer than the content, and it synopsizes the content.) Years ago, there was a good deal of upset in me that expressed itself as anger. Ever since I came to the Dhamma and all that it entails, that has steadily lessened, even to the point that I've come to imagine that what is left of it is a minor remnant. Now, though I think that it is true that there has occurred a considerable subsiding of the inclination to anger, an increased facility in dealing with it, and a significant reduction in its active manifestation, I have gained the insight, a disappointing one, that the inclination to anger, while weakened, is yet alive and well, having been lurking in the subconscious shadows, just waiting for the opportunity to pounce. I recall recently some discussions on DSG about dreams. Suan initiated the topic, having spoken of an insightful dream he had had. I recall some folks here dismissing dreams as a source of insight. Well, last night I had a dream. It was an ordinary dream as regards the content - one involving "everyday events." But in the dream, I was thwarted by conditions, and the same old anger of years ago flared up, with, of course, the same old suffering that anger always engenders. (The Buddha likened anger to a hot coal one picks up to hurl at another, and which burns oneself first!) I awakened quickly from the dream and immediately "looked" my state of mind directly in its face. The anger rapidly faded as a result of this attention, but two things were left in its wake: 1) the insight that unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted, and 2) a disappointment with regard to that hanging on, a disappointment which needs to simply be accepted, let go of, and moved on from. With metta, Howard #90053 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation sarahprocter... Dear Tep, Looking at the new subject heading, let me say that like Sukin, I'm very happy to discuss the Teachings with you anytime without any book (or article) recitation. Let's see how it goes here: --- On Wed, 10/9/08, Tep wrote: T:> After so many years of book discussion, I think it is now the time to discuss the Dhamma from our own experiences, especially about the practice to establish mindfulness in the four references. I think now it is at least a hundred times better to discuss how the Dhamma is realized than the Dhamma that is heard or read. .... S: OK ... > S: What are the realities appearing now, that sati-sampajanan can be aware of and know, would you say, Tep? ... T: We should discuss Satipatthana from the realization perspective, not recalling or reciting from a tape or a book or the suttas. The four references (kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma) are categorized into the various objects of mindfulness and awareness as described in MN 10 and DN 22 (e.g. in-and-out breaths, the four body postures, the four basic elements, the 32 body parts, the three feelings, the five aggregates, the five hindrances, the seven factors for Awakening, the four noble truths). ... S: Excuse me, but isn't this categorising a recitation or summary from the suttas? I was trying to discuss what realities are apparent now, no matter the names or labels or category. For example, what is 'kaya' now? What is actually experienced, would you say? .... T: But these objects are not necessarily "realities appearing now" or ultimate realities that arise and fall away in a fraction of a nano-second. Some of these "objects" are pannatti that can be observed by ordinary people who do not have the capability to experience (by citta) realities in a fraction of a nano-second. .... S: So if the Buddha was just talking about ordinary pannatti as conceived and 'observed' of by ordinary people incapable of understanding realities, how were these teachings radically different from those taught by any other teacher? ............ ......... .. > >T: How do you "delve deeper" to get ready to see the dhammas, the way they really are? .... >>S: As Han said before, all the elements, all the realities appearing through the doorways are spoken of by the Buddha in a sutta such MN 10, Satipatthana Sutta. The four foundations include all realities and it is the awareness and understanding of them that is the "direct path for the purification of beings" as Han stressed. >T: I asked the question above because I was more interested in your own experience, Sarah. Besides, you have been teaching & reciting from the books for so many years now. Isn't it better to be less dependent on the books? .... S: I'm happy to put books aside anytime, Tep. During the summer, I had no books with me and no problem with that at all! Han and I were discussing the Satipatthana Sutta, so obviously we'd refer to it (as you have above) in this new 'non-book' discussion:-). To "delve deeper", I like to really consider what is meant by the various terms such as 'dhamma', 'nama', 'rupa', 'kaya' and so on. What is the dhamma appearing now? When we talk about 'interactions with people' (as being discussed in another thread), what are the realities? ............ ......... . >S: However, usually we're lost in our ideas about body, postures and people, so we fail to appreciate that the only realities appearing through the sense doors are the various rupas and that the only realities that can ever be known are such rupas or namas (or other rupas) appearing through the mind door. I think it's very clear that only visible object is seen or that only tangible objects such as hardness are experienced through the body, one world at a time. However, I appreciate that for others it's all much more complex. Sorry, I'm out of time. Please raise any of your other questions, maybe one at a time, if you'd like to. Metta, Sarah ======== #90054 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Dear Han, (Tep & Nina). --- On Tue, 9/9/08, han tun wrote: H:>I thought I had said it all and there was nothing more to add. But you are very clever:>) You have mentioned my name in your reply to Tep, so that I would come in. .... H:...>There is a big gap in your understanding and mine. Therefore, kindly go ahead with your discussions with Tep, and I will just stay at the back and learn from your discussions. ... S: Flattery, flattery - you are the clever one to find a way to lurk:-) I hope that Tep, Nina or I will find a way to encourage you to participate in the discussions instead:-). How about in the new 'book-less' study corner which Tep has started? We'd both welcome your input. Metta, Sarah ======== #90055 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does kamma from this lifetime bear more weight than kamma from past lifetimes? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Phil wrote: P:> Question just came up when I posted to Sarah. The title says it all. Would this be included in the imponderable related to kamma, or is there anything from the Suttanta about the relative weight of kamma from the most recent lifetime and past lifetimes? .... S: Impnderable, I'd say. Conditions are far too complex to say anything along these lines. Metta, Sarah ====== #90056 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:32 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See hantun1 Dear Sarah (Nina and Tep), > Sarah: Flattery, flattery - you are the clever one to find a way to lurk:-) I hope that Tep, Nina or I will find a way to encourage you to participate in the discussions instead:-). How about in the new 'book-less' study corner which Tep has started? We'd both welcome your input. Han: I thank you very much for your kind invitation to participate in your discussions. But I am not good at all in discussions. If I say something and if someone asks me some difficult question, I am at a loss and I become defensive. Not a healthy disposition for useful discussions. Once, Tep told me that I am like a teacher who would ask his students to study an article, and if the students ask some difficult questions I would say how would I know as I am not the author of the article. But I will see. If I can come in I will. But you will have to be patient with me for the above reasons. Respectfully, Han #90057 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] annata sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, I think others responded to your message #89746 to me, but I left it aside until now. --- On Wed, 3/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- >>Howard: At the moment of MY thinking or seeing or hearing etc, there is also YOUR thinking or hearing or seeing etc. Or do you think not? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- >S: Just thinking, seeing or hearing....no 'my' or 'your' in reality. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >Howard: What EXACTLY do you mean by that? Can you say or not? Is there no reality to distinguishing people? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- S: The point was/is that when we're 'distinguishing people', the reality is thinking. Without cittas, cetasikas and rupas, there'd be no thoughts about 'people' or 'distinguishing people'. There are just the worlds of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking on and on, wouldn't you agree? .... ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ Howard: Then I should stop having discussions. And no one should ever have listened to the Buddha. Sarah, unless you are just engaging in "clever" talk, this is crazy. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------- S: No, it's not meant to be 'clever' talk. Like now, we 'listen' to the Buddha's teachings when we read a sutta. However, really there are just moments of seeing and thinking about what is seen. ... .... >H:> Are the Buddha's statements about kammic inheritance just for the foolish masses, or was he stating literal, and not "merely conventional" truth? .... >S: On the contary, I think they were for the very wise who could understand the truths behind the conventional terms. Hence they understood that in an ultimate sense, kamma or abhisankhara just refers to cetana cetasika and that the results of kamma are simply cittas (moments of consciousness) and rupas (physical phenomena) produced by kamma. They understood that these and all other dhammas are anatta. No individuals, foolish masses, Howard or Sarah to be found. ============ ========= ========= ==== H:>I give up, Sarah. You are speaking as an ideologue, refusing to engage in a genuine consideration of issues. .... S: I'm sorry, Howard (and the many others who feel the same here). I'm not 'refusing to engage in...' anything, I'm just trying to indicate how I understand the world to be. Let's look at the signature quote you signed off with here: H: /And how is a monk mindful? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves.. . mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is how a monk is mindful. And how is a monk alert? When going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating.. . when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. This is how a monk is alert./ (From the Alanna Sutta)< ... S: The quote is referring to the undestanding and awareness of dhammas - namas and rupas, no matter what the activity? Why? Because that's all there are at such times. While bending and extending the limbs, there are only various namas and rupas in action, whilst getting dressed, eating and so on, there are no people,no me, no others, only different namas and rupas appearing. Anything else is thinking about ideas based on these namas and rupas, wouldn't you agree? Metta, Sarah .... p.s since someone (Phil probably:-)), wittily draw our attention to your browser's signature, I've started taking note of others and this is part of rather a good one and the end of this message of yours I'm replying to: "************ **It's only a deal if it's where you want to go." !!! #90058 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Alex wrote: A:> Trees as a fact of experience DO exist. You wouldn't want to drive into one at 100 mph, would you? ... S: You didn't answer any of my questions below. You say trees 'DO exist' and before you claimed they were sanna if any khandha. Where are all the long list of suttas to support your views on this, Alex? You've recently read all the Nikayas. Did you find a single sutta that stated that trees exist or were part of sanna khandha? ... A:> What important are the results, which in Buddha's sense is Nibbana. ... S: Changing the topic. There will never be any nibbana if the khandhas are not understood. What is sanna now, for example? ... A:>How does knowing what trees are, or whether they exist at all helps one to achieve Nibbana? ... S: Understanding delusion and wrong view when they arise is essential for developing the path to the realisation of nibbana. Please have another go at the questions below if you have time: --- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, sarah abbott wrote: > > S: Are you sure that even 'perhaps' trees are included? What do you > >understand the characteristic of sanna to be, Alex? Is it a nama or > a >rupa? What is a content of sanna? Are such 'contents' sanna > khandha? > ... > S: If we walk into a tree, a wall or a body, what is actually experienced is hardness through the body-sense, surely? The hardness is just hardness, no matter what terms or labels are given to it afterwards. So the hardness is rupa khandha. > > I'm still trying to understand what you mean by trees as being included in sanna khandha? > > Which doorway are such trees experienced through? What is really experienced? ..... Metta, Sarah =========== #90059 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] annata upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/12/2008 8:38:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, I think others responded to your message #89746 to me, but I left it aside until now. --- On Wed, 3/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- >>Howard: At the moment of MY thinking or seeing or hearing etc, there is also YOUR thinking or hearing or seeing etc. Or do you think not? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- >S: Just thinking, seeing or hearing....no 'my' or 'your' in reality. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >Howard: What EXACTLY do you mean by that? Can you say or not? Is there no reality to distinguishing people? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- S: The point was/is that when we're 'distinguishing people', the reality is thinking. Without cittas, cetasikas and rupas, there'd be no thoughts about 'people' or 'distinguishing people'. There are just the worlds of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking on and on, wouldn't you agree? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, I would not. However one thinks, it remains a fact that not all people are the same. It is sufficient to read the Buddha's teaching on the owning of one's own kamma for Dhammic evidence to the contrary. Moreover, it is straightforwardly true that it is appropriate to distinguish people. -------------------------------------------------------- .... ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ Howard: Then I should stop having discussions. And no one should ever have listened to the Buddha. Sarah, unless you are just engaging in "clever" talk, this is crazy. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------- S: No, it's not meant to be 'clever' talk. Like now, we 'listen' to the Buddha's teachings when we read a sutta. However, really there are just moments of seeing and thinking about what is seen. ... .... >H:> Are the Buddha's statements about kammic inheritance just for the foolish masses, or was he stating literal, and not "merely conventional" truth? .... >S: On the contary, I think they were for the very wise who could understand the truths behind the conventional terms. Hence they understood that in an ultimate sense, kamma or abhisankhara just refers to cetana cetasika and that the results of kamma are simply cittas (moments of consciousness) and rupas (physical phenomena) produced by kamma. They understood that these and all other dhammas are anatta. No individuals, foolish masses, Howard or Sarah to be found. ============ ========= ========= ==== H:>I give up, Sarah. You are speaking as an ideologue, refusing to engage in a genuine consideration of issues. .... S: I'm sorry, Howard (and the many others who feel the same here). I'm not 'refusing to engage in...' anything, I'm just trying to indicate how I understand the world to be. Let's look at the signature quote you signed off with here: H: /And how is a monk mindful? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves.. . mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is how a monk is mindful. And how is a monk alert? When going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating.. . when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. This is how a monk is alert./ (From the Alanna Sutta)< ... S: The quote is referring to the undestanding and awareness of dhammas - namas and rupas, no matter what the activity? Why? Because that's all there are at such times. While bending and extending the limbs, there are only various namas and rupas in action, whilst getting dressed, eating and so on, there are no people,no me, no others, only different namas and rupas appearing. Anything else is thinking about ideas based on these namas and rupas, wouldn't you agree? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see as fact that to not distinguish namarupic streams, one from another, is, due to clinging to view, to purposely blank out one's mind, put on blinders, and encourage avijja. ------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah .... p.s since someone (Phil probably:-)), wittily draw our attention to your browser's signature, I've started taking note of others and this is part of rather a good one and the end of this message of yours I'm replying to: "************ **It's only a deal if it's where you want to go." !!! ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And please note the mention of "one's own benefit," "the benefit of others," and "the benefit of both" in the signature quote ending this post of mine. That is the Buddha, Sarah, distinguishing persons. ============================= With metta, Howard /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #90060 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] more of no e-cards sarahprocter... Hi Azita, Thanks for the no e-card by no-one to nowhere :-) --- On Fri, 12/9/08, gazita2002 wrote: A:> Only citta, cetasikas and rupa at any given moment, and citta being either kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya. Unless these details are poiinted out time and timne again, there will be wrong view time and time again; accummulating more and more wrong view about the anatta-ness of all realities. .... S: Yes, this is why we all need good friends to keep pointing these truths out, rather than just continue with our old patterns of thinking on our own. Metta, Sarah ========= #90061 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior? Vipaka & New Kamma ... sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tep wrote: >I like your ending note : >>S: Tep, please take it that all my comments are intented with an 'according to my understanding of the teachings to date'. >T: That to me is how "understanding now" is applied to Dhamma discussion. ............ ......... ... S: Yes, I think this is how we share our studies and reflections. ... >T:> 1. According to AN 10.60 (Grimananda Sutta), kamma vipaka is seen as diseases in the body . ... >S: Can you give me the quote for this? >T: Here it is : >iv. "What, Ananda, is contemplation of disadvantage (danger)? Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to a lonely place, contemplates thus: 'Many are the sufferings, many are the disadvantages (dangers) of this body since diverse diseases are engendered in this body, such as the following: Eye- disease, ear-disease, nose-disease, tongue-disease, body-disease, headache, mumps, mouth-disease, tooth-ache, cough, asthma, catarrh, heart-burn, fever, stomach ailment, fainting, dysentry, swelling, gripes, leprosy, boils, scrofula, consumption, epilepsy, ringworm, itch, eruption, tetter, pustule, plethora, diabetes, piles, cancer, fistula, and diseases originating from bile, from phlegm, from wind, from conflict of the humors, from changes of weather, from adverse condition (faulty deportment), from devices (practiced by others), from kamma-vipaka (results of kamma); and cold, heat, hunger, thirst, excrement, and urine.' Thus he dwells contemplating disadvantage (danger) in this body. This Ananda, is called contemplation of disadvantage (danger). http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an10/an10. 060.piya. html ............ ......... ......... ... .... S: I think the key-words are "and diseases originating from........kamma-vipaka (results of kamma)....etc." In other words, diseases arising from the "ripeness" of past kamma. Time for it to brings its results conditioning various rupas. No medicine or protection can prevent kamma bringing its result when it's time, unlike in the case of other conditions mentioned. Metta, Sarah ========== #90062 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:11 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (26-29), Commentary, part 3. nilovg Dear friends, sutta: 'Purity of view and the effort to attain it. (Di.t.thivisuddhi kho pana yathaa di.t.thissa ca padhaana.m. --------- The Co states that as to purity of view, that this is here purity of knowledge and vision (~naa.na dassana), the last of the seven purities, the Path knowledge. The effort to attain iy is the accompanying viriya, energy. And further, the first term includes the four Path knowledges. ------- N: That is, the magga-pa~n~naa of the four stages of enlightenment. --------- The Co refers to the da.sa. 1366 and defines purity of view: pa~n~naa, understanding, non-delusion, investigation of dhamma, right view. The effort to attain is : the cetasika that is the inception of energy (viiriyaarambho), right effort (sammaavaayaamo). -------- Co: ‘‘Di.t.thivisuddhi kho pana yathaadi.t.thissa ca padhaana’’nti ettha di.t.thivisuddhiiti ~naa.nadassana.m kathita.m. Yathaadi.t.thissa ca padhaananti ta.msampayuttameva viiriya.m. Api ca purimapadena catumagga~naa.na.m. Pacchimapadena ta.msampayutta.m viiriya.m. Abhidhamme pana ‘‘di.t.thivisuddhi kho panaati yaa pa~n~naa pajaananaa amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi. Yathaadi.t.thissa ca padhaananti yo cetasiko viiriyaarambho sammaavaayaamo’’ti eva.m aya.m duko vibhatto. ----------- N: Viriya that accompanies right understanding of the eightfold Path performs its function. It conditions perseverance with the development of understanding, it prevents discouragement in the course of development that takes such a long time, even many lives. It conditions patience, so that the reality appearing through one of the six doors is carefully investigated. When right effort performs its function there is no weariness to be mindful again and again of the characteristic of seeing, to investigate it, so that it is known as a mere dhamma experiencing visible object. ******** Nina. #90063 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubts and Siilana nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 12-sep-2008, om 7:24 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Can you say something about panja of samatha?? > It can appear with kusala citta and it can know the diffrence between > kusala and akusala citta. -------- N: I quote from my Sri Lanka revisited: < Dåna and síla may or may not arise with right understanding, but there cannot be any form of mental development, bhåvanå, without right understanding. The calm of samatha that is temporary freedom from defilements cannot be developed without paññå. The paññå of samatha must be able to discern the characteristic of calm when it arises, otherwise calm cannot grow. The paññå of samatha knows kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala, but it is different from the paññå of vipassanå since it does not realize kusala and akusala as not self. The concept of self is not eradicated through samatha.> -------- > L: And it can know a conditions wich make kusala and akusala arise???? ------- N: In samatha there are obstructions such as the place where one lives, or also one's tasks, the students one has to attend to, many duties will distract from the attainment of jhaana. Thus, favorable conditions for jhana have to be known. --------- > > L: So if that's true there is a real chance to develop kusala , but > there > is nobody who develops, just amoha cetasika arise and knows. ------- N: I was referring to the attainment of jhana. A busy life or a place that is not quiet is no hindrance for the development of other kinds of kusala. We can help others with metta and karuna or be polite to others at any time, any place. --------- > > L:During my daily day I am so busy, I have to do this to do that, and > the kusala citta doesn't arise. I wonder is it posible to develop > kusala in such circumstances?? ------- N: As you say yourself above: nobody develops. That means: kusala citta cannot arise at will. > Understanding of vipassana can 'study' with mindfulnhess any > reality. also akusala citta. Place and circumstances are no > obstructions. However, there are conditions to be cultivated: > listening to Dhamma, association with the right friends, > discussions, applying what one has heard. --------- > L: Can you say anything about accumulated tendencies? ------- N: When a child is taught to be polite and he follows this up, he will also be polite as an adult. He has accumulated this good quality. What we learn is not lost, it will bear on the future. People also have accumulated bad qualities, such as angry speech. One spoke in the past with anger, again and again, and thus it becomes a habit. Anger accumulates. Each citta that arises falls away, but it is immediately succeeded by the next citta, and thus good and bad inclinations can be accumulated from moment to moment. ---------- I have to make a correction about what I wrote in my former post, namely: Purity of siila is a condition for purity of citta, citta visuddhi, which is concentration. But each time you read visuddhi it means that there is purity with right understanding developed in satipatthana. Nina. #90064 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:20 am Subject: Re: to Howard: [dsg] Question regarding "Conceptual" realities upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/12/2008 1:01:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/9/11 : > Hi, Herman - > > > I think it is a fundamental mistake to ascribe unity or wholeness to > consciousness. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No need to ascribe unity/wholeness. A state of consciousness consists of > all the then-present mental phenomena. When any aspect changes, it is no > longer the same state. > ------------------------------------------------ > > Consciousness is not reducible to a single state. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't understand what you mean by that. > ----------------------------------------------- I am applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to consciousness. If we determine consciousness to be in a certain state, then we can say nothing about it's momentum, and if we determine consciousness to have a certain momentum, then we can say nothing about it's state. In this framework, the momentum of consciousness, is identical with anicca. Of course, at a macroscopic level there is no need to be concerned about reifying conscious states, as long as we know that at a microscopic level there is no discreet state, the system (so to speak) is in a state of anicca. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: 1) That principle is a theory about "matter", not mind. 2) A theory is just a story that more or less well predicts experience; it doesn't reveal reality. 3) I don't know what momentum etc has to do with consciousness. Also, what we may or may not determine is one thing, while what is the case is another. (That is not to deny that what "we" do is part of what is the case.) 4) So there! ;-)) -------------------------------------------- As an illustration, one cannot tell from a photo of a car (taken with a high speed shutter) whether it is moving or stationary. In the same way, a conscious state is a reification, not a reality. (again, which is not a problem for the sake of discussion when the underlying anicca is kept in mind) > > We > could draw a comparison between consciousness and the sky. They are > both complex phenomena. > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I certainly agree. (I assume, BTW, that by 'consciousness' you mean not > only the operation of knowing, but the entire mental complex.) > ----------------------------------------------------- Yes > > There are not two skies. But neither is there > one whole sky. We would not say that one sky has to fall away for the > next sky to arise. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm really not following you. The sky changes, period. Change requires > that what was before no longer is. > -------------------------------------------------- But not all of the sky changes at once. Neither does all of consciousness change at once. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: So what? Nothing exists in isolation, as a separate phenomenon, but as a thing-in-relation; so a change in anything is a change in everything. Hey! I oughta take that last clause as a new signature quote! LOL! (In fact, I WILL do that! :-) -------------------------------------------------- > > The human > brain is the most complex organ to be found in the known universe, and > questions like "is there seeing now?" as though such a unitary > phenomenon is detectable or even possible to isolate meaningfully from > the field of consciousness fails to acknowledge what is well known and > well accepted, namely that there are multiple interrelated visual > areas in the brain, consisting of billions of synaptic connections, > that all co-ordinate to create the visual field. Not to mention the > eyes with their millions of rods and cones. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > As a Buddhist I'm not especially interested in the brain. > -------------------------------------------------- > Do you say this because the brain is not recognised as one of the ayatanas in Buddhism, or because Buddhism, in your view, is not interested in biological bases for consciousness? ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know the exact relationship between brain and mind except that they are not the same. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > The point is that if one starts with a simple model of a most complex > phenomenon, then all conclusions drawn from that model are going to be > useless :-) > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I agree, or, if not utterly useless, then certainly of only limited use. > (Newtonian mechanics is relatively simpIe and fundamentally flawed yet > useful in limited but significant contexts.) I think that all models are > inadequate, and only "the thing itself" is good enough. > ---------------------------------------------- > Well said. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Definite agreement between us! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything./ (From the Wasserman's Fevered Brain Sutta) #90065 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Alex wrote: > A:> Trees as a fact of experience DO exist. You wouldn't want to >drive > into one at 100 mph, would you? > ... > S: You didn't answer any of my questions below. You say trees 'DO >exist' and before you claimed they were sanna if any khandha. Regarding "existence" "'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html Word "tree" is a mental label, which I understand is function of sanna khanda. Matter, rupa, rupakhanda does exist as a fact of experience regardless of how you call it. I wouldn't want to check the non-existence, the voidness, the absence of self, the great sunnata of trees the hard way and neither would you. > A:> What important are the results, which in Buddha's sense is Nibbana. > ... > S: Changing the topic. Talking about results, goal (liberation) isn't changing the topic. It IS the topic of central importance in Buddha-Dhamma. > There will never be any nibbana if the khandhas are not understood. We have a difference of opinion regarding what understanding means. Pari~n~na sutta "And which is comprehension? Any ending of passion, ending of aversion, ending of delusion. 1 This is called comprehension." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.023.than.html "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:1 Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, *** pain***, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging- aggregates are stressful. 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html Note the emphasis is on Dukkha. Not the ultimate existence or non- existence. >What is sanna now, for example? I think the better questions should be: "Is there any greed, aversion or delusion regarding sanna?" Is 1st noble truth comprehended, 2nd abandoned, 3rd truth directly experienced and 4th developed? SN56.11 Best wishes, Alex #90066 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. dhammanusarin Hi Sarah (and Herman), - In the previous message #89952 you wrote the following: >S: Dhammas dependent on dhammas, no beings, no people which they belong to. ... I re-quoted the following in a message to Alex the other day. Plenty more on ultimate realities and no beings where this came from: ... ... etc. T: And there were plenty of quotes from the Brahmajala Sutta & its commentaries in "The All-Embracing Net of Views" that you poured over poor Herman ! So, I wrote the following in the context of right view that is free from sakkayaditthi: --- On Thu, 11/9/08, Tep wrote: >Given that one has no clinging to the aggregates (the "burden"), then there is neither aggregates of clinging (upadanakkhandhas) nor "embodiment view" (sakkaya-di. tthi or attavadupadana) . .... S: I'm not quite sure how this fits into the thread we were discussing about kamma, vipaka, accumulations and anatta (and the quotes I gave), but in any case I don't quite understand your comment above. T: You were right that it was not about kamma, vipaka or accumulations. But for sure it is about how the identification views, or self views, can be dropped simply by not clinging to the khandhas. The important point I've made is that you can discuss 'not self' without looking too far to "ultimate realities and no beings". ........ S: Perhaps you'd like to indicate how it fits in and what the meaning is. Are you suggesting that when there is no more clinging (i.e the arahant), that there is no more wrong view and no more unpadana khandhas? Of course, even a sotapanna has no more wrong view (sakkaya- di. tthi or attavadupadana), but even the khandhas of the arahant are subject to clinging (by others). T: Yes, that is correct. The Sotapanna puggala, who has abandoned personality/self-identification views, does not have attavadupadana (clinging in the aggregates). ............ S: It's good to share our different understandings, rather than just speculating on our own, so I appreciate all your comments and Ven Nanamoli's article you shared. T: I also see the value in sharing "different understandings", given that the sharing helps the discussants to become wiser rather than becoming more confused, aggravated or irritated, as are often seen in some discussions. .............. S: Just to clarify, I haven't seen anyone suggest that "vipaka of a kamma" "produced new kamma". I certainly didn't. ... However, we should be very clear that vipaka cittas are results of kamma only. T: It is good to hear that, Sarah. 'Cause I do not believe that "vipaka of a kamma produces new kamma" either. .............. >T (referring to the Ven. Nanamoli's article): Sarah, I sincerely hope that you have carefully studied the above precious explanation about self, self views, and how a person can drop sakkayaditthi along with the extreme views : 'There is a self.' and 'There is no self.'. T: Any comment for my "hope" above ? Tep === #90067 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Calm & Content = Without Expectation! egberdina Hi Justin, 2008/9/12 Justin Whitaker : > Dear Herman, et al. > >>> >>> Friends: >>> >>> Expectation inevitably creates Disappointment: >>> > > My sense is that this is one of those teachings meant to break SOME of > the listener's attachments here and now. Yes, and that would be beneficial for anyone. But I would highlight the SOME, to ensure that things are not taken to extremes, but that a moderate, middle way is taken. Think about the things you > hold expectations for. Are those expectations sometimes consuming > your mind, taking you out of the moment, perhaps already causing > agitation and suffering? It's clear that even many of the Bhikkhus > over the years have had expectations and ideas and actions that caused > themselves and others suffering - hence the development of the > Patimokkha. Yet that is not to say that we cannot or should not > strive to overcome our expectations and as such to live fully in the > present. The present is also something that can be taken to extremes. The aim of living fully in the present, as you say above, I would classify as an extreme ambition. Because, if taken to extremes, the present without past or future is timeless and without characteristics, and is therefore identical with nibbana. I do not say that the higher jhanas are identical with nibbana, but they are the closest one will get while still alive. Living in the higher jhanas only is guaranteed to lead to death, so I assume that to be incompatible with living fully. > > Also, I had a similar discussion with students a few weeks back, > asking: if Buddhism is all about 'being present' then why do they hold > on to views of future lives/pure lands, etc? One of my brightest > quoted Surya Das to the effect that even in being present, we still > make plans! But plans are different from expectations - they are > made, in the present, while present, and then allowed to unfold. > Expectations, I take it, are rooted in tanha, thirsting, for certain > future outcomes. A plan without expectations of even partial completion never gets of the ground, IMO. Let me put forward an extreme proposition. Any act, whether as thought, word or deed, is laced with expectation, and that expectation is, in part, to alter the present, which it has already succeeded in doing. The disappointment that inevitably follows expectation, as Bhikkhu Samahiti points out, does not come from all expectation, however, but only from when the expectation becomes unfulfilled. So, one has to ask oneself, is it a reasonable proposition that because some expectations are unfulfilled, and because unfulfilled expectations are dukkha, that therefore a life without expectations wll be a happy one? I would say not, because without expectations, there is no life. All is not lost. In there somewhere, there being all those teachings of the Buddha, lurks the possibility of a middle way :-). > > Bio - some of that is below (student, administrator). I have > practiced for eight years now in various traditions: FWBO, Tibetan > Gelug under Geshe Michael Roach, Vipassana with Matthew Flickstein, > and some others here and there. Most of my practice now is simple > mindfulness of breathing and cultivation of loving-kindness, sometimes > also doing Vipassana. I live in beautiful Missoula, Montana, where > I've also studied plenty of Western philosophy and ethics. > > Greetings and best wishes to you all, Justin > Thank you again for delurking and making yourself known. Cheers Herman #90068 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:10 pm Subject: Re: to Howard: [dsg] Question regarding "Conceptual" realities egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/13 : > Hi, Herman - > > > But not all of the sky changes at once. Neither does all of > consciousness change at once. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So what? Nothing exists in isolation, as a separate phenomenon, but as a > thing-in-relation; so a change in anything is a change in everything. Hey! I > oughta take that last clause as a new signature quote! LOL! (In fact, I WILL > do that! :-) > -------------------------------------------------- Well, following the proud tradition of one-up-man-ship that flowers here at dsg, where some posters exist less than others, and some posters are virtually virtual :-), I feel duty bound to outdo you. Mind you, I must say, yours is a great line. But I just think that mine is better (even though neither you or I are writing any of this, of course :-)) Everything changes, yet there is no thing that changes. (I've heard this one elsewhere, but seeing as I am not real, plagiarism is just a concept) Cheers Mr Fevered Brain Wasserman notHerman Everything changes, yet there is no thing that changes. #90069 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: Re: to Howard: [dsg] Question regarding "Conceptual" realities philofillet Hi Howard > > So what? Nothing exists in isolation, as a separate phenomenon, but as a > > thing-in-relation; so a change in anything is a change in everything. I like this and think it is solid Dhamma. Thus the Buddha says in an AN sutta that by abstaining from an unwholesome deed we provide protection from harm (or something like that) to "immeasurable beings." Metta, Phil #90070 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:19 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation dhammanusarin Dear Sarah (and Sukin), - Thank you for telling me the following : "Looking at the new subject heading, let me say that like Sukin, I'm very happy to discuss the Teachings with you anytime without any book (or article) recitation." T: Okay, since you said that, let's do this new kind of discussion (or debate) starting with this post. [Sukin, I now accept your request. So, if you are still interested, please start a discussion anytime you want to. Thank you for the firm intention and for your patience.] ........... >T: We should discuss Satipatthana from the realization perspective, not recalling or reciting from a tape or a book or the suttas. The four references (kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma) are categorized into the various objects of mindfulness and awareness as described in MN 10 and DN 22 (e.g. in-and-out breaths, the four body postures, the four basic elements, the 32 body parts, the three feelings, the five aggregates, the five hindrances, the seven factors for Awakening, the four noble truths). ... S: Excuse me, but isn't this categorising a recitation or summary from the suttas? I was trying to discuss what realities are apparent now, no matter the names or labels or category. T: In this case it is necessary for us to refer to the objects of Satipatthana in the sutta, also I gave the information because I want to show that some of the objects are pannatti not paramattha. Let me suggest that as long as we don't throw quoted passages from the suttas, the Vism or Ptsm or commentaries, at each other, then it should be acceptable. You may want to put down a few rules or exceptions too, if you'd like. ............... > S: What are the realities appearing now, that sati-sampajanna can be aware of and know, would you say, Tep? T: To be correct, the Buddha never called the four references "realities appearing now", Sarah. Indeed, any of the dhammas that I cited above (i.e. in-and-out breaths, the four body postures, the four basic elements, the 32 body parts, the three feelings, the five aggregates, the five hindrances, the seven factors for Awakening, the four noble truths) can be the object of mindfulness & awareness. ... >T: But these objects are not necessarily "realities appearing now" or ultimate realities that arise and fall away in a fraction of a nano-second. Some of these "objects" are pannatti that can be observed by ordinary people who do not have the capability to experience (by citta) realities in a fraction of a nano-second. S: So if the Buddha was just talking about ordinary pannatti as conceived and 'observed' of by ordinary people incapable of understanding realities, how were these teachings radically different from those taught by any other teacher? T: The real big difference between what the Buddha taught and "any other" teaching (by a religious teacher) is that the Greatest Sage taught 'dukkha sacca' and 'dukkha nirodha'. BTW are you "capable of understanding realities" that arise and pass away in a fraction of a nano-second, Sarah? ............ ......... .. >T: How do you "delve deeper" to get ready to see the dhammas, the way they really are? S: To "delve deeper", I like to really consider what is meant by the various terms such as 'dhamma', 'nama', 'rupa', 'kaya' and so on. What is the dhamma appearing now? When we talk about 'interactions with people' (as being discussed in another thread), what are the realities? T: Still you are attached to definitions and terminologies, not yet capable of experiencing/directly-knowing these ultimate realities that appear and then disappear in less than a nano second. So, what is the use of talking about them when you have no idea whether they are real or not? On the contrary, about half of the dhammas in MN 10 & DN 22 can be experienced now. ............ ......... . >S: However, usually we're lost in our ideas about body, postures and people, so we fail to appreciate that the only realities appearing through the sense doors are the various rupas and that the only realities that can ever be known are such rupas or namas (or other rupas) appearing through the mind door. I think it's very clear that only visible object is seen or that only tangible objects such as hardness are experienced through the body, one world at a time. However, I appreciate that for others it's all much more complex. T: Of course, when you are lost in your "ideas about body, postures and people", then it is understandable that you may fail to appreciate the Dhammas in the suttas, including MN 10 and DN 22. Besides, the suttas only concern with just a small subset of the "ultimate realities" [i.e. 24 kinds of 'derived rupa', the 89 kinds of citta, the 72 cetasikas, and Nibbana]. Neither do I recall that MN 10 or DN 22 teach about hardness being "experienced through the body". What you mentioned, "only realities appearing through the sense doors are the various rupas and that the only realities that can ever be known are such rupas or namas (or other rupas) appearing through the mind door", is a common sense. I am not convinced that it can lead to the penetration of the Four Noble Truths. Please correct me, if you think I am wrong. Tep === #90071 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See dhammanusarin Dear Han (Sarah, Nina), - I am eagerly looking forward to your participation in future discussions with Sarah, me, and/or Nina. Why? Because they apparently value your words more than mine. Therefore, if you happen to agree with me in a discussion, then they would give me a little more credit. ;-) >Han: Once, Tep told me that I am like a teacher who would ask his students to study an article, and if the students ask some difficult questions I would say how would I know as I am not the author of the article. >But I will see. If I can come in I will. But you will have to be patient with me for the above reasons. T: It is great to know that your memory is still working very well. I hope you too will be patient with me. Tep === #90072 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation hantun1 Dear Tep and Sarah, Sarah asked me to join in for this topic. I have no specific idea to put forward, but I would like to agree fully what Tep said in the following conversation: ------------------------------ Sarah: What are the realities appearing now, that sati-sampajanna can be aware of and know, would you say, Tep? Tep: To be correct, the Buddha never called the four references "realities appearing now", Sarah. Indeed, any of the dhammas that I cited above (i.e. in-and-out breaths, the four body postures, the four basic elements, the 32 body parts, the three feelings, the five aggregates, the five hindrances, the seven factors for Awakening, the four noble truths) can be the object of mindfulness & awareness. But these objects are not necessarily "realities appearing now" or ultimate realities that arise and fall away in a fraction of a nano-second. Some of these "objects" are pannatti that can be observed by ordinary people who do not have the capability to experience (by citta) realities in a fraction of a nano-second. ------------------------------ Sarah: So if the Buddha was just talking about ordinary pannatti as conceived and 'observed' of by ordinary people incapable of understanding realities, how were these teachings radically different from those taught by any other teacher? Tep: The real big difference between what the Buddha taught and "any other" teaching (by a religious teacher) is that the Greatest Sage taught 'dukkha sacca' and 'dukkha nirodha'. ------------------------------ Han: When I am meditating on the in-breath and out-breath I do not know what realities are appearing now. What I experience is only the in-breath and out-breath brushing against the tip of the nostril. You may call this pa~n~natti but that is the only dhamma that I can experience. As Tep said, this is the one that can be experienced by the ordinary people. And I fully agree with Tep that the most important point that the Buddha teaches is the suffering, and the end to the suffering. Respectfully, Han #90073 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:00 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See hantun1 Dear Tep (Sarah), > Tep: I am eagerly looking forward to your participation in future discussions with Sarah, me, and/or Nina. Why? Because they apparently value your words more than mine. Therefore, if you happen to agree with me in a discussion, then they would give me a little more credit. ;-) Han: I doubt it if anybody value my words more than yours. But I will say what I have in mind. There is another point I want to add as regards to knowing the ultimate realities that appear and then disappear in less than a nano second. One of my Burmese friends once told me that he could experience anicca characteristic of ruupa. He said he could not only feel the arising and falling away of ruupa but he could even hear the noise of the falling away of ruupa, like the noise you hear when you put sesame seeds on a very hot plate and when the seeds burn and explode with a noise. Or, he said, the noise was similar to the noise you hear when you put a packet of the pop-corns in the microwave. But I am sure Sarah would not hear such noise of falling away of ruupa:>)) My friend must be mad! Respectfully, Han #90074 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:09 pm Subject: Re: to Howard: [dsg] Question regarding "Conceptual" realities upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/12/2008 7:11:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/9/13 : > Hi, Herman - > > > But not all of the sky changes at once. Neither does all of > consciousness change at once. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So what? Nothing exists in isolation, as a separate phenomenon, but as a > thing-in-relation; so a change in anything is a change in everything. Hey! I > oughta take that last clause as a new signature quote! LOL! (In fact, I WILL > do that! :-) > -------------------------------------------------- Well, following the proud tradition of one-up-man-ship that flowers here at dsg, where some posters exist less than others, and some posters are virtually virtual :-), I feel duty bound to outdo you. Mind you, I must say, yours is a great line. But I just think that mine is better (even though neither you or I are writing any of this, of course :-)) ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! -------------------------------------------------- Everything changes, yet there is no thing that changes. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Unfair, Herman! That's Zen!! ;-) [Actually, in the Zen sense, which I understand to point to the non-existence of any entities, i.e., of phenomena with own being, I quite agree with that!!] ----------------------------------------------------- (I've heard this one elsewhere, but seeing as I am not real, plagiarism is just a concept) Cheers Mr Fevered Brain Wasserman notHerman Everything changes, yet there is no thing that changes. ============================ With metta, Empty Signature #90075 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:35 pm Subject: Re: to Howard: [dsg] Question regarding "Conceptual" realities upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/12/2008 7:19:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard > > So what? Nothing exists in isolation, as a separate phenomenon, but as a > > thing-in-relation; so a change in anything is a change in everything. I like this and think it is solid Dhamma. Thus the Buddha says in an AN sutta that by abstaining from an unwholesome deed we provide protection from harm (or something like that) to "immeasurable beings." --------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks for that! :-) --------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ========================= With metta, Howard #90076 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:21 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation philofillet Hello Han and all >As Tep said, this is the one that can be experienced by the ordinary people. Very important to point this out, because there is a myth propogated by a certain teacher that mindfulness of breathing is too difficult for us. It is true that Vism says it is an object of meditation that is difficult to fully develop, but Vism also makes it crystal clear that the "clansman who is a beginner" begins by a basic awareness of the "gross" breath, which is then developed or not. The simile used is that of a ringing gong. The gross sound is easily perceived by anyone, but then come subtler and subtler tones that are not for everyone... Metta, Phil #90077 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:09 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation hantun1 Dear Phil, > Phil: Very important to point this out, because there is a myth propagated by a certain teacher that mindfulness of breathing is too difficult for us. It is true that Vism says it is an object of meditation that is difficult to fully develop, but Vism also makes it crystal clear that the "clansman who is a beginner" begins by a basic awareness of the "gross" breath, which is then developed or not. The simile used is that of a ringing gong. The gross sound is easily perceived by anyone, but then come subtler and subtler tones that are not for everyone... Han: Thank you very much for your simile. I am still at the level of hearing the gross sounds. I do not know when I will hear the subtler and subtler tones. Respectfully, Han #90078 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:32 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See ... Sound of Silence .. dhammanusarin Dear Han, - >Han: One of my Burmese friends once told me that he could experience anicca characteristic of ruupa. He said he could not only feel the arising and falling away of ruupa but he could even hear the noise of the falling away of ruupa, like the noise you hear when you put sesame seeds on a very hot plate and when the seeds burn and explode with a noise. ... ... I am sure Sarah would not hear such noise of falling away of ruupa:>)) My friend must be mad! T: But he might be telling you about a samadhi nimitta : the sound might just just be one kind of mental images -- a sankhara -- that is formed (fabricated) when the concentration is upacara samadhi. " ... the counter part sign appears as if breaking out from the learning sign, and a hundred times, a thousand times more purified, like a looking-glass disk drawn from its case, like a mother of pearl disk well washed .... But it has neither color nor shape ... it is born only of perception in one who has obtained concentration, being a mere mode of appearance. " [ The Vism, IV, 31] Tep === #90079 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:06 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See ... Sound of Silence .. hantun1 Dear Friend Tep, > >Han: One of my Burmese friends once told me that he could experience anicca characteristic of ruupa. He said he could not only feel the arising and falling away of ruupa but he could even hear the noise of the falling away of ruupa, like the noise you hear when you put sesame seeds on a very hot plate and when the seeds burn and explode with a noise. ... ... I am sure Sarah would not hear such noise of falling away of ruupa:>)) My friend must be mad! > Tep: But he might be telling you about a samadhi nimitta : the sound might just just be one kind of mental images -- a sankhara -- that is formed (fabricated) when the concentration is upacara samadhi. " ... the counter part sign appears as if breaking out from the learning sign, and a hundred times, a thousand times more purified, like a looking-glass disk drawn from its case, like a mother of pearl disk well washed .... But it has neither color nor shape ... it is born only of perception in one who has obtained concentration, being a mere mode of appearance. " [ The Vism, IV, 31] --------------- Han: Thank you very much, Tep. I first thought my friend must have gone mad. Now that you have explained, it makes sense. He was not hallucinating but must have experienced the samaadhi nimitta as you explained above. Yours truly, Han PS. BTW I hope you are safe from hurricane Ike. I pray for you. #90080 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Tep), --- On Fri, 12/9/08, han tun wrote: >Han: I thank you very much for your kind invitation to participate in your discussions. But I am not good at all in discussions. If I say something and if someone asks me some difficult question, I am at a loss and I become defensive. Not a healthy disposition for useful discussions. Once, Tep told me that I am like a teacher who would ask his students to study an article, and if the students ask some difficult questions I would say how would I know as I am not the author of the article. .... S: That's very funny :-)). ... H:>But I will see. If I can come in I will. But you will have to be patient with me for the above reasons. .... S: Likewise, you need to be patient with us! Metta, Sarah ======== #90081 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:24 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See ... Sound of Silence .. dhammanusarin Dear Friend Han, - Thank you very much for your hurricane worry. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Friend Tep, > ... ... > Yours truly, > Han > PS. BTW I hope you are safe from hurricane Ike. I pray for you. > Just as I am typing right now, the hurricane is only of Category 2 (the most severe one is of Category 5) and it is 29 miles NE of Houston, Texas. It knocks down a lot of trees with 75-100 mph wind speed! Fortunately, Houston is about 100 miles from my residence. We only have high wind and heavy rain here in College Station, Texas. Not too bad. Tep === #90082 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. sarahprocter... Hi Tep, (Han & all), --- On Sat, 13/9/08, Tep wrote: >T: You were right that it was not about kamma, vipaka or accumulations. But for sure it is about how the identification views, or self views, can be dropped simply by not clinging to the khandhas. The important point I've made is that you can discuss 'not self' without looking too far to "ultimate realities and no beings". ........ S: This is where I beg to differ. Without understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities, I don't believe the anatta characteristic can be known, for it is the anatta characteristic of such ultimate realities. .... >T: Yes, that is correct. The Sotapanna puggala, who has abandoned personality/ self-identificat ion views, does not have attavadupadana (clinging in the aggregates). ... S: Just a clarification - attavadupadana does not mean 'clinging in the aggregates' or 'clinging to the khandhas'. A sotapanna has eradicated all idea of atta but there is still plenty of clinging to the aggregates. ............ .. >T (referring to the Ven. Nanamoli's article): Sarah, I sincerely hope that you have carefully studied the above precious explanation about self, self views, and how a person can drop sakkayaditthi along with the extreme views : 'There is a self.' and 'There is no self.'. >T: Any comment for my "hope" above ? .... S: As you know (or have heard many times), it's not "a person" who can do or "drop" anything. It is the function of developed panna which understands conditioned dhammas for what they are. As for the article, it's very long (and I apologise for all for not trimming it out as I'd intended in my reply to you). I'd rather you give a brief summary of your own for me to respond to or one para at a time to discuss further, perhaps with Han and other book-less partners:-). Metta, Sarah ========== #90083 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Fri, 12/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:>...1) the insight that unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted, and 2) a disappointment with regard to that hanging on, a disappointment which needs to simply be accepted, let go of, and moved on from. .... S: thanks for sharing your reflections on this. As you suggest, while the latent tendencies lie dormant, we never know when there may be conditions for such unwholesome inclinations to arise, seeimingly 'out of the blue'. As for the disappointment, I think this is due to the other common unwholesome inclination to take all such experiences for being 'mine', rathe than understanding them as just conditioned dhammas, not belonging to anyone. Metta, Sarah ======== #90084 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Thank you for continuing the discussion in good humour. --- On Sat, 13/9/08, Alex wrote: A:> Word "tree" is a mental label, which I understand is function of sanna khanda. .... S: This is getting closer, I think:-). Yes, 'tree' is a mental label and it is due to sanna that there is this idea of 'tree' at all. The function of sanna is to mark and perceive (or remember) each object that is experienced at every moment, whether that object be a reality or a 'mental label' or idea, as in the case of 'tree'. Why is the idea of tree? It is because sanna has marked and remembered visible objects and other realities over and over again, marked them and remembered what is identified (through thinking) as 'tree'. .... A:> Matter, rupa, rupakhanda does exist as a fact of experience regardless of how you call it. .... S: This is correct and as you suggest, the name is not important. So what is important though, is to distinguish the characterisitic of rupa, the characteristic of sanna and the characteristic of thinking, for example. At the moment of experiencing visible object or hardness, say, sanna just marks that particular characteristic and there's no idea (even without words) of 'tree'. ... A:> I wouldn't want to check the non-existence, the voidness, the absence of self, the great sunnata of trees the hard way and neither would you. ... S: Trees are 'non-existent', so we can't talk about their having (or not-having) any characteristics. ... A:>Talking about results, goal (liberation) isn't changing the topic. It IS the topic of central importance in Buddha-Dhamma. .... S: Without understanding the first two NTs, we'll never understand anything about the third NT. ... A:> "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress....In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended' http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn56/sn56. 011.than. html >Note the emphasis is on Dukkha. Not the ultimate existence or non- existence. ... S: I note the emphasis on the 5 upadana-khandhas as dukkha. The khandhas are ultimate realities and it is these that are dukkha. Not trees! .... >>S: What is sanna now, for example? I think the better questions should be: "Is there any greed, aversion or delusion regarding sanna?" .... S: If we don't understand what these ultimate realities are, how would we have any idea whether there is any greed, aversion or delusion regarding them? This is why we need to consider carefully. Without sanna arising at each moment, marking its object, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We live in a world of our own thinking about trees and people, but don't realise that it is sanna recalling, remembering and making such ideas and fantasies possible. Of course, there can be atta-sanna or anatta-sanna, sanna with wrong understanding of self and sanna with right understanding of non-self while such recalling and remembering occurs. Metta, Sarah p.s As I type this, I had hear little bits of Jon's dhamma discussion with Scott in the background on skype in one room and the News on the T.V. in another room, so put any typos down to sanna marking (and being distracted by) other sounds and concepts:-) Hoping Jon or Scott may consider giving a summary of their chat for us all. ========= #90085 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... sarahprocter... Hi Herman (Alex & all), --- On Mon, 8/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >> S: If we walk into a tree, a wall or a body, what is actually experienced is hardness through the body-sense, surely? The hardness is just hardness, no matter what terms or labels are given to it afterwards. So the hardness is rupa khandha. > >> I'm still trying to understand what you mean by trees as being included in sanna khandha? > >> Which doorway are such trees experienced through? What is really experienced? ... H:> The experience described as walking into a tree covers all sense modalities and spans past, present and future. ... S: OK! .... H:> But what on earth is a doorway? Have you ever met one? Should you be talking about them as though you know them? ... S: It's just a short-hand way of referring to the various senses. Obviously sounds are not experienced by seeing through the eye-sense and visible objects are not experienced by hearing through the ear-sense. .... H:> And please, do tell us, what is really experienced, if walking into a tree doesn't adequately describe it? .... S: I would say that while it seems that the reality is 'walking into a tree', in fact there are many different experiences through different senses with lots of thinking in between. What is experienced through the body-sense, for example is not 'a tree', but hardness or temperature. Hope you and family are all doing well, Herman. Metta, Sarah ========== #90086 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vinnana & Sanna sarahprocter... Hi Tep & Alex, --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tep wrote: >T: What does consciousness cognize? MN 43 says it cognizes the three kinds of feeelings. SN 22.79 says it cognizes tastes (sour, bitter, etc.) Putting 2 and 2 together we get 4. Vinnana cognizes the various rupa and nama through the sense doors. Does this make sense to you? .... S: Vinnana is the same as citta. It cognizes/experiences rupas, namas or concepts. Does this make sense? At this moment, numerous cittas are arising and falling away, experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways. Metta, Sarah ========= #90087 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See ... Sound of Silence .. upasaka_howard Hi, Han (and Tep) - In a message dated 9/13/2008 4:06:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Dear Friend Tep, > >Han: One of my Burmese friends once told me that he could experience anicca characteristic of ruupa. He said he could not only feel the arising and falling away of ruupa but he could even hear the noise of the falling away of ruupa, like the noise you hear when you put sesame seeds on a very hot plate and when the seeds burn and explode with a noise. ... ... I am sure Sarah would not hear such noise of falling away of ruupa:>)) My friend must be mad! > Tep: But he might be telling you about a samadhi nimitta : the sound might just just be one kind of mental images -- a sankhara -- that is formed (fabricated) when the concentration is upacara samadhi. " ... the counter part sign appears as if breaking out from the learning sign, and a hundred times, a thousand times more purified, like a looking-glass disk drawn from its case, like a mother of pearl disk well washed .... But it has neither color nor shape ... it is born only of perception in one who has obtained concentration, being a mere mode of appearance. " [ The Vism, IV, 31] --------------- Han: Thank you very much, Tep. I first thought my friend must have gone mad. Now that you have explained, it makes sense. He was not hallucinating but must have experienced the samaadhi nimitta as you explained above. Yours truly, Han PS. BTW I hope you are safe from hurricane Ike. I pray for you. ============================ Han, I would guess that your friend engages in Goenka-style, body-sweeping meditation. When that is done a great deal and regularly, one does experience rising & falling, "particulate" energy sensations throughout the body. I would suppose that the mind might also create an auditory simulation to accompany that, though I haven't experienced that myself or heard of that. With metta, Howard #90088 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:16 am Subject: Skype chat scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (and Jon) and All, I can try to summarize the conversation Jon and I had via the Skype call if you wish. Mainly, I enjoyed it very much. I like to discuss Dhamma. My summary will, obviously, include my ongoing misunderstandings of things and be rather scatterd (apologies). And, obviously, it was a conversation between like-minded people, which means we agreed a lot. ;-) Since, for some reason, my Skype program was suddenly non-responsive right when I wanted it to be (forcing us to use the Skype phone instead of the video camera) we began to discuss vipaaka, and how not everything that happens is vipaaka, since it is the moment of seeing or hearing, not the later thoughts about it. We discussed how thinking after certain events can mix it up. We discussed briefly the idea that it is what the average person would label pleasant or unpleasant - something I had discussed with Larry a long time ago and set aside - not some extremes or perverse reversals of unpleasant for pleasant, that categorize the nature of a moment of vipaaka. I had wanted to clarify aspects of satipa.t.thaana, and we talked of how it is perhaps possible to suggest that it is synonymous with sati sampaja~n~na. I had been thinking that it was only sati that was involved but wanted to clarify how pa~n~naa fit in. We talked about how pa~n~naa comes into the picture; about the development of satipa.t.thaana; about the initial stages of insight, where the difference between naama and ruupa can be known, and about how it is pa~n~naa that knows, while sati is aware, and how dhammas develop with mutual assistance; about how anattaa is known as a characteristic, I think 'automatically' along with, say, knowing naama as naama and ruupa as ruupa. We discussed the development of dhammas, such as mettaa, and how natural it is for the concept of beings to be object for such dhammas. Also, of course, how much more often does the concept of beings serve to assist the strengthening of akusala as well. We discussed the nature of discussion groups and my idealised wish for a space to discuss with like-minded discussants, and how all views are just views and any chance to consider Dhamma, to compare views, to clarify and straighten views is worthwhile. We discussed religion; the obscuring nature of views which hold that one must'practise', such that even the studying of the Dhamma, taking the texts as the words (like listening to Dhamma), is taken to be some form of deliberate practise which has a goal in mind (when in fact it is not); we discussed how one can't mix apples and oranges, and how Dhamma is not pop-psychology, but is often read with the wish to find literal, step-by-step instructions for happy living. I discussed how I can't really help finding myself in agreement with the so-called DSG views, and, since life is short and there is no inclination to seek other views or disagree, I just slowly keep clarifying things bit by bit. I don't have any problem with things others on the list find very problematic. We discussed the nature of views and how these create very strong impediments to learning Dhamma. We discussed how, for some (like me) it seems perfectly obvious that one can live in a conventional world, see trees and people, *and* understand (intellectually) that the Dhamma teaches that the way things really are is much different (i.e. the paramattha dhammas), while for others this seems to be the most addled and nonsensical way of understanding things. We talked about how such tendencies either way are only a function of accumulations and how these different views just arise and continue to allow for the discussions we all read here. We discussed how the considering and comparing of views allows for an ongoing study of the Dhamma, no matter what the view being examined. I'm sure there was more, but I think that is the gist. Perhaps when Jon has time (in a week or so) he can add or clarify anything. As I mentioned at the beginning, it is very pleasant to discuss the Dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. #90089 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. dhammanusarin Hello Sarah (Han, Sukin),- I like this idea of Dhamma discussion with no "books". It takes me much less time to do. >T: The important point I've made is that you can discuss 'not self' without looking too far to "ultimate realities and no beings". S: This is where I beg to differ. Without understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities, I don't believe the anatta characteristic can be known, for it is the anatta characteristic of such ultimate realities. T: That is a reverse logic, Sarah. You CAN get plenty of the sutta Teachings about how to abandon self-identification view through understanding of the Four Noble Truths, e.g. MN 2, with no reference to the theories of the paramattha dhammas. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta alone is sufficient for anyone to get to know the anatta characteristic, without "understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities". Ultimate realities are like a sore tooth in your mouth. .... >T: Yes, that is correct. The Sotapanna puggala, who has abandoned personality/ self-identificat ion views, does not have attavadupadana (clinging in the aggregates). S: Just a clarification - attavadupadana does not mean 'clinging in the aggregates' or 'clinging to the khandhas'. A sotapanna has eradicated all idea of atta but there is still plenty of clinging to the aggregates. T: Here is another clarification. There are four upadanas (sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging); 'attavadupadana' is doctrine of self clinging. The Sotapanna does not have self identification in the khandhas, i.e. no attavadupadana. S/he does not have precept & practice clinging either, but still has sensuality clinging and part of view clinging that is related to conceit. I stand to be corrected ! ............ .. S: As for the article, it's very long (and I apologise for all for not trimming it out as I'd intended in my reply to you). I'd rather you give a brief summary of your own for me to respond to or one para at a time to discuss further, perhaps with Han and other book-less partners:-). T: Very long? No, the quote is just one part of the whole article. Since you've avoided the responsibility to read just the quoted portion of the article, then I don't have anything more to say or to discuss. Others who want to read this excellent article for their benefit, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. What is the use of Tep spoon-feeding grown-up and smart DSG members? They are not my babies. ;-) Tep === #90090 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How what we do affects others (or doesn't) sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Scott), --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Phil wrote: >....before I post any of the sutta passages that to me clearly point at our affecting other beings, could I ask you or anyone else to point me towards some threads where this has been discussed before so I can read up? Thanks! .... S: I thought Scott wrote a beautiful response (as you said) and I'll look forward to your further discussion together as well. You could also try U.P. under: - People - visible object - Doing - Anatta and then follow any of the threads of interest. Metta, Sarah ============ #90091 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:37 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See ... Sound of Silence .. hantun1 Dear Howard, > > Howard: Han, I would guess that your friend engages in Goenka-style, body-sweeping meditation. When that is done a great deal and regularly, one does experience rising & falling, "particulate" energy sensations throughout the body. I would suppose that the mind might also create an auditory simulation to accompany that, though I haven't experienced that myself or heard of that. Han: That was some years back, before I took up study and practice seriously, and before Goenka meditation became popular in Burma. I do not know what type of meditation he practiced. But I think what Tep suggested and what you just suggested make sense. Respectfully, Han #90092 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:57 am Subject: Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. dhammanusarin Dear Sarah (Alex), - You seemed to have lots of energy today. --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tep wrote: >T: What does consciousness cognize? MN 43 says it cognizes the three kinds of feeelings. SN 22.79 says it cognizes tastes (sour, bitter, etc.) Putting 2 and 2 together we get 4. Vinnana cognizes the various rupa and nama through the sense doors. Does this make sense to you? .... S: Vinnana is the same as citta. It cognizes/experiences rupas, namas or concepts. Does this make sense? At this moment, numerous cittas are arising and falling away, experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways. Metta, Sarah ========= T: I observe that you are too ambitious/greedy in the Dhamma approach. To precisely experience even ONE kind of object through a single doorway at a given moment is difficult enough. Let alone "experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways" as you ambitiously suggesting. Tep === #90093 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Skype chat nilovg Dear Scott (and Tep), thank you very much for rendering your discussion with Jon on skype, very valuable. I hope for more of the same. I highlight what I found especially good. Recently, Tep asked me to reconsider these things, ultimate truth, conventional truth. And yes, I think it is excellent material for the non-book discussion group started by Sarah and Tep :-)) I can add that the point Sutta versus Abhidhamma is also a topic that recurs all the time on dsg, as you kow. As I was studying the Book of Analysis and comparing the way the four Truths are dealt with here with the Suttanta way, I especially found helpful what Iggleden said in the intro to the Book of Analysis: the Abhidhamma is directed to the practice. Again, no contradiction but a different way of treatment. Also the suttas remind us to be aware now, but the details given in the Abhidhamma are most valuable. Not theory (as some people think, unfortunately), but always directed to satipatthana now. Nina. Op 13-sep-2008, om 15:16 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > We discussed how, for some (like me) > it seems perfectly obvious that one can live in a conventional world, > see trees and people, *and* understand (intellectually) that the > Dhamma teaches that the way things really are is much different (i.e. > the paramattha dhammas), while for others this seems to be the most > addled and nonsensical way of understanding things. #90094 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Alex), You wrote to Alex: --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Tep wrote: T:> In your opinion do you think the following sutta states that jhana is a requisite for Nibbana? I think it does. There are other suttas on Nibbana (that I recently posted here) that also give the same message. SN 9.11 Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta : I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm. Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse: From inappropriate attention you're being chewed by your thoughts. Relinquishing what's inappropriate, contemplate appropriately. Keeping your mind on the Teacher, the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues, you will arrive at joy, rapture, pleasure without doubt. Then, saturated with joy, you will put an end to suffering & stress. The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses. .... S: Why do you think this is stating that "jhana is a requisite for Nibbana"? Wouldn't the attaining of enlightenment (usually) be with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt? (Of course, if it were with the higher jhanas as basis, it would be without joy and happiness.) Metta, Sarah ========= #90095 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Skype chat jonoabb Hi Scott A good summary. Nothing to add that I can think of just now. I enjoyed the chat, and am looking forward to another occasion. It's so easy with Skype. Happy to do it with any other member also (just email me off-list). Jon PS I don't have video as yet; will have to consider getting it. > Dear Sarah (and Jon) and All, > > I can try to summarize the conversation Jon and I had via the Skype > call if you wish. Mainly, I enjoyed it very much. I like to discuss > Dhamma. My summary will, obviously, include my ongoing > misunderstandings of things and be rather scatterd (apologies). And, > obviously, it was a conversation between like-minded people, which > means we agreed a lot. ;-) ... > #90096 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Re: Persons are Not Persons (Re: [dsg] Re: Getting comfort from deep teaching... nilovg Dear Scott, I just reread your letter to Phil, and I find it very helpful. It is a good topic to consider and discuss. Nina. Op 11-sep-2008, om 14:07 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > The fact remains, for me, that while in the ultimate sense there is no > doer and no experiencer, kusala develops with the concept of 'other' > in mind. True kindness develops because one thinks of 'other' and > because one thinks one acts in relation to 'others', but one doesn't > have to forget that, no matter how real the illusion seems, the depth > of the Dhamma would have it that no 'other' is to be found. I don't > think that the way I understand this can be transferred to you by me - > and I'm not saying I'm right, its just the way I understand things and > this is conditioned. Just as Naomi can't keep you from the internet > even when you ask her. We are all alone in the end. > > What underlies the wish to have an effect on someone? Why should one > necessarily seek to get comfort? What sort of arbitrator of truth is > whether or not the Dhamma is 'comfortable'? Who seeks 'comfort'? #90097 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- On Sat, 13/9/08, Tep wrote: T:> You seemed to have lots of energy today. .... S: And like Han, I wish you and all in Texas a safe hurricane. While you keep posting, we know all is well! There was a big typhoon/hurricane in Hong Kong recently which we were luckily away for. ... --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tep wrote: >S: Vinnana is the same as citta. It cognizes/experience s rupas, namas or concepts. Does this make sense? At this moment, numerous cittas are arising and falling away, experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways. .... >T: I observe that you are too ambitious/greedy in the Dhamma approach. To precisely experience even ONE kind of object through a single doorway at a given moment is difficult enough. Let alone "experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways" as you ambitiously suggesting. ... S: Just to quickly clarify a couple of points here: 1. Whether or not we have ever heard the Dhamma, whether or not there is any panna or sati arising at all, still there are cittas (vinnana) arising and falling away, one after the other, experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways (with bhavanga cittas (vinnana too) in between, to be a little more precise). 2. To appreciate that this is so at the pariyatti level, as taught to us by the Buddha, is not to suggest that there is any direct understanding of all these various cittas arising one after the other. You and Alex were discussing what the texts say about vinnana and in particular, the objects of vinnana. I was just adding a comment to indicate that there is no instant when citta/vinnana is not arising and that anything can be its object. Of course, you are praising the Buddha's wisdom when you point out that even knowing one object, one reality appearing now through a single doorway is "difficult enough". Metta, Sarah ========== #90098 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana dhammanusarin Dear Sarah and Alex, - Thank you very much for commenting on the most relevent issue underlying the main part of the Buddha's Teachings. >Sarah: Why do you think this is stating that "jhana is a requisite for Nibbana"? T: Because of this sentence in the quoted sutta: "Then, saturated with joy, you will put an end to suffering & stress.". >S: Wouldn't the attaining of enlightenment (usually) be with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt? (Of course, if it were with the higher jhanas as basis, it would be without joy and happiness.) T: Yes, you can say "the attaining of enlightenment (usually)" is "with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt". BTW, what are you trying to correct, expand, or disagree? Tep === #90099 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:14 am Subject: Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. dhammanusarin Dear Sarah, - > S: And like Han, I wish you and all in Texas a safe hurricane. While you keep posting, we know all is well! There was a big typhoon/hurricane in Hong Kong recently which we were luckily away for. > ... T: Thank you for the kind thought. You're right that my town is not in danger now, except for the inconveniences like thunder storm, non- stopping rains, and one electric power cut-off so far. > >T: I observe that you are too ambitious/greedy in the Dhamma > approach. To precisely experience even ONE kind of object through a > single doorway at a given moment is difficult enough. Let > alone "experiencing all kinds of objects through different door- ways" as you're ambitiously suggesting. > ... > S: Just to quickly clarify a couple of points here: > > 1. Whether or not we have ever heard the Dhamma, whether or not there is any panna or sati arising at all, still there are cittas (vinnana) arising and falling away, one after the other, experiencing all kinds of objects through different door-ways (with bhavanga cittas (vinnana too) in between, to be a little more precise). > > 2. To appreciate that this is so at the pariyatti level, as taught to us by the Buddha, is not to suggest that there is any direct understanding of all these various cittas arising one after the other. > > You and Alex were discussing what the texts say about vinnana and in particular, the objects of vinnana. I was just adding a comment to indicate that there is no instant when citta/vinnana is not arising and that anything can be its object. > > Of course, you are praising the Buddha's wisdom when you point out that even knowing one object, one reality appearing now through a single doorway is "difficult enough". > ........ Okay, Sarah. The clarification is clear. Concerning "understanding nama-rupa appearing now", would you feel comfortable enough to discuss the Vism, XVIII, 5-8 in contrast with Khun Sujin's idea? Thanking you in advance, Tep === #90100 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:17 am Subject: Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment nidive Hi Howard, > I recall recently some discussions on DSG about dreams. Suan > initiated the topic, having spoken of an insightful dream he had > had. I recall some folks here dismissing dreams as a source of > insight. Well, last night I had a dream. It was an ordinary dream > as regards the content - one involving "everyday events." But in > the dream, I was thwarted by conditions, and the same old anger of > years ago flared up, with, of course, the same old suffering that > anger always engenders. In my opinion, this is not insight. If this were insight, you would have realized the escape from anger. All it did was to jolt you from your delusion that you had your anger well under control. Nothing special here, since dreams are sometimes the best reflection of your latent defilements. An anagami no longer has angry dreams and a sotapanna no longer has nightmarish dreams. May we all have happy and peaceful dreams. Swee Boon #90101 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:19 am Subject: Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment abhidhammika Dear Howard, Sarah, Nina, Scott, Mike N How are you? Howard wrote: " I awakened quickly from the dream and immediately "looked" my state of mind directly in its face. The anger rapidly faded as a result of this attention, but two things were left in its wake: 1) the insight that unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted, and 2) a disappointment with regard to that hanging on, a disappointment which needs to simply be accepted, let go of, and moved on from." Your dream could be regarded a wake-up-call dream as it let you do a reality-check regarding your progress in formal development of the Noble Eightfold Path, which involves reduction in unhealthy mental associates (akusala dhammaa). A serious matter you (and Mike) need to remember, though, is that anusaya phenomena do not exit. The reason that they are called anusaya phenomena is only to show that similar conditions produce regular outcomes. In the case of your dream, some (undisclosed) conditions produced anger, a regular outcome. Regarding disappointment you experienced as the result of your dream- made insight, it could be merely a domanassa (a bad feeling) because any mental event with anger arises together wih a bad feeling (domanassasahagatam, anger comes together with a bad feeling), which is a teaching of abhidhamma. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > I awakened quickly from the dream and immediately "looked" my state of mind directly in its face. The anger rapidly faded as a result of this attention, but two things were left in its wake: 1) the insight that unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted, and 2) a disappointment with regard to that hanging on, a disappointment which needs to simply be accepted, let go of, and moved on from. #90102 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > S: Yes, 'tree' is a mental label and it is due to sanna that there >is this idea of 'tree' at all. The function of sanna is to mark and >perceive (or remember) each object that is experienced at every >moment, whether that object be a reality or a 'mental label' or >idea, as in the case of 'tree'. >Why is the idea of tree? Because last time someone tried to walk into one, someone got a bruised head. >It is because sanna has marked and remembered visible objects and >other realities over and over again, marked them and remembered what >is identified (through thinking) as 'tree'. That worldly sanna has taught others not to do. > .... > A:> Matter, rupa, rupakhanda does exist as a fact of > experience regardless of how you call it. > .... > S: This is correct and as you suggest, the name is not important. >So what is important though, is to distinguish the characterisitic >of rupa, the characteristic of sanna and the characteristic of >thinking, for example. Yes the characteristics are anicca, dukkha, anatta. Sarah, have you reached anicca-nana? >At the moment of experiencing visible object or hardness, say, sanna >just marks that particular characteristic and there's no idea (even >without words) of 'tree'. > ... > A: I wouldn't want to check the non-existence, the voidness, the >absence of self, the great sunnata of trees the hard way and neither >would you. > ... > S: Trees are 'non-existent', so we can't talk about their having >(or not-having) any characteristics. > ... > A:Talking about results, goal (liberation) isn't changing the >topic. It IS the topic of central importance in Buddha-Dhamma. > .... Sarah, with all due respect, all of this sounds like a sophism to me. While I 100% agree with trees being impermanent and conditioned phenomena, I do not agree that calling trees "non-existent" is very useful. But then who am I to tell this too and what and to whom is this being said? Which nana have you reached, and do you have any tips on how to reach them? > S: Without understanding the first two NTs, we'll never understand >anything about the third NT. Those truths, are more of "value" statements rather than ontological propositions. 5 aggregates to be known are primary to be known from anicca-dukkha-anatta perspective. I am yet to find (or I may have overlooked, or perhaps due to bad translations) references to objects being empty of any sort of existence, even conditioned & temporary one. > ... > A:> "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress....In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. > 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended' > http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn56/sn56. 011.than. html > > >Note the emphasis is on Dukkha. Not the ultimate existence or non- > existence. > ... > S: I note the emphasis on the 5 upadana-khandhas as dukkha. The >khandhas are ultimate realities and it is these that are dukkha. Not >trees! Khandas are conditioned, dependently arisen and thus aren't "ultimate" in any sense of that word. Furthermore the sutta evidence points to the fact that 5 khandas were/are non-Buddhist teaching as well. So there is nothing buddhist per se in teaching 5 khandas. What is Buddha-Dhamma is to let go off any clinging towards them and let go any inclinations toward sakkayaditthi, kamaraga, aversion and so on. > .... > >>S: What is sanna now, for example? > > I think the better questions should be: > "Is there any greed, aversion or delusion regarding sanna?" > .... > S: If we don't understand what these ultimate realities are, how would we have any idea whether there is any greed, aversion or delusion regarding them? > I believe that the focus should be on anatta & letting go off fetters (sakkayaditthi being one of many) not on "emptiness of any existence of trees and such" > This is why we need to consider carefully. Without sanna arising at >each moment, marking its object, we wouldn't be having this >discussion. We live in a world of our own thinking about trees and >people, but don't realise that it is sanna recalling, remembering >and making such ideas and fantasies possible. Of course, there can >be atta-sanna or anatta-sanna, sanna with wrong understanding of >self and sanna with right understanding of non-self while such >recalling and remembering occurs. >>>> This sounds like solipsism. Can you please tell me how it isn't so? Best wishes, Alex #90103 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. truth_aerator Hello Sarah, Tep and all, >---sarah abbott wrote: >S: Vinnana is the same as citta. It cognizes/experience s rupas, namas >or concepts. Does this make sense? At this moment, numerous cittas are >arising and falling away, experiencing all kinds of objects through >different door-ways. Sarah, do you directly percieve this? Are you talking from your direct perception? Could you please describe the direct perception of this and how one trains to make this nana happen ? Best wishes, Alex #90104 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana truth_aerator Hello Sarah, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > .... > S: Why do you think this is stating that "jhana is a requisite for >Nibbana"? > >Wouldn't the attaining of enlightenment (usually) be with joy, >happiness and always, of course, without doubt? (Of course, if it >were with the higher jhanas as basis, it would be without joy and >happiness.) While it is true regarding path moment being similiar to Jhana, the fact remains that *additional* jhana practice is required beforehand. It may be a week (as in a case of Ven. MahaMoggallana) or 2 weeks as in the case of Ven. Sariputta (mn111) depending on the strength of the faculties. It is heretical to assume that one is more capable and has better faculties than those giants! Neyya & Padaparama induviduals have to do MORE, not less than highest two types. I'll take advice of "Ugghatitannu & Vipancitannu" induvidials over the lower two, and assume that a harder and longer training is required. Best wishes, Alex #90105 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana truth_aerator Hello Tep, >---"Tep" wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Alex, - > > Thank you very much for commenting on the most relevent issue > underlying the main part of the Buddha's Teachings. > > >Sarah: Why do you think this is stating that "jhana is a requisite > for Nibbana"? > > T: Because of this sentence in the quoted sutta: "Then, saturated > with joy, you will put an end to suffering & stress.". > > >S: Wouldn't the attaining of enlightenment (usually) be with joy, > happiness and > always, of course, without doubt? (Of course, if it were with the > higher jhanas > as basis, it would be without joy and happiness.) > > T: Yes, you can say "the attaining of enlightenment (usually)" > is "with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt". > > BTW, what are you trying to correct, expand, or disagree? > > > Tep > === I can't speak for Sarah, but I have a nagging feeling that she implies that the only Jhana (or meditation) that is required is the path moment one, right before achieving awakening. This may be right in context of Ugghatitannu induvidials like Ven. Sariputta & Ven. MahaMoggallana becoming a stream enterer on hearing the short line of Dhamma - but not for neyya or padaparama induvidials. I can say with total assurance that unless we are all here stream- enterers, we aren't Ugghatitannu or Vipancitannu induvidials. Bhavana has to be developed MUCH more, at least for good 7 days to 7 years (mn10) perhaps. If there are no results after 7 years, then there are some options: a) Improper practice (lack of diligence, effort, mindfulness, view, virtue, etc) Ananda had all the capabilities to become an Arahant. But he became one only when the Buddha has passed away and only when Ananda could practice without all the responcibilities that he had for 20 years or so. b) Bad kammic causes and/or person being Padaparama. Considering that the only thing that can be done now regarding B is A (to sow good seeds for the next life), we can and should talk about proper practice and without being fundamentalists DSG-style regarding words such as "practice & meditation" . Best wishes, Alex #90106 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How what we do affects others (or doesn't) buddhatrue --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott Hi Sarah and all wrote: > > Hi Phil (& Scott), > >> .... > S: I thought Scott wrote a beautiful response (as you said) and I'll look forward to your further discussion together as well. > > You could also try U.P. under: > > - People > - visible object > - Doing > - Anatta > and then follow any of the threads of interest. Ph: Thanks. Hey, guess who's sitting in the living talking to Naomi right now! James! He was stranded at Narita because of a typhoon in Taiwan and I went out and met him and brought him to our place. Metta, Phil #90107 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Hello Alex and Sarah, - This on-going discussion is pretty good. > Alex: While I 100% agree with trees being impermanent and conditioned phenomena, I do not agree that calling trees "non- existent" is very useful. But then who am I to tell this too and what and to whom is this being said? > >S: I note the emphasis on the 5 upadana-khandhas as dukkha. The >khandhas are ultimate realities and it is these that are dukkha. Not >trees! >A: Khandas are conditioned, dependently arisen and thus aren't "ultimate" in any sense of that word. Furthermore the sutta evidence points to the fact that 5 khandas were/are non-Buddhist teaching as well. So there is nothing buddhist per se in teaching 5 khandas. What is Buddha-Dhamma is to let go off any clinging towards them and let go any inclinations toward sakkayaditthi, kamaraga, aversion and so on. T: Alex, it is clear that Sarah is not realistic with real-life conditions. Her house was built from wood and mortar and other building materials. Trees were cut to make the construction materials for her house building and for furniture making, etc. In the same vein, the five khandhas are the building components for Sarah's body and mind. Sarah knows very well that she has to maintain the house that she is living in as well as maintain her body and developing right mental attitude for day-to-day living in peace. All this is enough to prove that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah are impermanent, and whatever is impermanent is dukkha, and whatever is dukkha it should not be for Sarah to cling to as 'this is mine', 'this is me', "that is my self'. That is exactly the meaning of letting go that you are talking about. But Sarah may not know it yet. Give her more time. ;-)) Tep === #90108 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana .. Hopeless proposition .. dhammanusarin Hi Alex (Sarah), - Your hopeless proposition below is not for me, Alex. > Alex: > I can't speak for Sarah, but I have a nagging feeling that she > implies that the only Jhana (or meditation) that is required is the > path moment one, right before achieving awakening. > > This may be right in context of Ugghatitannu induvidials like Ven. > Sariputta & Ven. MahaMoggallana becoming a stream enterer on hearing the short line of Dhamma - but not for neyya or padaparama > individuals. > T: I do not believe in the gloomy theory behind neyya or padaparama puggalas. I do not give up hope to abandon the first three fetters in this life, no matter how little time I have left to live. >A: > I can say with total assurance that unless we are all here stream- > enterers, we aren't Ugghatitannu or Vipancitannu induvidials. > > Bhavana has to be developed MUCH more, at least for good 7 days to 7 years (mn10) perhaps. > ... ... > Considering that the only thing that can be done now regarding B is A (to sow good seeds for the next life), we can and should talk about > proper practice and without being fundamentalists DSG-style > regarding words such as "practice & meditation" . > ............. T: Forget about the theory about this and that, let's give attention and zeal(chanda) with determination to train mindfulness faculty right now. Read the following Ptsm, IV, 10. The origin of adverting with the purpose of establishing is the origin of the mindfulness faculty. The origin of zeal through the influence of the establishing is the origin of the mindfulness faculty. The origin of attention through the influence of the establishing is the origin of the mindfulness faculty. The establishment in unity through the influence of the mindfulness faculty is the origin of the mindfulness faculty. Upatthaanatthaaya aavajjanaaya samudayo satindriyassa samudayohoti, Upatthaanavasena chandassa samudayo satindriyassa samudayo hoti, Upatthaanavasena manasikaarassa samudayo satindriyassa samudayo hoti, Satindriyassa vasena ekattupatthaanam satindriyassa samudayo hoti. ------------------------------ Reading and pondering over and over this paragraph, I've learned deeper than ever before. For example, I have learned that sati arises only when there is advertion (aavajjana) for the purpose of estblishing sati (on a frame of reference). With the establishing of sati by adverting, the other two dhammas, zeal and attention, also arise to support (as origin or nutriment for) the faculty of mindfulness. In other words, without turning the mind to establish sati with chanda and manasikara (on a frame of reference) there is no mindfulness faculty. Then the mindfulness faculty is sustained when there is "unity" among the five faculties. The same group of dhammas(i.e. adverting the mind, zeal, attention, establishment in unity of the five faculties) is applicable for the development of the other four faculties (saddha, viriya, samadhi, panna). The above understanding gives me a solid hope, Alex. Tep === #90109 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana .. Hopeless proposition .. truth_aerator Hi Tep (and Sarah), >--- "Tep" wrote: > > Hi Alex (Sarah), - > > Your hopeless proposition below is not for me, Alex. 7 days of satipatthana can can bring one up to Arhatship isn't gloomy. I thought I've said that. > >A: > > I can say with total assurance that unless we are all here stream- > > enterers, we aren't Ugghatitannu or Vipancitannu induvidials. > > > > Bhavana has to be developed MUCH more, at least for good 7 days >to > 7 years (mn10) perhaps. The U&V induvidials are said to be able to reach stream through mere hearing and pondering. The co's state that neyya induvidials can reach awakening from 7 days of practice. This isn't gloomy. While it isn't as good as almost instant stream , it is still very good. > T: I do not believe in the gloomy theory behind neyya or padaparama > puggalas. I do not give up hope to abandon the first three fetters >in this life, no matter how little time I have left to live. And not just 3 fetters perhaps more as well. Best wishes, Alex #90110 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Alex, and Sarah, - Regarding: "...All this is enough to prove that trees are real..." Scott: 'Trees' are naama. Colour (visible object) and hardness are ruupa. Sincerely, Scott. #90111 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 9/13/2008 11:17:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: Hi Howard, > I recall recently some discussions on DSG about dreams. Suan > initiated the topic, having spoken of an insightful dream he had > had. I recall some folks here dismissing dreams as a source of > insight. Well, last night I had a dream. It was an ordinary dream > as regards the content - one involving "everyday events." But in > the dream, I was thwarted by conditions, and the same old anger of > years ago flared up, with, of course, the same old suffering that > anger always engenders. In my opinion, this is not insight. If this were insight, you would have realized the escape from anger. All it did was to jolt you from your delusion that you had your anger well under control. Nothing special here, since dreams are sometimes the best reflection of your latent defilements. An anagami no longer has angry dreams and a sotapanna no longer has nightmarish dreams. May we all have happy and peaceful dreams. Swee Boon =========================== I believe there are degrees and levels of insight. It's not all "magical," but even when quite ordinary it can be very useful. With metta, Howard #90112 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and all) - In a message dated 9/13/2008 11:19:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@... writes: Dear Howard, Sarah, Nina, Scott, Mike N How are you? Howard wrote: " I awakened quickly from the dream and immediately "looked" my state of mind directly in its face. The anger rapidly faded as a result of this attention, but two things were left in its wake: 1) the insight that unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted, and 2) a disappointment with regard to that hanging on, a disappointment which needs to simply be accepted, let go of, and moved on from." Your dream could be regarded a wake-up-call dream as it let you do a reality-check regarding your progress in formal development of the Noble Eightfold Path, which involves reduction in unhealthy mental associates (akusala dhammaa). --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a wake-up call. ------------------------------------------- A serious matter you (and Mike) need to remember, though, is that anusaya phenomena do not exit. The reason that they are called anusaya phenomena is only to show that similar conditions produce regular outcomes. In the case of your dream, some (undisclosed) conditions produced anger, a regular outcome. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I think I follow you, and if I do, then I agree. Past actions at the very time of their occurrence serve as "inclinations" towards future reactions when other triggering conditions arise. But with eventual full awakening, that will no longer be so - and that could be metaphorically called the "exiting" of the underlying inclinations. ------------------------------------------------ Regarding disappointment you experienced as the result of your dream- made insight, it could be merely a domanassa (a bad feeling) because any mental event with anger arises together wih a bad feeling (domanassasahagatam, anger comes together with a bad feeling), which is a teaching of abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Possibly, though I think that Sarah (was it Sarah?) was right in saying that the disappointment was due to ego. ------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org =========================== With metta, Howard #90113 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How what we do affects others (or doesn't) upasaka_howard Hi, James, Phil, and Naomi - In a message dated 9/13/2008 12:30:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott Hi Sarah and all wrote: > > Hi Phil (& Scott), > >> .... > S: I thought Scott wrote a beautiful response (as you said) and I'll look forward to your further discussion together as well. > > You could also try U.P. under: > > - People > - visible object > - Doing > - Anatta > and then follow any of the threads of interest. Ph: Thanks. Hey, guess who's sitting in the living talking to Naomi right now! James! He was stranded at Narita because of a typhoon in Taiwan and I went out and met him and brought him to our place. Metta, Phil =============================== Hey, cool!! :-) My best to you all!!! With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #90114 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... ksheri3 Hi Sarah, Why I wrote to you saying how I enjoyed this post is because of the way you viewed things, rupas, tangible objects and anything tangible. > Yes, 'tree' is a mental label colette: do you realize how difficult it is for people to simply realize and accept that everything is nothing more than a label that another person placed upon something and all the individual does is maintain another person's point of view. It's like a "post hypnotic suggestion" or a suggestion when a student is in the hypnotic state during their cramming for mid-term exams and final exams, they are open to suggestion and very easily mislead. But Miss Direction and Miss America are sisters and part of the same sorrority. "The function of sanna is to mark and perceive (or remember) each object that is experienced at every moment, whether that object be a reality or a 'mental label' or idea, as in the case of 'tree'. " colette: why don't you come right out and say that this same function that you give to sanna is the exact definition of "Conditioning" in the Abhidhamma? I wouldn't want to detract from the beauty of this definition however if my interpretation is too awkward for you and our readers. There, now I've started the process and have not forgotten about you. Your note to me jogged my memory a bit too, thanx. At least now I've got the correct post I wanted to comment on and I've begun commenting. toodles, colette #90115 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Dear Scott, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Alex, and Sarah, - > > Regarding: > > "...All this is enough to prove that trees are real..." > > Scott: 'Trees' are naama. Colour (visible object) and hardness are ruupa. > Wrong, Scott. Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention â€" these are called mentality(naama). See MN 9 Sammaditthi Sutta. Tep === #90116 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana .. Hopeless proposition .. dhammanusarin Hi Alex, - Sorry for the misunderstanding. > A: > 7 days of satipatthana can can bring one up to Arhatship isn't gloomy. > I thought I've said that. > I thought that you wrote : "Considering that the only thing that can be done now regarding B is A (to sow good seeds for the next life), ..." for people who did not make it within 7 years. Tep === #90117 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Scott, and Sarah) - In a message dated 9/13/2008 6:17:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Dear Scott, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Alex, and Sarah, - > > Regarding: > > "...All this is enough to prove that trees are real..." > > Scott: 'Trees' are naama. Colour (visible object) and hardness are ruupa. > Wrong, Scott. Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention â€" these are called mentality(naama). See MN 9 Sammaditthi Sutta. Tep ============================ Scott says trees are nama. But namas are knowings of one sort or another, and trees are not knowings. They are merely known (via mind sense). Sarah says trees are mental labels. But that is also untrue. It is 'tree' (or the underlying thinking) that is a mental label, not any actual tree. Any actual tree is a type of trans-temporal collection of interrelated rupas. Being a collection, it is actually neither nama nor rupa, though what it consists of is nothing but rupas. The activity identifying a tree is namic - specifically, recognizing it is sa~n~na, and characterizing it as "tree" is the sankharic operation of thinking. But, again, what it consists of is rupas. With metta, Howard P. S. A tree and all of its components and all of the knowings of it and its components are contingent, utterly dependent phenomena - empty of own-being. #90118 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:10 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. hantun1 Dear Tep and Sarah, I am interested in the following conversation: ------------------------------ Tep: The important point I've made is that you can discuss 'not self' without looking too far to "ultimate realities and no beings". Sarah: This is where I beg to differ. Without understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities, I don't believe the anatta characteristic can be known, for it is the anatta characteristic of such ultimate realities. Tep: That is a reverse logic, Sarah. You CAN get plenty of the sutta Teachings about how to abandon self-identification view through understanding of the Four Noble Truths, e.g. MN 2, with no reference to the theories of the paramattha dhammas. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta alone is sufficient for anyone to get to know the anatta characteristic, without "understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities". Ultimate realities are like a sore tooth in your mouth. ------------------------------ Han: I fully agree with Tep that Anatta-lakkhana Sutta alone is sufficient for anyone to get to know the anatta characteristic, without understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities. In the above sutta, the Buddha mentioned about the anatta nature of the five aggregates. If the five aggregates are interpreted as the ultimate realities appearing now, I have nothing more to say. For me, when the Buddha said five aggregates, I only see five aggregates (ruupa, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sankhaara, vi~n~naana), each as a whole in their respective identity, and not as the ultimate realities appearing now. For those who see more deeply, I have only my admiration for them. Han #90119 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: "Wrong, Scott." Scott: Not so fast please, Tep. T: "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention" these are called mentality(naama)." Scott: A 'tree' is construed long after seeing consciousness sees form (or visible object/colour). A 'tree' grows in the mind, as it were. This is why I consider a 'tree' to be naama (and colour and hardness to be ruupa). A very important distinction. Consider SN 95(2) Maalu"nkyaputta: "What do you think, Maalu"nkyaputta, do you have any desire, lust, or affection for those forms cognizable by the eye that you have not seen and never saw before, that you do not see and would not think might be seen?" "No, venerable sir." "...Here, Maalu"nkyaputta, regarding things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by you: in the seen there will be merely the seen; in the heard there will be merely the heard; in the sensed there will be merely the sensed; in the cognized there will be merely the cognized. "When, Maalu"kyaputta, regarding things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by you, in the seen there will be merely the seen, in the heard there will be merely the heard, in the sensed there will be merely the sensed, in the cognized there will be merely the cognized, then, Maalu"nkyaputta, you are not 'by that,' then you will not be 'therein.' When, Maalu"nkyaputta, you are not 'therein,' then you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. This itself is the end of suffering."* "I understand in detail, venerable sir, the meaning of what was stated by the Blessed One in brief: "Having seen a form with mindfulness muddled, Attending to the pleasing sign, One experiences it with infatuated mind And remains tightly holding to it. "Many feelings flourish within, Originating from visible form, Covetousness and annoyance as well By which one's mind becomes disturbed. For one who accumulates suffering thus Nibbaana is said to be far away... "When, firmly mindful, one sees a form, One is not inflamed by lust for forms; One experiences it with dispassionate mind And does not remain holding it tightly. "One fares mindfully in such a way That even as one sees the form, And while one undergoes a feeling, [Suffering] is exhausted, not built up For one dismantling suffering thus, Nibbaana is said to be close by... "When, firmly mindful, one knows an object, One is not inflamed by lust for objects;... For one diminishing suffering thus Nibbaana is said to be close by." Scott: *The invaluable commentary is to follow... Sincerely, Scott. #90120 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 7 day long meditation session Thig 3.2 truth_aerator Hi Tep and all, >--- "Tep" wrote: > > Hi Alex, - > > Sorry for the misunderstanding. > > > A: > > 7 days of satipatthana can can bring one up to Arhatship isn't >gloomy. I thought I've said that. > > > > I thought that you wrote : "Considering that the only thing that >can be > done now regarding B is A (to sow good seeds for the next >life), ..." > for people who did not make it within 7 years. > > Tep > === The correct and ardent practice can give results in 7 days or even less. Furthermore, bhavana IS one of the best if not the best merit making activity out there (not to mention liberation). Here is inspiring (to me at least) poem from Therigatha: ================================================================= Four times, five, I ran amok from my dwelling, having gained no peace of awareness, my thoughts out of control. So I went to a trustworthy nun. She taught me the Dhamma: aggregates, sense spheres, & elements. Hearing the Dhamma, I did as she said. For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.03.02.than.html I wonder what "ranning amok from my dwelling" means. Regarding being absorbed in "rapture & bliss" for 7 days strait, it sounds like 1st or 2nd Jhana. 7 days in meditation. WOW! Best wishes, Alex #90121 From: "connie" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. nichiconn Dear Sarah, Tep, T: Concerning "understanding nama-rupa appearing now", would you feel comfortable enough to discuss the Vism, XVIII, 5-8 in contrast with Khun Sujin's idea? c: in the interests of avoiding having one of you break a rule I haven't agreed to, the extract from The Path of Purification follows. peace, connie Vism, XVIII, 5-8: [b. Starting with Materiality] But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the Definition of the Four Elements (Ch.XI,§27ff.). Then when the elements have become clear in their correct essential characteristics, firstly, in the case of head hair originated by kamma there become plain ten instances of materiality (ruupaani) with the body decad thus: the four elements and colour, odour, flavour, nutritive essence, and life, and body-sensitivity. And because the sex decad is present there too there are another ten [that is the same nine with sex instead of body-sensitivity]. And since the octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth [that is the same nine with sex instead of essence-as-eighth [that is, the four elements and colour, odour, flavour, and nutritive-essence,] originated by nutriment, and that originated by temperature, and that originated by consciousness are present there too, there are another twenty-four. So there is a total of forty-four instances of materiality in the case of each of the twenty-four bodily parts of fourfold origination. But in the case of the four, namely, sweat, tears, spittle, and snot, {5} which are originated by temperature and by consciousness, there are sixteen instances of materiality with the two octads-with-nutritive-essences-as-eighth in each. In the case of the four, namely, gorge, dung, pus, and urine, which are originated by temperature, eight instances of materiality become plain in each with the octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth in what is originated only by temperature. This in the first place is the method in the case of the thirty-two bodily aspects. There are seven kinds of decads: those of the physical basis of mind (heart), sex, living physical eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. The first nine components of a decad are the same in all instances, and by themselves they are called the 'life ennead'. The first eight components by themselves are called the 'octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth'. This octad plus sound is called the 'sound ennead'. In general these are called 'material groups (ruupa kalaapa)'. But this kind of 'group (kalaapa)' has nothing to do with the 'comprehension by groups (kalaapa-sammasana)' of Ch.XX, which is simply generalization (from one's own particular experience to each of the five aggregates as past, etc., i.e. as a 'group'). The 'material groups' are not in the Pi.takas. 6. But there are ten more aspects {6} that become clear when those thirty-two aspects have become clear. And as regards these, firstly nine instances of materiality, that is, the octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth plus life, become plain in the case of the kamma-born part of heat (fire) that digests what is eaten, etc., and likewise nine [instances of materiality], that is, the octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth plus sound, in the case of the consciousness-born part [of air consisting] of in-breaths and out-breaths; and thirty-three instances of materiality, that is, the [kamma-born] life-ennead and three octads-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth, in the case of each of the remaining eight [parts] that are fourfold origination. 7. And when these instances of materiality derived [by clinging] from the primaries have thus become plain in detail in the case of these forty-two aspects, [that is, 32 parts of the body, 4 modes of fire and 6 modes of air,] another sixty instances of materiality become plain with the physical [heart] basis and the [five] sense doors, that is, with the heart-basis decad and the five decads beginning with the eye decad. Taking all these together under the characteristic of 'being 8. molested', he sees them as 'materiality'. When he has discerned materiality thus, the immaterial states become plain to him in accordance with the sense doors, that is to say, the eighty-one kinds {7} of mundane consciousness consisting of the two sets of five consciousness ((34)-(38) and (50)-(54)), the three kinds of mind element ((39), (55) and (70)) and the sixty-eight [589] kinds of mind-consciousness element; and then seven consciousness-concomitants, that is, (i)contact, feeling, perception, (ii) volition, (vii) life, (viii) steadiness of consciousness, and (xxx) attention, which are invariably conascent with all these consciousnesses. The supramundane kinds of consciousness, however, are not discernible either by one who is practising pure insight or by one whose vehicle is serenity because they are out of their reach. Taking all these immaterial states together under the characteristic of 'bending', he sees them as 'mentality'. This is how one [meditator] defines mentality-materiality in detail through the method of defining the four elements. ==== footnotes: {5} 'Because sweat, etc., arise owing to heat, fatigue etc., and owing to mental perturbation they are called "originated by temperature and by consciousness"'(Pm.745). {6} The ten are four aspect of the fire element and six aspects of the air element; what heats, what consumes, what burns up, what digests; up-going winds (or forces), down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in bowels, winds in the limbs, breaths. See Ch.XI,§37 and 82. {7} 'The exalted consciousness of the fine-material and immaterial spheres is only quite plain to one who has attained the attainments' (Pm.746). #90122 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings ... Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, The commentary: Note 75 (pp. 1410-1411, Bh. Bodhi's SN translation): "Spk gives a long explanation, which I translate here partly abridged: "In the form base, i.e., in what is seen by eye-consciousness, 'there will be merely the seen.' For eye-consciousness sees only form in form, not some essence that is permanent [read 'tree' - Scott], etc. So too for the remaining types of consciousness [Spk-p.t: i.e. for the javanas], there will be here merely the seen. Or alternatively: What is called 'the seen in the seen' is eye-consciousness, which means the cognizing of form in form. 'Merely' indicates the limit (mattaa ti pamaa.na.m_. It has merely the seen; thus 'merely the seen,' (an attribute of) the mind. The meaning is: 'My mind will be just a mere eye-consciousness.' This is what is meant: As eye-consciousness is not affected by lust, hatred, or delusion in relation to form that has come into range [thinking one sees a 'tree' - Scott], so the javana will be just like the mere eye-consciousness by being destitute of lust, etc. I will set up javana with just eye-consciousness as limit. I will not go beyond the limit and allow the mind to arise by way of lust, etc. So too for the heard and the sensed. The 'cognized' is the object cognized by the mind-door adverting (manodvaaraavajjana). In that cognized, 'merely cognized' is the adverting (consciousness) as the limit. As one does not become lustful, etc., by adverting, so I will set up my mind with adverting as the limit, not allowing it to arise by way of lust, etc. You will not be 'by that' (na tena): you will not be aroused by that lust, or irritated by that hatred, or deluded by that delusion. Then you will not be 'therein' (na tattha): When you are not aroused by that lust, etc., then 'you will not be therin' - bound attached, established in what is seen, heard, sensed, and cognized." Scott: Also, the above is a description of a process of impersonal dhammas, and although the conventional language used descriptively appears to describe a person doing a deliberate practise, this is not meant to be misunderstood in that fashion. Sincerely, Scott. #90123 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. truth_aerator Hello Scott, Sarah, Tep and all, While the word 'tree' itself is nama, what the word 'tree' points to IS rupa that is out there. "in the seen there will be merely the seen." does NOT have to imply idealism of some sort. As I understand Bahiya teaching, it is about sense-restraint. It is about not to being mesmerized & enchanted about sense objects. The fault lies not in the objects themselves but in lack of sense restraint, greed & aversion toward them. Again, the trees and walls do exist as fact of experience, hardness of which one shouldn't test. Best wishes, Alex #90124 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:00 pm Subject: Does only the contents of present momentary citta exist? truth_aerator Hi Scott and all, >--- "Scott" wrote: > "In the form base, i.e., in what is seen by eye- >consciousness, 'there will be merely the seen.' For eye- >consciousness sees only form in form, not some essence that is >permanent [read 'tree' - Scott], etc. So what? Physical trees are conditioned and impermanent - no fool is going to argue that. What the comy states doesn't refute the existence of matter. This is Theravada, not Yogacara/Cittamatra and definately not extremist Sautrantika-Yogacara. =============== "Sautrantika - yogacara of Dignaga - Dharmakirti branch was called by this name because of some special features of this subschool. The philosophers of this trend together with the Sautrantikas [alex: Abh is very close to Theravadin] of the Hinayana tradition taught that sensations contained an element of the real knowledge. But this position did not prevent some later representatives of this subschool (Prajnakaragupta, Ratnakirti) to be proponents of the extreme illusionism and solipsism (as well as of solipsism of this moment). The best example of such extreme idealistic ideas was the treatise of Ratnakirti (XI century) "Refutation of the existence of other minds" (Santanantara dusana). The logico-epistemological trend of Yogacara rejected the doctrine of alaya-vijnana but preserved the concept of vasanas, or "habitual force" (the notion designated the energy of habit which conditioned the intentions of mind to project its contents outward). The thinkers of this subschool were extreme nominalists and empiricists who underlined the theory of the momentary character of all existence and considered the contents of the present single perception (svalaksana) to be the only reality. http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara.html Does DSG teaches that only the present citta (along with its internal concomitants) is the reality? How is that substantially different from Sautrantika-Yogacara school? Best wishes, Alex #90125 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:01 pm Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See hantun1 Dear Sarah (and Tep), -------------------- > > Han: I thank you very much for your kind invitation to participate in your discussions. But I am not good at all in discussions. If I say something and if someone asks me some difficult question, I am at a loss and I become defensive. Not a healthy disposition for useful discussions. Once, Tep told me that I am like a teacher who would ask his students to study an article, and if the students ask some difficult questions I would say how would I know as I am not the author of the article. > Sarah: That's very funny :-)). -------------------- Han: It may be very funny for you, but I take it very seriously. I thank Tep for pointing out one of my weaknesses. Since then, I have been trying to correct that weakness. -------------------- > > Han: But I will see. If I can come in I will. But you will have to be patient with me for the above reasons. > Sarah: Likewise, you need to be patient with us! -------------------- Han: I will try my best to be patient with everybody, because I know that the opposite of patience, anger or aversion, is akusala. I have enough akusala for all the unwholesome deeds that I have committed in my life, and I would not like to accumulate some more when I am already with one foot in the grave. Respectfully, Han #90126 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "While the word 'tree' itself is nama, what the word 'tree' points to IS rupa that is out there." Scott: Almost correct. Since the word 'tree' is naama, and is that which springs to mind almost instantaneously after ruupa (visible object/colour) is seen (cognized) by eye-consciousness, the concept 'tree', complete with mental picture (thinking) is naama as well. With that amendment, we are totally in agreement. 'Tree' is naama; hardness/colour is ruupa. That which is called a 'tree', and which appears in the 'ignorant mind' as a remembered compact, consists of a complex of ruupa arising and falling away. Understanding the difference between naama and ruupa theoretically paves the way for sati-sampaja~n~na to know naama from ruupa. Sincerely, Scott. #90127 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:20 pm Subject: Rupa independent of citta nama. truth_aerator Dear Scott and all, Thak you for clarifications. >--- "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "While the word 'tree' itself is nama, what the word 'tree' >points to IS rupa that is out there." > > Scott: Almost correct. Since the word 'tree' is naama, and is that > which springs to mind almost instantaneously after ruupa (visible > object/colour) is seen (cognized) by eye-consciousness, the concept > 'tree', complete with mental picture (thinking) is naama as well. > > With that amendment, we are totally in agreement. > > 'Tree' is naama; hardness/colour is ruupa. That which is called a > 'tree', and which appears in the 'ignorant mind' as a remembered > compact, consists of a complex of ruupa arising and falling away. Does rupa complex called by nama a'tree', exists independent of the 'personal' khandic stream of cittas? > Understanding the difference between naama and ruupa theoretically > paves the way for sati-sampaja~n~na to know naama from ruupa. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Or a good meditation retreat. Best wishes, Alex #90128 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna isn't absolute egberdina Hi Alex and Howard, 2008/9/12 Alex : > Hi Herman, > >> >> The way I see it is that panna, or any knowing of any kind, cannot >> know being. > > What exactly do you mean by "being"? Is it a noun or verb? > > Being is simply the reality that is. This reality is what it is, it does not depend on being known for it's being. There are a number of folks here who conflate the reality of being with the reality of being known. This is idealism leaning towards solipsism, and has nothing to do with the dhamma. It is clear from the suttas that there is a reality beyond the khandas, which covers all that is knowable. That reality is nibbana. I think the moment nibbana is classified as something, with this or that characteristic, then we are confusing nibbana as being amongst the khandas. In simple English, the being of a tree is independent of me knowing it. But I can only ever know "knowing a tree" , not "being a tree". Knowing can't know being. That is why even the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is dukkha. Cheers Herman #90129 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:05 pm Subject: Today is Binara Fullmoon Poya Day! bhikkhu0 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Binara Poya day is the full-moon of September. This holy day celebrates the inauguration of the Bhikkhuni Sangha by the ordination on this very day of Queen MahÄ?pajÄ?patÄ«, the Buddha's foster-mother & her retinue. For life details on this excellent woman, who awakened as Arahat Theri: See: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/maha/mahapajapati_gotami.htm More on Binara Poya and the initiation of the Bhikkhuni Order: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Binara_Poya_Bhikkhuni.htm On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accepts to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards NibbÄ?na: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or Uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! The True Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Can quite advantageously be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be light, swift and sweet. Never give up !! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html Have a nice Poya day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #90130 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Alex & all), A small amendment here before you pursue this further.... --- On Sun, 14/9/08, Scott wrote: >Scott: ..... Since the word 'tree' is naama, and is that which springs to mind almost instantaneously after ruupa (visible object/colour) is seen (cognized) by eye-consciousness, the concept 'tree', complete with mental picture (thinking) is naama as well. .... Sarah: I don't think so. The thinking is naama, but the concept 'tree' or concept about anything else is not real, so it's not naama. Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for your excellent and speedy report of your chat with Jon:-). =============== #90131 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/9/14 Scott : > Dear Alex, > > > 'Tree' is naama; hardness/colour is ruupa. That which is called a > 'tree', and which appears in the 'ignorant mind' as a remembered > compact, consists of a complex of ruupa arising and falling away. > > Understanding the difference between naama and ruupa theoretically > paves the way for sati-sampaja~n~na to know naama from ruupa. > I'm not sure how you understand all the above, and I'm not asking you to explain, but if you believe that being able to divide phenomena into categories is a pre-requisite for realising that these phenomena are all anicca, anatta and dukkha, I think you are mistaken. Cheers Herman #90132 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavi egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/9/12 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, >> >> < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, >> nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no >> this >> world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn >> spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have >> realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and >> the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> > ------ > N: no mother or father, this is the idea, as was said before here in > dsg, that it is not necessary to berespectful to parents, since one > has the wrong view that kamma does not produce result. > The words persons and beings is used in the suttas, it is suttanta > method: in everyday language realities, such as here wrong view (an > akusala cetasika) are explained. > Two methods: suttanta method and abhidhamma method, and no > contradiction. > ----- As a technical point, I think it is misleading to talk about an abhidhamma method, when only the method of the dhammasangani is meant. That method is no more than analysis. There is also the method of the patthana, which is synthesis, and without which the abhidhamma would be lacking. Analysis, without synthesis, leads to a very distorted view of reality. It is similar to plucking the petals of a rose, in search of the rose. The fact is that the rose is not only the sum of its parts, nor just the conditions that produce it. It is both. And so with reality. An analysis of synthetic wholes into component dhammas requires a synthetic whole to start with. In simple English, in order to be able to pluck the petals of a rose, you need a rose to start with. The denial of beings/persons, which a selective use of the abhidhamma may lead to, says nothing about reality, but everything about the method used to study it. Cheers Herman #90133 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/9/12 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > > As Ray recently quoted the bhikkhuni Vajira as saying: > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > mara, have you grasped a view? > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > Here no being is found." > > I hope this clarifies a little more:-) > Thank you, Sarah, for reading my email and replying to me. What the email you intended to write and did write to me clarifies is that you are more confused than I thought :-) Ray was quite right. It was the bhikkuni Vajira who made the statement. And she heard speaking. And she conceived that it was the being Mara speaking to her. And she spoke back to what she conceived to be the being Mara. She was a little confused as well :-) Cheers Herman #90134 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:49 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi all I've been meaning to ask about this. > > > > As Ray recently quoted the bhikkhuni Vajira as saying: > > > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > > mara, have you grasped a view? > > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > > Here no being is found." > > > > I hope this clarifies a little more:-) As Ray said, this is always a good sutta to quote when wanting to see through "beings." Are there any others that do so in this way? There are so very many suttas that refer to beings in the more conventional way, but I can't recall any others than this one short sutta in the bhikkuni section of SN that do so. If anyone could lead me to a major, fully developed discourse in MN, for example, that gets at this, it would be more persuasive. And a question, maybe an obvious one. When the Buddha vowed to work for the liberation of all sentient beings, was he referring to concepts? Did he vow to work/teach etc for the liberation of concepts? That seems a bit odd... He did make that vow in the Pali canon, didn't he? Or is that just a Mahayana thing? Metta, Phil #90135 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:51 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi again > I can't recall any others than this one short sutta in the > bhikkuni section of SN that do so. I mean, any other suttas that tear down "beings" into components for the purpose of denying the existence of beings. Thanks. Metta, Phil #90136 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present beha egberdina Hi Phil, 2008/9/14 Phil : > > Hi again > >> I can't recall any others than this one short sutta in the >> bhikkuni section of SN that do so. > > I mean, any other suttas that tear down "beings" into components for > the purpose of denying the existence of beings. > I think the abyssmal chariot simile comes from the same section. It goes something like this. If you take a chariot apart, you can't drive to town in it, therefore there can't have been a chariot. It would be funny if it wasn't for those people who quote it as being a fundamental truth :-) Cheers Herman #90137 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How what we do affects others (or doesn't) sarahprocter... Hi Phil & James, >Ph: Thanks. Hey, guess who's sitting in the living talking to Naomi right now! James! He was stranded at Narita because of a typhoon in Taiwan and I went out and met him and brought him to our place. .... S: Well, that certainly trumps Jon and Scott in the background on skype!! That's great that you eventually got to meet in this unexpected way and very kind of you to 'rescue' him from Narita. James, all the flights from H.K. to Taipei were cancelled last night as well. I think they're flying today, so expect by now you've returned safely. Any dhamma discussion at Phil's place? Metta, Sarah ========= #90138 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. sarahprocter... Dear Connie (Tep & all), --- On Sun, 14/9/08, connie wrote: >>T: Concerning "understanding nama-rupa appearing now", would you feel comfortable enough to discuss the Vism, XVIII, 5-8 in contrast with Khun Sujin's idea? >c: in the interests of avoiding having one of you break a rule I haven't agreed to, the extract from The Path of Purification follows. >Vism, XVIII, 5-8: [b. Starting with Materiality] <...> .... S: Thanks, Connie, I'll read it later. Yes, I'd wondered how I was going to get round the book-less rule with this one. Was I to have a little peep or take a rough guess at where it comes in the Vism.:-) I'm desperately trying to understand and follow the rules like Alice in Wonderland and think I'm just about getting the hang of the 'game'. Let's see if I've got it right: Textual references, whether from suttanta (inc. Patisambhidamagga), Abhidhamma and even ancient commentaries are absolutely fine if introduced by Tep or Alex. However references from the same sources introduced by myself, Nina and a few others (maybe even you!), just show our clinging to books, greed and ambition and have nothing to do with 'Practice' and should therefore be discarded. In other words, in the book-less corner, we should go book-less while Tep, Alex and a few other friends who are truly interested in 'Practice', especially on 'breath', should continue to quote away to their Jhanas' content:-)). ***** Just kidding, Tep & all! I'll look forward to getting back to the various threads later with or without books:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #90139 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Tep), I'm very glad to see you joining us in these discussions, Han. Please feel very free to disagree with what I write anytime:-). --- On Sat, 13/9/08, han tun wrote: H:> And I fully agree with Tep that the most important point that the Buddha teaches is the suffering, and the end to the suffering. ... S: What do you both understand by suffering here (as in 1st NT)? Suffering of what? Metta, Sarah ======== #90140 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:31 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation sukinderpal Dear Tep (Sarah and Phil), I would have responded sooner, but I'm behind in my reading. You wrote: ========== > T: Okay, since you said that, let's do this new kind of discussion > (or debate) starting with this post. > > [Sukin, I now accept your request. So, if you are still interested, > please start a discussion anytime you want to. Thank you for the > firm intention and for your patience.] Suk: First of all I have to say that there wasn't much patience, and the impression you got about the firm intention, this must be due mostly to how these things come across in writing. But I'm glad that it conditioned some good thoughts in you. ;-) Thanks for agreeing to the discussion that I requested; however I'll do this at some other time. Reading this post of yours what I would like to discuss more, is what I suggested to Phil, namely about pariyatti and what its relationship to patipatti and pativedha. And since these two discussions are indeed connected, I hope you don't mind me making some comments about the one here. You wrote: =========== > T: To be correct, the Buddha never called the four > references "realities appearing now", Sarah. Indeed, any of the > dhammas that I cited above (i.e. in-and-out breaths, the four body > postures, the four basic elements, the 32 body parts, the three > feelings, the five aggregates, the five hindrances, the seven factors > for Awakening, the four noble truths) can be the object of > mindfulness & awareness. > ... > > >T: But these objects are not necessarily "realities appearing now" > or ultimate realities that arise and fall away in a fraction of a > nano-second. Some of these "objects" are pannatti that can be > observed by ordinary people who do not have the capability to > experience (by citta) realities in a fraction of a nano-second. Suk: I think it is very important to approach the Teachings with the understanding of it requiring "understanding" at the very outset and about the development of this same every step of the way. When this is seen, instead of thinking then in terms of the need to "experience directly" or mindfulness, one thinks of it in terms of the "development of understanding". Also in seeing the difference between wrong and right intellectual understanding one comes to appreciate that indeed the two are due to the arising of some corresponding mental factors. Moreover one can see the difference between suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna and here appreciate the fact that `intellectual understanding' is of different degrees and must be developed gradually. Sure, direct experience which is satipatthana is reference not only to a level of sati, but also a corresponding level of panna. And indeed this is an important step away from mere intellectual understanding. However, because most people think in terms of `experience' and not in terms of the `development of understanding', they wrongly then conceive of the need to `look', `note', `focus' etc. This inadvertently causes them to downplay pariyatti, indeed it issues from `wrong understanding'. Were there right intellectual understanding enough to appreciate its importance and scope, instead of seeking to `experience directly' one will think in terms of just developing understanding. The direct connection between pariyatti and patipatti is appreciated and not made distorted by force of tanha and wrong view. Indeed, the process from the beginning to end involves "straightening of view" / Ditthujukamma and no unnecessary conflict are created between pariyatti and patipatti. So when Sarah or anyone of us are talking about "understanding the realities appearing now", she is not talking about the need particularly, for direct experience of characteristics, but rather *understanding* as much as conditions allow. In this regard, it is enough to have any little intellectual understanding arise, without which we may otherwise think to try and be mindful of `concepts'. Besides we are not talking about the need to catch individual dhammas, but such common experiences as seeing, thinking, feeling which we otherwise take for "I see, think or feel", this is to be gradually understood as mere elements. This is the effect of having developed a correct intellectual understanding of the way things are being that without this, our understanding of these are otherwise informed by wrong view. To deny this and instead to go along with an as yet undeveloped understanding of the Dhamma, including the common idea of practice / meditation, the effect is not really being interested in studying the Dhamma for the sake of understanding, but rather seeking support for what one `does' re: meditation. What started off as being ditthi papanca namely the idea of `meditation', one ends up adding more fuel and proliferating further away to everything else but the need to understand the present moment, "now". In conclusion, I think it is wrong to believe that the Buddha taught us to begin the practice / patipatti with noting concepts. This is denying the effect of having heard about dhammas and how this effects a change in our understanding of experiences. Sure, we will still have atta sanna, but how would even this be known if we kept encouraging the same while trying to note `bodily postures' and such?! Indeed how could any nama or rupa be known if `patipatti' is not understood as being a `conditioned nama' but instead as something which a `self' has to do?! The development of understanding takes time as it must given the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, but let's not make it harder by insisting on an interpretation of the Dhamma, theory and practice, which seems so clearly to be taking us in the wrong direction! Tep, I hope you have gotten used to my style of expression and not take it as being `preachy' or something. Metta, Sukin #90141 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. sarahprocter... Dear Tep & all, --- On Sat, 13/9/08, Tep wrote: >T: Here is another clarification. There are four upadanas (sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging); 'attavadupadana' is doctrine of self clinging. The Sotapanna does not have self identification in the khandhas, i.e. no attavadupadana. S/he does not have precept & practice clinging either, but still has sensuality clinging and part of view clinging that is related to conceit. I stand to be corrected ! .... S: I think that the last 3 upadanas are all concerned with various kinds of wrong view and that these are all eradicated at the stage of sotapanna. Conceit would be included in the first upadana,(kaamupaadaana) above, eradicated only by the arahat. Here, kaamupaadaana includes all other kinds of clinging, such as bhavupaadaana, not just sensuous clinging eradicated by the anagami. See Nyantiloka's dictionary under 'Upadana'. Metta, Sarah ======== #90142 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How what we do affects others (or doesn't) egberdina Hi Naomi, Phil, James, Scott and Jon, 2008/9/14 buddhatrue : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > > Ph: Thanks. Hey, guess who's sitting in the living talking to > Naomi right now! James! He was stranded at Narita because of a > typhoon in Taiwan and I went out and met him and brought him to our > place. > Who would swap real life for impersonal dhammas? It seems we all like the milk of human kindness. I'm happy that you guys have been able to get together. Cheers Herman #90143 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana sarahprocter... Dear Tep (& Alex), --- On Sat, 13/9/08, Tep wrote: >>Sarah: Why do you think this is stating that "jhana is a requisite for Nibbana"? >T: Because of this sentence in the quoted sutta: "Then, saturated with joy, you will put an end to suffering & stress.". >>S: Wouldn't the attaining of enlightenment (usually) be with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt? (Of course, if it were with the higher jhanas as basis, it would be without joy and happiness.) >T: Yes, you can say "the attaining of enlightenment (usually)" is "with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt". >BTW, what are you trying to correct, expand, or disagree? ... S: I'm questioning/disagreeing with the suggestion that the passage quoted suggests that prior jhana "is a requisite for Nibbana". When right understanding is developed and enlightenment occurs, I would assume it would be with much joy and happiness. Metta, Sarah ========= #90144 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:13 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation hantun1 Dear Sarah (Tep), > > Han: And I fully agree with Tep that the most important point that the Buddha teaches is the suffering, and the end to the suffering. > Sarah: What do you both understand by suffering here (as in 1st NT)? Suffering of what? Han: The suffering as in First Noble Truth means birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair, association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved, not getting what one wants, and in short, the five clinging-aggregates. Han #90145 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. ksheri3 Hi Sarah, et al, I'm right with ya baby! Thinking is nama and that's all it is. Tree is an exterior label that was conditioned into the mind to identify the visible object/color, etc. A blind person cannot see color, etc, but that blind person can directly link the label "tree" to the sensations it receives by other means. Can a person that has sight, vision, eye-consciousness, visualize what a blind person mentally sees when they cognize the label for a tree? How's that THIRD EYE doing between the eyebrows (see Chakras and Tantra)? I'm right with ya baby! Concepts are not real, they are merely labels to satisfy the Name & Form functions of Buddhist doctrine. Which came first the Name given to the form or the Form which caused the name? Where are those chickens? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Scott (Alex & all), > > A small amendment here before you pursue this further.... > > --- On Sun, 14/9/08, Scott wrote: > >Scott: ..... Since the word 'tree' is naama, and is that > which springs to mind almost instantaneously after ruupa (visible > object/colour) is seen (cognized) by eye-consciousness, the concept > 'tree', complete with mental picture (thinking) is naama as well. > .... > Sarah: I don't think so. The thinking is naama, but the concept 'tree' or concept about anything else is not real, so it's not naama. <....> #90146 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] I will die sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Thank you for all your further reflections which I enjoyed reading, Phil. --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Phil wrote: P:>......Not to say that there still isn't akusala kamma patha, of course there is, but there is a lot less conditioned by reflecting on the truth that we are owners of our kamma and when we die we will be stuck with what we have said, done and thought in the past lifetime. (And all other lifetimes, of course, but there is more weight on the most recent lifetime.) I "got into" religion in my mid-twenties because I was fearful of death and looked into this and that faith, and judging from my interest in destinations after death I am still fearful of death, but the great thing is that as it is pointed out in the Kalama sutta, even if there *is* no rebirth, even if deeds do *not* have results, behaving in the light of a belief that there is and they do will lead to me living this one lifetime in a more wholesome, less harmful way. >Changes in character conditioned by this sort of thing. Yes, sure. Not complete changes, but important changes. .... S: You say "what really counts in life is behaviour", and of course most people would agree with you. Here you refer to fear of death as a great motivator in this respect and an emphasis you (and many others) put on "changes in character". As we've discussed before, isn't this all more clinging to oneself, one's future lives, one's character and so on? Of course, wholesome intentions and deeds are always worthy, but when the underlying motivation for such deeds is a clinging to oneself, just how much wholesomeness is there at such times? For example, as Herman pointed out recently, if someone makes a big offering to a temple or to the Sangha in the hope of a pleasant rebirth, it looks like dana, but actually it's not. It's really a kind of purchasing or shopping. No one can ever tell by outer appearances what motives there are for 'good behaviour'. It all comes down to the citta everytime. .... P:> But over the last 3 or 4 years, conditoned by sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching about not behaving in a way that does harm to oneself or others, I have ridded myself of this behaviour habit! That's *huge* Sarah, you can't imagine. .... .... S: I'm very glad to hear it, Phil. I'm sure that the "sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching" and consideration of others are very beneficial. I think we can learn more about when there is kindness, consideration and understanding of defilements (such as gross attachment in this case), as opposed to when there is simply more attachment for oneself, one's character, one's fear of unpleasant rebirths and so on. ... >Ph: Unfortunately these days I don't get anything out of reflecting on momentary death of elements rising and falling away, as you can imagine from the other posts I wrote today. Perhaps that will return....For now, it's all about conventional death. For example, I'm very fond of the sutta in AN which urges us to reflect on how very many ways there are to die, and tells us to reflect on whether, if we were to die today, to what degree there would be defilements remaining that would be to our disadvantage etc. .... S: What about if death should come at this moment? And in the momentary sense, it does. I think this sutta I recently quoted points to both kinds of death. It may even be the one you have in mind. Anyway, I'll quote it again (correcting a couple of typos), before signing off. Lovely to see all your posting and friendly comments to everyone again since your trip to Canada, Phil. ***** From AN, Book of Sixes, ix (19), Mindfulness of Death (PTS transl. by E.M. Hare): "Once when the Exalted One was staying in the Brick Hall at Naadika, he addressed the monks, saying: 'Monks.' 'Lord,' they replied; and the Exalted One said: 'Monks, mindfulness of death, when made become, made to increase, is very fruitful, great in weal, merging in the deathless, having the deathless as consummation (pariyosaanaa). Monks, make mindfulness of death become more!' And when he had spoken thus, a monk said to him: 'I, lord, make mindfulness of death become.' 'How so, monk?' 'Herein, lord, such is my thought: Were I day and night to abide mindful of the Exalted One's word, much would be done by me - thus, lord, I make mindfulness of death become.' And another said: "I too, lord, make mindfulness become.' 'How so, monk?' 'Herein, lord, such is my thought: Were I day-long to abide mindful of the Exalted One's word, much would be done by me.....' And another said: 'Such is my thought: Were I to abide mindful just so long as I eat an alms-meal.....' And another: 'As I munch and swallow four or five morsels....' And another: 'As I munch and swallow only one morsel....' And another said: 'I too, lord, make mindfulness of death become.' 'How so, monk?' 'Lord, such is my thought: Were I to abide just so long as I breathe in and out or breathe out and in, mindful of the Exalted One's word, much would be done by me - thus, lord, I make mindfulness of death become.' And when he had thus spoken, the Exalted One said to the monks: 'Monks, the monk who makes mindfulness of death become thus: "Were I day and night to abide mindful......." or he who thinks thus: "Were I day-long to abide so..." or thinks: "As I eat an alms-meal...." or "Munch and swallow four or five morsels...... mindful of the Exalted One's word, much would be done by me" - those monks are said to live indolently; slackly they make mindfulness of death become for the destruction of the cankers. But the monk who makes mindfulness of death become thus: "Were I to abide mindful as I munch and swallow one morsel..."; and he who thinks thus: "Were I to abide mindful of the Exalted One's word as I breathe in and out or out and in, much would be done by me" - those monks are said to live earnestly; keenly they make mindfulness of death become for the destruction of the cankers. Wherefore, monks, train yourselves thus: We will live earnestly; keenly will we make mindfulness of death become for the destruction of the cankers. Train yourselves thus, monks.' " **** Metta, Sarah =========== #90147 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior? Vipaka & New Kamma ... sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& all), thanks for joining in this thread and for the BB quote. I particularly liked this line: --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Phil wrote: "....Within the untrained mind lust, hatred and delusion are always lying latent, and with delusion obscuing the true nature of things, agreeable objects are *bound to* provoke lust and greed, disagreeable objects, hatred and delusion...." ... S: This is the point Tep and I were discussing. Seeing, for example, sees agreeable or disagreeable objects depending on past kamma. Because the latent tendencies for lust, hatred and delusion have not been eradicated, they are bound to arise on account of such objects most of the day (by natural decisive support condition, object condition and other supporting conditions). ... P:> If people are interested in the vipaka > kamma reaction SN 35 is definitely the place to spend a lot of time! .... S: Yes, agreed. Thanks also for the vipaka lightning rod analogy! Metta, Sarah =========== #90148 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubts and Siilana sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, I know that Nina already replied, but I'd also like to give you a little encouragement. --- On Thu, 11/9/08, szmicio wrote: >A last days I feel a little depressed. >the thinking about bavaana isn't the same as bhavaana. But the thinkin is almost all the day. There are akusala cittas. .... S: This is true, but isn't it better to know it? Also, as I mentioned to Howard with regard to the anger in his dream, when we feel disappointed about such kilesa, isn't it because of the clinging to oneself, taking it all for being one's own akusala? In truth, they are just different mental states arising and falling away, not belonging to anyone. This of course applies to any kusala, including wisdom, too. Nothing to be attached to. ... L:> The Buddha said that siila is siilana a base/root of our practice. So whe should start here. But I cant. I really cant. I cant induce right speech or the other siila. I cant make wrong speech disappeard. .... S: Exactly! This is the truth that the Buddha taught us, such as in the Anattalakkhana Sutta, that we can't control or make any dhammas arise because there is no self to do this. As you say: "I can't". So, various dhammas arise and fall away all day long. The most important thing is the development of understanding of them as anatta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' "Feeling is not self... "Perception is not self... "[Mental] fabrications are not self... "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' " **** S: Appreciating that there really is just this moment of seeing, hearing or thinking now, for example, we appreciate more and more that there's no use in dwelling on what's gone or what might be. Just develop understanding of what appears now and I think you'll find there is less feeling of depression in a day. When it arises, it too can be known as another fleeting conditioned dhamma too. In your other message, you mentioned being so busy and that kusala citta doesn't arise often enough. Again, I think the problem is not being busy, but the attachment - attachment to kusala for oneself. So we see that right understanding has to develop with detachment all the way. Please keep sharing your comments, Lukas. Metta, Sarah p.s did you have a chance to listen to any of the edited recordings of discussions with A.Sujin? I'm sure you'd find them helpful. ======= #90149 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- On Mon, 8/9/08, han tun wrote: >> S: Wouldn't you agree that actually there are only dhammas now and the suttas all point to 'dhammas now'? If so, surely whatever we read about has to point us back to an understanding and awareness now. So what can such understanding know? Only the various realities appearing now. When I read the Satipatthana Sutta, I think it is just these different realities that are being pointed to, according to different lifestyles and accumulations. We see that all possible realities (dhammas) are included - whether rupas or namas. Would you not agree? >Han: You must be very much advanced than me! You see those which I do not see. When I read the Satipa.t.thaana sutta, I see a very simple and clear instruction by the Buddha: [Breathing in long, he understands: ‘I breathe in long’; or breathing out long, he understands: ‘I breathe out long.’ Breathing in short, he understands: ‘I breathe in short’; or breathing out short, he understands: “I breathe out short.’] and so on. While I am reading that sutta, I do not see any various realities appearing now, or do I realize that the suttas all point to ‘dhamma now.’ As I said, you must be very much advanced. ------------ --------- --------- S: However, you wrote before (to Nina) in this thread: "H:> You talked about elements, and the doorways as a reason for wider reading. But they are there in Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Sutta, in kaayanupassanaa dhaatumanasikaara pabba, and dhammaanupassanaa aayatana pabba respectively. I find that Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Sutta is a concise but a complete sutta for many purposes. That's why the Buddha had said "the four foundation of mindfulness is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the surmounting of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and grief, for the attainment of the true way, for the realization of Nibbaana." ... S: So you do agree that the sutta includes all dhammas, all elements, all doorways, all ayatanas and that the sutta is comprehensive in all regards. Are these elements and ayatanas not realities? Are they not what make up our lives at this very moment? Is there ever any other moment but the present one? When the text refers to 'dhammanupassana', for example, is it not referring to the awareness and understanding (sati-sampajanna) of any dhamma appearing now? As for the meaning of the four foundations of mindfulness, again, is this not referring to the path of satipatthana? I think there's a lot more to discuss here, Han, depending on your patience:-) Metta, Sarah ======= > > Han: Whoever mentioned that the suttas are useless without having the above requirements is like saying that the Buddha’s instructions are inadequate or not clear enough so that he/she must complement the Buddha’s instructions to arrive at the right teaching. > S: This depends on how much dust we have in our eyes as others have pointed out. For some, just one sutta was enough. For most of us, the extra commentary, the Abhidhamma details and lots of discussion and questioning is very helpful. We need to delve deeper and deeper into terms such as 'dukkha' or 'satipatthana' to really understand what is meant by them, I find. Han: The dust in my eyes must be very thick or my maana must be very strong. For me, the text of Satipa.t.thaana sutta as it is written is more than good enough. I do not need any assistance from other Tipitaka sources to understand the Satipa.t.thaana sutta. The Satipa.t.thaana sutta by itself is clear and complete like any other discourses by the Buddha. Please see below the attributes of the Dhamma that I had quoted. ------------ --------- --------- > > Han: I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on the attributes of the Dhamma. The Buddha’s Teachings are always clear and complete. In SN 11. 3 Dhajagga Sutta, the Buddha said: no ce ma.m anussareyyaatha, atha dhamma.m anussareyyaatha: "svaakkhaato bhagavataa dhammo sandi.t.thiko akaaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccatta.m veditabbo vi~n~nuuhii" ti. > S: Yes, the dhamma is very clear and complete.... for the wise to see. We need assistance to see it and this is what all the teachings are for. Han: My above response applies. (Please also see my next response below.) ------------ --------- -------- > > Han: If you cannot recollect me, then you should recollect the Dhamma thus: ‘The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.’ (translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi). > S: So what exactly is the Dhamma? Not words and texts, but the truth about realities now which he taught for 45 years (thanks, Howard), because he knew how very deep and profound this teaching was. Han: Please remember that I had written to Nina that I am just a (pada parama), and so I will be able to see only what a (pada parama) can see. ------------ --------- --------- Respectfully, Han #90150 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:07 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 299, 300 and Tiika. gazita2002 Hello Nina, Thank you for your work with Visuddhimagga. Just want to add my little bit at the end: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 299, 300 > > Intro: The text of section 300 treats the four truths according to > the method of the Abhidhamma, referring to the `Book of > Analysis?E(Vibhanga), Ch 4, Analysis of the Truths. There is a > difference in method of analysis between Suttanta and Abhidhamma, but > there is no contradiction. In the suttas dukkha is explained in > everyday language: birth, ageing, death, etc. The origin of dukkha is > craving. >----.....snip..... > > Conclusion: Ignorance of the four truths leads to continuation of the > cycle. Even kusala kamma that is still object of defilements is the > cause of dukkha, it keeps us in the cycle. At this moment the sense- > objects and the sense-cognitions of seeing etc. arise and fall away, > they are dukkha. Dukkha has to be understood as it occurs in our > daily life. The text reminds us all the time that being in the cycle > is sorrowful. Old age and death are the consequence of birth. > Whatever arises has to fall away and when this is fully understood, > there will not be disturbance or agitation anymore on account of the > impermanence of dhammas. Understanding of the four noble truths leads > out of the cycle. At this moment a beginning can be made to develop > understanding of nama and rupa. > Azita: and it is only this moment that the beginning can occur. if not right now, then when? Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #90151 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to ... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/14/2008 1:13:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Sarah: I don't think so. The thinking is naama, but the concept 'tree' or concept about anything else is not real, so it's not naama. =============================== I'm closer to thinking about this as you state it, Sarah, than thinking of a tree as nama. If a tree is anything, it is not something that knows in any sense of 'know', and thus it cannot be a nama. But trees cannot be *separated* from mentality either, as I discuss a bit at the end of this post. I don't think of trees as quite nothing. Not all trees are the same, and there is thus more to them than "nothing". Nothings can't be distinguished, and they can't grow leaves and flowers, and be climbed, chopped down, decorated with Christmas lights, and so on. (And these are not just "stories," for there are realities underlying them.) As I see it, a tree as experienced in a given mind stream is the (set of) rupas comprising it, constantly arising and ceasing, but interrelated in a way that creates a pattern distinguishable from other patterned collections of rupas. However, it is only a *collection* of dhammas, and not itself a dhamma, and the conceiving of it as an individual entity with identity, an identity independent of the rupas that comprise it, and separated from and not interacting with other rupas is fundamentally delusive. I will add this, however: The situation is actually far more complex than it might seem at first examination. From my perspective, "the large tree in my back yard" is not a single collection of rupas, for the rupas experienced as "that tree" within my mind stream, though they may *correspond* to comparable rupas experienced by my wife, are not the identical rupas arising and ceasing in her mind stream, and, thus, it is an abstraction and mere conceptualization to speak of "that tree" as a unique, objective, mind-independent collection of rupas. (This, I hasten to add, lest you think I speak only of aggregations, is also true with regard to paramattha dhammas. If my wife and I leave the house in mid-winter, the cold that she feels is not the cold that I feel, even though we identify those corresponding body-door rupas. Likewise, for a multiplicity of other "shared" sense-door experiences.) Getting back to the original matter, any specific 'tree in the world" is, as such, mere concept, and, in fact, very general concept. A tree is not independent of the namas experiencing it. Quantum mechanics theorizes an intimate relationship holding between mentality and materiality, and I think that this is an important insight into the nature of reality. With metta, Howard #90152 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: So you do agree that the sutta includes all dhammas, all elements, all doorways, all ayatanas and that the sutta is comprehensive in all regards. Are these elements and ayatanas not realities? Are they not what make up our lives at this very moment? Is there ever any other moment but the present one? When the text refers to 'dhammanupassana' , for example, is it not referring to the awareness and understanding (sati-sampajanna) of any dhamma appearing now? As for the meaning of the four foundations of mindfulness, again, is this not referring to the path of satipatthana? I think there's a lot more to discuss here, Han, depending on your patience:-) -------------------- Han: I am a very simple minded person, Sarah. I know only what is written in the sutta as they are actually written. I cannot stretch my imagination. To me the ultimate realties are only four: citta, cetasika, ruupa, and Nibbaana. For example, when the Buddha talks about five aggregates I understand them as five aggregates, not as ultimate realities, because each aggregate, as the name implies, is a group or aggregate of the ultimate realities of cittas, cetasikas, and ruupas. If the ultimate realities are that important, over and above all other dhammas, the Buddha would say cittas, cetasikas, and ruupas all the time. There would not be any need to use other terminologies. I cannot also appreciate *at this very moment*. You asked: is there ever any other moment but the present one? Yes, for me there are past, present, and future. I cannot think of just the present moment in isolation. I always think about past, present, and future. With my weak samaadhi I will never be able to catch *this very moment* at this very moment. Dear Sarah, different people have different level of understanding. You cannot expect me to understand things the way you understand, in the same way I cannot expect you to understand the way I understand. You say what you have to say, and I will say what I have to say. If we want to reach an agreement it will only lead to more debate and more annoyance to both parties concerned. Respectfully, Han #90153 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Howard's medal award on Dhamma discussion dhammanusarin Hi Howard (Sarah and Scott) - Today's bronze medal-award for excellent Dhamma discussion goes to you ! >Howard: ============== Scott says trees are nama. But namas are knowings of one sort or another, and trees are not knowings. They are merely known (via mind sense). Sarah says trees are mental labels. But that is also untrue. It is 'tree' (or the underlying thinking) that is a mental label, not any actual tree. [T: Both Scott and Sarah have said several untrue things before. ;-) ] Any actual tree is a type of trans-temporal collection of interrelated rupas. Being a collection, it is actually neither nama nor rupa, though what it consists of is nothing but rupas. The activity identifying a tree is namic - specifically, recognizing it is sa~n~na, and characterizing it as "tree" is the sankharic operation of thinking. But, again, what it consists of is rupas. With metta, Howard P. S. A tree and all of its components and all of the knowings of it and its components are contingent, utterly dependent phenomena - empty of own-being. =============== Thank you Howard for this excellent writing about the dhammas (rupas, namas) in general with trees as the example to show the meanings of sa~n~na and sankhara (in your own words, "collection") and emptiness of ownership. The only part I disagree with you is the last sentence of your last paragraph: "The activity identifying a tree is namic - specifically, recognizing it is sa~n~na, and characterizing it as "tree" is the sankharic operation of thinking. But, again, what it consists of is rupas." Collection or fabrication, is the coming-together of namas or rupas or both in the mind of the observer. It is a sankhara, isn't it? A sankhara is in the nama (mentality) group. See MN 9. Sincerely, Tep === #90154 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to ... ksheri3 Good Morning Howard, Sure, Sarah has a point. You suggest that a thought has no foundation upon which it can be seperated and/or distinguished. I give Sigmond Fraud who generated an entire class of drug distributors completely upon the foundation of his homosexual drug addicted hallucination (I classify his homosexuality through his fixation upon masturbation, self- gratification/self-abuse, which clearly distinguishes his concentration upon his phallus 100% of the time). How many children, today, are put on drug therapy as a means of controling them? This is a foundation based upon nama and the hallucinatory effects of nama. Do you see clinging to nama such as a dharma or a boat to cross a river? I look forward to reading the entire post. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > In a message dated 9/14/2008 1:13:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Sarah: I don't think so. The thinking is naama, but the concept 'tree' or > concept about anything else is not real, so it's not naama. > =============================== > I'm closer to thinking about this as you state it, Sarah, than thinking > of a tree as nama. If a tree is anything, it is not something that knows in > any sense of 'know', and thus it cannot be a nama. But trees cannot be > *separated* from mentality either, as I discuss a bit at the end of this post. <...> #90155 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present beha upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Phil) - In a message dated 9/14/2008 3:42:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Phil, 2008/9/14 Phil : > > Hi again > >> I can't recall any others than this one short sutta in the >> bhikkuni section of SN that do so. > > I mean, any other suttas that tear down "beings" into components for > the purpose of denying the existence of beings. > I think the abyssmal chariot simile comes from the same section. It goes something like this. If you take a chariot apart, you can't drive to town in it, therefore there can't have been a chariot. It would be funny if it wasn't for those people who quote it as being a fundamental truth :-) Cheers Herman ================================= I don't think that the chariot metaphor is intended to show that beings are nullities, but that they are aggregations of phenomena that are nothing at all *independent of their components*. The relevant part of the Milindapanha is the following: ____________________________________________ “You, sir, have been reared in great luxury as becomes your noble birth. How did you come here, by foot or in a chariot?â€? “In a chariot, venerable sir.â€? “Then, explain sir, what that is. Is it the axle? Or the wheels, or the chassis, or reins, or yoke that is the chariot? Is it all of these combined, or is it something apart from them?â€? “It is none of these things, venerable sir.â€? “Then, sir, this chariot is an empty sound. You spoke falsely when you said that you came here in a chariot. You are a great king of India. Who are you afraid of that you don’t speak the truth?â€? Then he called upon the Bactrian Greeks and the monks to bear witness: “This King Milinda has said that he came here in a chariot but when asked what it is, he is unable to show it. Is it possible to approve of that?â€? Then the five hundred Bactrian Greeks shouted their approval and said to the king, “Get out of that if you can!â€? “Venerable sir, I have spoken the truth. It is because it has all these parts that it comes under the term chariot.â€? “Very good, sir, your majesty has rightly grasped the meaning. Even so it is because of the thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body and the five aggregates of being that I come under the term ‘Nà gasena’. As it was said by Sister Vajãra in the presence of the Blessed One, ‘Just as it is by the existence of the various parts that the word “Chariotâ€? is used, just so is it that when the aggregates of being are there we talk of a being’.â€? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- As I see it, the last two paragraphs point to the core of the metaphor: No aggregation is anything at all independent of its components. As you properly point out, Herman, a chariot is only such so long as its components are not disassembled, but are left properly interrelated to form a functioning aggregation. With metta, Howard #90156 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How what we do affects others (or doesn't) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and all) - In a message dated 9/14/2008 4:36:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Naomi, Phil, James, Scott and Jon, 2008/9/14 buddhatrue : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > > Ph: Thanks. Hey, guess who's sitting in the living talking to > Naomi right now! James! He was stranded at Narita because of a > typhoon in Taiwan and I went out and met him and brought him to our > place. > Who would swap real life for impersonal dhammas? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: How can something be *replaced* by what is not different from it? ----------------------------------------------- It seems we all like the milk of human kindness. I'm happy that you guys have been able to get together. Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard #90157 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. dhammanusarin Dear Han (Sarah and other members), - Thank you for making important point showing that one doesn't have to go to the paramattha dhamma theories) in order to understand the three characteristics of the conditioned dhammas. You wrote: Dear Tep and Sarah, I am interested in the following conversation: ------------------------------ Tep: The important point I've made is that you can discuss 'not self' without looking too far to "ultimate realities and no beings". Sarah: This is where I beg to differ. Without understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities, I don't believe the anatta characteristic can be known, for it is the anatta characteristic of such ultimate realities. Tep: That is a reverse logic, Sarah. You CAN get plenty of the sutta Teachings about how to abandon self-identification view through understanding of the Four Noble Truths, e.g. MN 2, with no reference to the theories of the paramattha dhammas. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta alone is sufficient for anyone to get to know the anatta characteristic, without "understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities". Ultimate realities are like a sore tooth in your mouth. ------------------------------ Han: I fully agree with Tep that Anatta-lakkhana Sutta alone is sufficient for anyone to get to know the anatta characteristic, without understanding (and discussing) ultimate realities. In the above sutta, the Buddha mentioned about the anatta nature of the five aggregates. If the five aggregates are interpreted as the ultimate realities appearing now, I have nothing more to say. For me, when the Buddha said five aggregates, I only see five aggregates (ruupa, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sankhaara, vi~n~naana), each as a whole in their respective identity, and not as the ultimate realities appearing now. For those who see more deeply, I have only my admiration for them. Han =============== T: You're right. The five aggregates of clinging must be seen truly the way they really are, i.e. aniccam, dukkham, anatta. Yatha- bhuta~nana-dassana is not taught in the Suttas; the Abhidhamma-pitaka just gives more details and broad categories of the dhammas that the Buddha taght excellently well in the Suttanata-pitaka. Any reverse logic is unconvincing. Tep === #90158 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard's medal award on Dhamma discussion upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/14/2008 8:23:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard (Sarah and Scott) - Today's bronze medal-award for excellent Dhamma discussion goes to you ! ============================= Hey! Wait a minute! Who got the silver & gold???? LOLOL! With metta, Second runner-up ;-) #90159 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. dhammanusarin Dear Scottie (Howard, Han, Sarah), - I appreciate the patience and clarification in your message below. A moment ago I told Howard that "trees" in the mind of an observer is a sankhara, mental formations/fabrications, that is in the nama category. And your reply below shows the same understanding. So, I apologize and take back my word ("wrong, Scott"). There are other points you wrote that I'm responding to below. ============== Dear Tep, Regarding: "Wrong, Scott." Scott: Not so fast please, Tep. T: "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention; these are called mentality(naama)." Scott: A 'tree' is construed long after seeing consciousness sees form (or visible object/colour). A 'tree' grows in the mind, as it were. This is why I consider a 'tree' to be naama (and colour and hardness to be ruupa). A very important distinction. Consider SN 95(2) Maalu"nkyaputta: "What do you think, Maalu"nkyaputta, do you have any desire, lust, or affection for those forms cognizable by the eye that you have not seen and never saw before, that you do not see and would not think might be seen?" "No, venerable sir." "...Here, Maalu"nkyaputta, regarding things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by you: in the seen there will be merely the seen; in the heard there will be merely the heard; in the sensed there will be merely the sensed; in the cognized there will be merely the cognized. "When, Maalu"kyaputta, regarding things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by you, in the seen there will be merely the seen, in the heard there will be merely the heard, in the sensed there will be merely the sensed, in the cognized there will be merely the cognized, then, Maalu"nkyaputta, you are not 'by that,' then you will not be 'therein.' When, Maalu"nkyaputta, you are not 'therein,' then you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. This itself is the end of suffering."* "I understand in detail, venerable sir, the meaning of what was stated by the Blessed One in brief: "Having seen a form with mindfulness muddled, Attending to the pleasing sign, One experiences it with infatuated mind And remains tightly holding to it. "Many feelings flourish within, Originating from visible form, Covetousness and annoyance as well By which one's mind becomes disturbed. For one who accumulates suffering thus Nibbaana is said to be far away... "When, firmly mindful, one sees a form, One is not inflamed by lust for forms; One experiences it with dispassionate mind And does not remain holding it tightly. "One fares mindfully in such a way That even as one sees the form, And while one undergoes a feeling, [Suffering] is exhausted, not built up For one dismantling suffering thus, Nibbaana is said to be close by... "When, firmly mindful, one knows an object, One is not inflamed by lust for objects;... For one diminishing suffering thus Nibbaana is said to be close by." Scott: *The invaluable commentary is to follow... Sincerely, Scott. ========================= T: Thank you a whole lot, friend Scott, for delighting me with Maalu"nkyaputta Sutta, one of my 10 most favorites that I have pondered over again and again for years. [ Like soup spoon just hanging in there.] I figure the reason you quoted this excellent suuta is because you believe it supports Khun Sulin's understanding-realities-now philosophy. Tep === #90160 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Loose cannon ;-). scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: Sarah: "I don't think so. The thinking is naama, but the concept 'tree' or concept about anything else is not real, so it's not naama." Scott: Of course! Thank you for reminding me. I was all thinking about 'tree' as concept and concept as object, I think, in the mind-door, and hence not ruupa, and hence some aspect of naama, or something like that. I was having some fevered notion that since something is not ruupa, and its 'in the mind' (conceptual notion) then it must be naama. I think I was making up a new, cooler definition of naama. I was neglecting the characteristics of naama for one thing - bending towards objects and the like. I agree 'tree' is not real, and got off on a tangent. Please continue, if the time allows, to point out these sorts of things to me. I appreciate it. I am still a beginner and study here to get as close to accurate as I can. Keep reminding me to stop thinking for myself. ;-) S: "p.s Thank you for your excellent and speedy report of your chat with Jon:-)." Scott: You're welcome. Sincerely, Scott. #90161 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 7 day long meditation session Thig 3.2 dhammanusarin Hi Alex (and others), - The enthusism and sincere saddha in the Teachings, that you have repeatedly demonstrated in countless number of posts here, are inspiring to me. I am really inspired and have no doubt about the Teachings. I also sincerely believe that it doesn't take a thorough understanding of the whole 10,000+ suttas, or present-moment understanding of the Abhidhamma theories and the paramattha dhamma, to benefit from the Dhammas here and now. Indeed even the following verse form your Therigatha quote is sufficient to motivate an earnest Satipatthana practice today. "Hearing the Dhamma [aggregates, sense spheres, & elements], I did as she said. For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.03.02.than.html But the biggest obstacle I have now is the self doubt of whether I CAN "do it" in seven days. What do you suggest me to do or not do such that the self doubt will be replaced by saddha and the other four faculties (viriyindria, satindriya, samadhindriya, pa~n~nindriya)? Thanks. Tep === #90162 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:42 am Subject: Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. dhammanusarin Dear Connie (& Sarah), - It is a pleasure to know that you are interested in the discussion, and I am grateful for the typing of the Vism, XVIII, 5-8 for us to review. Yes, you are right that the 'no-book' rule would be broken if the discussion is not based solely on the discussants' understanding of the namarupapariccheda~nana, and if we throw pieces from "the books" at each other again [like we did in the past]. Thanks. Tep === #90163 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "I appreciate the patience and clarification in your message below. A moment ago I told Howard that 'trees' in the mind of an observer is a sankhara, mental formations/fabrications, that is in the nama category. And your reply below shows the same understanding. So, I apologize and take back my word ("wrong, Scott")..." Scott: Well, can I say, 'not so fast' again? I was inaccurate to depict concepts as naama, as Sarah pointed out to me, so I apologise for that. I was going your way, as you see, but I can see this is not the way to go. I think that this has to do with the nature of concepts. Consider my erroneous statement: Erroneous Me: "A 'tree' is construed long after seeing consciousness sees form (or visible object/colour). A 'tree' grows in the mind, as it were. This is why I consider a 'tree' to be naama (and colour and hardness to be ruupa). A very important distinction." Scott: It is true, I think, that the conceiving occurs long after the seeing. It is true that 'tree' is concept. It is true, I think, that 'tree' is not seen by eye-consciousness. It is true that eye-consciousness does not have concept as object. It might even be true to opine that 'tree grows in the mind'. But concept and naama differ. I had neglected this fact. Concepts are not paramattha but sammuti. They form part of conventional speech and abound in ordinary thinking about things. I think the Abhidhamma method suggests that 'trees' would have a conceptual 'mode of being'. Concepts are constructed in the mind. Concepts are mental objects - that is naama bends towards them. I think this is object condition. This alone should show how I was wrong in including concepts as naama. I don't think, although I may be wrong, concepts have any 'function'. I understand concepts to be timeless and without sabhava. T: "Thank you a whole lot, friend Scott, for delighting me with Maalu"nkyaputta Sutta, one of my 10 most favorites that I have pondered over again and again for years. [Like soup spoon just hanging in there.] I figure the reason you quoted this excellent suuta is because you believe it supports Khun Sulin's understanding-realities-now philosophy." Scott: I really enjoy that sutta as well. I was trying to learn how 'tree' is not paramattha, took a bit of a wrong turn, and now, am learning more about it. I'm carefully re-reading Kh. Sujin's 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas', going through each reference I can find. I, of course, don't consider her to be my teacher. I consider the Dhamma to be my teacher. That I see it as she does, or as Sarah does, or as the so-called DSG Abhidhammakas do is not my fault. I just happen to find no disagreement. Sincerely, Scott. #90164 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: H: "I'm not sure how you understand all the above, and I'm not asking you to explain, but if you believe that being able to divide phenomena into categories is a pre-requisite for realising that these phenomena are all anicca, anatta and dukkha, I think you are mistaken." Scott: Its funny, Herman. I though immediately of the concept 'Herman' as I read Sarah's kind correction of the view I had espoused earlier. As I retracted my statement and worked to bring it in line with the traditional views I imagined you shaking your head at my sheep-like conformist behaviour. No, of course I don't believe that intellectual study or theoretical learning is some sort of practise designed to bring about realisation or whatever. That would be a very silly notion. Its just studying for me - learning. I do think that sometimes, or from time-to-time (very infrequently at the beginning), sati-sampaja~n~naa can arise, even while reading (listening to) the Dhamma. When 'understanding' is of this kind - that is not just an intellectual exercise - then there is something going on. Sorry to mislead you. Sincerely, Scott. #90165 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings ... The No-book Rule Does Not Apply Here?. dhammanusarin Dear Scott (Sarah, Nina, Connie), - Let me tell you this: I have become less critical about commentaries today than a week ago. Yet, I must also tell you that many commentaries (and Co. as well), perhaps about 60%, are nothing but commen sense; i.e. we do not need to depend on them. We can do well, or even better, without them. The commentary below is an example of the we-don't-need-them kind of commentary. You wrote: ========================= Dear Tep, The commentary: Note 75 (pp. 1410-1411, Bh. Bodhi's SN translation): "Spk gives a long explanation, which I translate here partly abridged: "In the form base, i.e., in what is seen by eye-consciousness, 'there will be merely the seen.' For eye-consciousness sees only form in form, not some essence that is permanent [read 'tree' - Scott], etc. So too for the remaining types of consciousness [Spk-p.t: i.e. for the javanas], there will be here merely the seen. Or alternatively: What is called 'the seen in the seen' is eye-consciousness, which means the cognizing of form in form. 'Merely' indicates the limit (mattaa ti pamaa.na.m_. It has merely the seen; thus 'merely the seen,' (an attribute of) the mind. The meaning is: 'My mind will be just a mere eye-consciousness.' This is what is meant: As eye-consciousness is not affected by lust, hatred, or delusion in relation to form that has come into range [thinking one sees a 'tree' - Scott], so the javana will be just like the mere eye-consciousness by being destitute of lust, etc. I will set up javana with just eye-consciousness as limit. I will not go beyond the limit and allow the mind to arise by way of lust, etc. So too for the heard and the sensed. The 'cognized' is the object cognized by the mind-door adverting (manodvaaraavajjana). In that cognized, 'merely cognized' is the adverting (consciousness) as the limit. As one does not become lustful, etc., by adverting, so I will set up my mind with adverting as the limit, not allowing it to arise by way of lust, etc. You will not be 'by that' (na tena): you will not be aroused by that lust, or irritated by that hatred, or deluded by that delusion. Then you will not be 'therein' (na tattha): When you are not aroused by that lust, etc., then 'you will not be therin' - bound attached, established in what is seen, heard, sensed, and cognized." ========================= T: Let me give you my simple understanding for "in the seen there will only be the seen" : Just see the form that appears without getting involved with details and specific qualities such that the mind will be steady inward, letting go, not following the form (rupas, bodies, trees, lots of money..) with attachment to like/dislike, love/hate, desire/aversion. ................ Scott: Also, the above is a description of a process of impersonal dhammas, and although the conventional language used descriptively appears to describe a person doing a deliberate practise, this is not meant to be misunderstood in that fashion. T: You know what? I think I got the true meaning of the Buddha's words without worrying a bit about conventional truth or ultimate realities. [See, Ma, no hands !] Once you are able to put the books back on the shelve, then you are free to depend on your own understanding that is not contaminated by book knowledge and pannatti. You become a free man. Tep === #90166 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:16 am Subject: Re: Rupa independent of citta nama. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "Does rupa complex called by nama a'tree', exists independent of the 'personal' khandic stream of cittas?" Scott: I was wrong about 'tree' as naama, since, as Sarah kindly helped me to straighten this mix-up, 'tree' is concept. I do think ruupa is a reality, it that is what you are asking. But hardness and colour It is different than naama. It has different characteristics. I understand that concept has no characteristics and is timeless. I think ruupa can be external or internal. I think 'tree' and 'personal khandic stream of cittas' are both concepts. Sincerely, Scott. #90167 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:19 am Subject: capable of alighting on the stream truth_aerator Hi Tep and all, >--- "Tep" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and others), - > > I am really inspired and have no doubt about the Teachings. I also > sincerely believe that it doesn't take a thorough understanding of > the whole 10,000+ suttas, or present-moment understanding of the > Abhidhamma theories and the paramattha dhamma, to benefit from the > Dhammas here and now. Indeed even the following verse form your > Therigatha quote is sufficient to motivate an earnest Satipatthana > practice today. > > "Hearing the Dhamma [aggregates, sense spheres, & elements], I did >as she said. For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & > bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the >mass of darkness." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.03.02.than.html > > But the biggest obstacle I have now is the self doubt of whether I > CAN "do it" in seven days. > > What do you suggest me to do or not do such that the self doubt Have you commited any of the 5 bad actions with certain result? No. I don't think anyone here has done it. Have you ever blissed out in meditation? If yes then I suspect that you don't have hindrance obstruction either. But even if you haven't blissed out, yet, it isn't totally lost. In one Thig there is a story of a nun who couldn't get peace of mind for 25 , 25! years. She was on the brink of totally loosing it, and then, boom, she became Awakened. Another inspiring story. Angulimala is said to have killed 999 people, he did manage to become an Arahant. I don't think that anyone here has killed 1, let alone 999 people. Furthemore, lets discuss this quote: "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? "He is not endowed with a (present) kamma obstruction, a defilement obstruction, or a result-of-(past)-kamma obstruction; he has conviction, has the desire (to listen), and is discerning. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.086.than.html Does anyone know what: a) Present Kamma obstruction is? b) Defilement obstruction is? c)result-of-(past)-kamma obstruction is? Best wishes, Alex #90168 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. dhammanusarin Hi Alex, - Idealism always creeps in and interferes with one's pure-dhamma thinking, if and when one recites from the favorite teaching with attachment -- 'Only this is right'. Letting go should start with one's favorite teacher & favorite teaching. > Alex: > While the word 'tree' itself is nama, what the word 'tree' points to IS rupa that is out there. > > "in the seen there will be merely the seen." does NOT have to imply > idealism of some sort. As I understand Bahiya teaching, it is about > sense-restraint. It is about not to being mesmerized & enchanted about sense objects. The fault lies not in the objects themselves but in lack of sense restraint, greed & aversion toward them. > > Again, the trees and walls do exist as fact of experience, hardness of which one shouldn't test. > ==================== T: Well said ! Tep === #90169 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:31 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See dhammanusarin Dear Friend Han, - I love it when you talk about akusalas and their opposites. Han: I will try my best to be patient with everybody, because I know that the opposite of patience, anger or aversion, is akusala. I have enough akusala for all the unwholesome deeds that I have committed in my life, and I would not like to accumulate some more when I am already with one foot in the grave. T: Knowing kusala and akusala along with their origins is called samma-ditthi. Ven. Sariputta said, "When a disciple of the noble ones discerns what is unskillful, discerns the root of what is unskillful, discerns what is skillful, and discerns the root of what is skillful, it is to that extent that he is a person of right view, one whose view is made straight, who is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma, and who has arrived at this true Dhamma.[MN 9} Congratulations! BTW, I think one of my feet is already in "the grave" too. Two of my 4 brother died when they were 60+ years old. Living to be 80+ is unimaginable for me. Tep === #90170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 299, 300 and Tiika. nilovg Dear Azita, Op 14-sep-2008, om 13:07 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Just want to add my > little bit at the end: ------- N: Thank for your little bit at the end, which is not a little bit, after all. Nina. #90171 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings ... The No-book Rule Does Not Apply Here?. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "Let me tell you this: I have become less critical about commentaries today than a week ago. Yet, I must also tell you that many commentaries (and Co. as well), perhaps about 60%, are nothing but commen sense; i.e. we do not need to depend on them. We can do well, or even better, without them. The commentary below is an example of the we-don't-need-them kind of commentary." Scott: What is it you don't like about the commentarial position in this case? Can you point to any particular part of it you don't like? T: "Let me give you my simple understanding for 'in the seen there will only be the seen' : Just see the form that appears without getting involved with details and specific qualities such that the mind will be steady inward, letting go, not following the form (rupas, bodies, trees, lots of money..) with attachment to like/dislike, love/hate, desire/aversion." Scott: Well, to be precise, ruupa and concept are different yet I think that both can be objects of attachment. I think the commentary seems to be highly influenced in this case by the Abhidhamma method, given that it refers to the momentary arising of eye-consciousness and to the characteristic of this particular citta - it cognises visible object. T: "You know what? I think I got the true meaning of the Buddha's words without worrying a bit about conventional truth or ultimate realities. [See, Ma, no hands !] Once you are able to put the books back on the shelve, then you are free to depend on your own understanding that is not contaminated by book knowledge and pannatti. You become a free man." Scott: I think care should be taken here, Tep. You read all the time - you've said so yourself. You have favourite suttas and often cite the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, for example. This sort of misunderstanding about 'book knowledge' is often brought up here. Very much a red herring. Where is the Dhamma today but in the books? There is no Buddha to listen to any more. And the dhammas to be known are arising and falling away constantly. I'll not be putting any books back on any shelf any time soon. I know that the real 'study of the Dhamma' occurs any time the impersonal dhammas whose characteristics it is to know arise, and this can be while reading, walking, or whenever. But this is not 'my understanding' except only by conventional speech. I disagree that it is better to depend on my 'own understanding', but to each his own. I have no desire to 'become a free man'. I read because that is like listening. It is true that it is only by conditions that I seem to find an affinity with a particular view, or find another view to be incorrect. This isn't 'thinking for myself' - its just views arising based on ignorance for the most part. As recently demonstrated, my 'own thinking' got me off track. I don't want to 'think for myself' - but I will anyway, it can't be helped. I just prefer, as a rule, to put a stop to any of my own theorising about Dhamma. If 'thinking for myself' were the way to go, why bother trying to learn what a Buddha taught? Dhamma is to be learned as it is, not adapted as if it were just some other philosophical creation in need of amendment by 'modern' thinkers. Sincerely, Scott. #90172 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vinnana & Sanna ... Is It Greed or Ambition? .. dhammanusarin Dear Sarah & Connie, - It is good to think about a better way to implement "the Rule". >S: Thanks, Connie, I'll read it later. >Yes, I'd wondered how I was going to get round the book-less rule with this one. >Was I to have a little peep or take a rough guess at where it comes in the Vism.:-) >I'm desperately trying to understand and follow the rules like Alice in Wonderland and think I'm just about getting the hang of the 'game'. ............. T: I like your humor, Sarah. ;-)) As you very well know, we have to be flexible at times. All rules have exception. Lawyers write laws to be changed by lawyers (so they all can keep making money all the time). ............. >S: Let's see if I've got it right: Textual references, whether from suttanta (inc. Patisambhidamagga), Abhidhamma and even ancient commentaries are absolutely fine if introduced by Tep or Alex. However references from the same sources introduced by myself, Nina and a few others (maybe even you!), just show our clinging to books, greed and ambition and have nothing to do with 'Practice' and should therefore be discarded. In other words, in the book-less corner, we should go book-less while Tep, Alex and a few other friends who are truly interested in 'Practice', especially on 'breath', should continue to quote away to their Jhanas' content:-)). ***** Just kidding, Tep & all! I'll look forward to getting back to the various threads later with or without books:-). T: Your humorous approach above is known in the Kung Fu literature as "hiding sword under a smile". But you got a valid point about fairness. I must apologize for having given you such impression : Only King Tep is above the Rule ! Well, if you think it is critical to quote from commentaries and other sources, once in a while, that is considered as acceptable exception to the Rule, I guess. For myself from now on the most I may do in regard to the references is to just give the sources (Web link, for example) without giving even one passage. Can you do the same, Sarah? BTW, Alex has not agreed to follow this rule, has he? Tep === #90173 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation dhammanusarin Hi Sarah (and Han), - Are you trying to trick me into breaking the no-sutta-quote rule? ;-) > S: What do you both understand by suffering here (as in 1st NT)? Suffering of what? > T: The definition is already given in several suttas. Tep === #90174 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:30 am Subject: Typo Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment abhidhammika Dear Howard, Nina, Sarah, Mike N, Scott D, Phil, Alex How are you? I wrote in my reply to Howard's post: "A serious matter you (and Mike) need to remember, though, is that anusaya phenomena do not exit." I made a typo error when I wrote 'exit'. I meant 'exist'. Please kindly correct my error and interpret my statements in light of this correction. As consciousness does not exist in the first place, anusaya phenomena, which are merely mental associates, also do not exist. They are equally subject to Pa.ticcasamuppaado, Dependent Arising. So, when you used the expressions such as "lurking in the subconscious shadows", "the underlying inclinations", "waiting for the opportunity to pounce", or "unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted", I hope that you were using them strictly metaphorically only. Otherwise, you could be unwittingly holding the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins like Tibetan Buddhists and some Mahaayana Buddhists who accept Vasubandhu as their teacher. Some people who read Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandhu and who do not read Pali Abhidhamma Pi.taka sometimes accused Theravaadins of holding the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins. But, the Arahant Mahaa Moggaliputtatissa Thera has refuted the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins in his Kathaavatthu, one of the Pali Abhidhamma Pi.taka texts composed in Tatiyasangiiti (the Third Congress Recital) during the era of Emperor Asoka in 300 BC. Vasubandhu was a 500 AD commentator who attempted to revive Sabbatthivaado, which is embraced by Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese Buddhists. The lingering consciousness of a dead person (antarabhava concept) was a teaching of Abhidharmakosha, which is accepted by both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists without realising that it is against the teachings of Dependent Arising (Pa.ticcasamuppaado). Howard wrote: "I think I follow you, and if I do, then I agree. Past actions at the very time of their occurrence serve as "inclinations" towards future reactions when other triggering conditions arise. But with eventual full awakening, that will no longer be so - and that could be metaphorically called the "exiting" of the underlying inclinations." Suan replied: Howard, you do exercise yoniso manasikaaro, a prerequisite for the Right View. Even in light of my wrong wording, you did your best to get the right outcome. Please accept three Saadhu from me. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw #90175 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:36 am Subject: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > I understand that concept has no characteristics and is timeless. I > think ruupa can be external or internal. > Sincerely, > > Scott. Dear Scott and all, Are you saying that "concept has no characteristics and is timeless"? Concept Permanent (nicca) and unconditioned (asankhata)? Best wishes, Alex #90176 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Typo Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and all) - In a message dated 9/14/2008 11:31:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@... writes: Dear Howard, Nina, Sarah, Mike N, Scott D, Phil, Alex How are you? I wrote in my reply to Howard's post: "A serious matter you (and Mike) need to remember, though, is that anusaya phenomena do not exit." I made a typo error when I wrote 'exit'. I meant 'exist'. ------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! -------------------------------------- Please kindly correct my error and interpret my statements in light of this correction. As consciousness does not exist in the first place, anusaya phenomena, which are merely mental associates, also do not exist. They are equally subject to Pa.ticcasamuppaado, Dependent Arising. So, when you used the expressions such as "lurking in the subconscious shadows", "the underlying inclinations", "waiting for the opportunity to pounce", or "unwholesome inclinations, while weakened, still hang on, and will hang on until finally uprooted", I hope that you were using them strictly metaphorically only. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed. ------------------------------------------ Otherwise, you could be unwittingly holding the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins like Tibetan Buddhists and some Mahaayana Buddhists who accept Vasubandhu as their teacher. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I hope that my follow-up reply indicated that I consider "inclinations" and "accumulations" as just ways of speaking - just metaphor. I have long taken exception to the idea of "accumulations" being stored away. ------------------------------------------ Some people who read Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandhu and who do not read Pali Abhidhamma Pi.taka sometimes accused Theravaadins of holding the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins. But, the Arahant Mahaa Moggaliputtatissa Thera has refuted the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins in his Kathaavatthu, one of the Pali Abhidhamma Pi.taka texts composed in Tatiyasangiiti (the Third Congress Recital) during the era of Emperor Asoka in 300 BC. Vasubandhu was a 500 AD commentator who attempted to revive Sabbatthivaado, which is embraced by Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese Buddhists. The lingering consciousness of a dead person (antarabhava concept) was a teaching of Abhidharmakosha, which is accepted by both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists without realising that it is against the teachings of Dependent Arising (Pa.ticcasamuppaado). Howard wrote: "I think I follow you, and if I do, then I agree. Past actions at the very time of their occurrence serve as "inclinations" towards future reactions when other triggering conditions arise. But with eventual full awakening, that will no longer be so - and that could be metaphorically called the "exiting" of the underlying inclinations." Suan replied: Howard, you do exercise yoniso manasikaaro, a prerequisite for the Right View. Even in light of my wrong wording, you did your best to get the right outcome. Please accept three Saadhu from me. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Very nice of you to say, Suan! Thank you! :-) ------------------------------------------- With regards, Suan Lu Zaw ================================= With metta, Howard #90177 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "Are you saying that 'concept has no characteristics and is timeless'? Concept Permanent (nicca) and unconditioned (asankhata)? Scott: I understand this to be the Abhidhamma clarification regarding pa~n~natti. They are not paramattha dhammas (hence no characteristics) but, as I understand them, they are conditioned. Nibbaana is the only unconditioned element, as I understand it. Sincerely, Scott. #90178 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:24 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator >"Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "Are you saying that 'concept has no characteristics and is > timeless'? Concept Permanent (nicca) and unconditioned >(asankhata)? > > Scott: I understand this to be the Abhidhamma clarification >regarding > pa~n~natti. They are not paramattha dhammas (hence no > characteristics) but, as I understand them, they are conditioned. > Nibbaana is the only unconditioned element, as I understand it. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Dear Scott, what about 'timeless' part? How can conditioned concepts be timeless? Sabbe Sankhara anicca - remember? Best wishes, Alex #90180 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:03 am Subject: Re: Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment truth_aerator Hi Suan and all, >"abhidhammika" wrote: > A serious matter you (and Mike) need to remember, though, is that > anusaya phenomena do not exist. The reason that they are called > anusaya phenomena is only to show that similar conditions produce > regular outcomes. If latent tendencies do not exist, then how does their result shows up? I can agree with the POV that they are constantly present in a latent form in presently arisen citta. However I strongly disagree with the statement that latent tendencies do not exist. In certain suttas the Buddha has stated about uprooting latent tendencies. If they didn't exist, then how can non-existing "dhamma/sankhara" be uprooted? >Some people who read Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandhu and who do not > read Pali Abhidhamma Pi.taka sometimes accused Theravaadins of > holding the wrong views of Sabbatthivaadins. Please provide examples. And please don't forget that Vasubandhu changed his mind and wrote a refutation of Sarvastivada from Sautrantika pov. > Vasubandhu was a 500 AD commentator who attempted to revive No. He was around 4th century AD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu Half Brother of Asanga (~300 CE) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asanga Buddhaghosa lived in 5th Century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa Nagarjuna in 150-250CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna Interesting that one of the most influential founder of Buddhist Orthodoxy (Buddhaghosa) lived LATER than 3 famous non-Theravada founders who are questionably called Mahayanists. The accumulations, or Bhavanga stream or something like that isn't much different from Alaya-vinnana concept found in cittamatra. Alaya is found in Pali as well - and no, it ain't atman or anything like that. > Sabbatthivaado, which is embraced by Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese > Buddhists. The lingering consciousness of a dead person antarabhava > concept) was a teaching of Abhidharmakosha, And there are suttas found in pali sutta-pitaka that teach antarabhava. There are also modern cases of NDE that may suggest antarabhava. > without realising that it is against the teachings of Dependent >rising (Pa.ticcasamuppaado). How so? The Gandhaba (or whatever you call it) is anicca-dukkha-anatta like everything in samsara. It may correspond with bhava or vinnana aspect of DO. Read DN#15 about vinnana descending into a womb or being deflected... Best wishes, Alex #90181 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi All Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we separately classify the conceived. ;-) TG In a message dated 9/14/2008 10:25:22 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: >"Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "Are you saying that 'concept has no characteristics and is > timeless'? Concept Permanent (nicca) and unconditioned >(asankhata)(a > > Scott: I understand this to be the Abhidhamma clarification >regarding > pa~n~natti. They are not paramattha dhammas (hence no > characteristics) but, as I understand them, they are conditioned. > Nibbaana is the only unconditioned element, as I understand it. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Dear Scott, what about 'timeless' part? How can conditioned concepts be timeless? Sabbe Sankhara anicca - remember? Best wishes, Alex #90182 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:51 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "...what about 'timeless' part? How can conditioned concepts be timeless? Sabbe Sankhara anicca - remember?" Scott: Concepts are not sa"nkhaara as I understand it. As I see it, since impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned realities - paramattha dhammas - and since concepts are not paramattha dhammas, then they do not arise and fall away - they are not impermanent. This is all subject to correction. Sincerely, Scott. #90183 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:03 am Subject: Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation dhammanusarin Dear Sukin (Sarah, Alex), - Welcome back to "the Ring". No books are allowed here! Suk: First of all I have to say that there wasn't much patience, and the impression you got about the firm intention, this must be due mostly to how these things come across in writing. But I'm glad that it conditioned some good thoughts in you. ;-) .. .what I would like to discuss more, is what I suggested to Phil, namely about pariyatti and what its relationship to patipatti and pativedha. And since these two discussions are indeed connected, I hope you don't mind me making some comments about the one here. T: Good, Sukin. It is nice that all the communication doors are now open and good mutual understanding is in the air. Please feel free to comment on any discussion I've had with anyone here. After a long and informative message, you concluded : "Tep, I hope you have gotten used to my style of expression and not take it as being `preachy' or something." T: Don't worry about it, friend. Like you said before, life is too short for us to worry about pettiness. ................. Suk: 1) I think it is very important to approach the Teachings with the understanding of it requiring "understanding" at the very outset and about the development of this same every step of the way. When this is seen, instead of thinking then in terms of the need to "experience directly" or mindfulness, one thinks of it in terms of the "development of understanding". T: That understanding at the very outset is adverting (the mind) for the purpose of seeing, and it is of course important. Thinking of the need, etc., is distraction and useless. Suk: 2) Also in seeing the difference between wrong and right intellectual understanding one comes to appreciate that indeed the two are due to the arising of some corresponding mental factors. Moreover one can see the difference between suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna and here appreciate the fact that `intellectual understanding' is of different degrees and must be developed gradually. T: Clinging to terminologies (pannatti) is a hindrance to development of panna, Sukin. I hope you don't mind if I throw away those terms (such as : mental factors, suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and `intellectual understanding') and simply say as follows: Study the terminologies well such that their understanding will support development of the higher, and more useful, direct knowing of the dhammas. But do not spend your life time dwelling with intellectual thinking. [But if you want to, then who am I to say?] Suk: 3) Sure, direct experience which is satipatthana is reference not only to a level of sati, but also a corresponding level of panna. And indeed this is an important step away from mere intellectual understanding. However, because most people think in terms of `experience' and not in terms of the `development of understanding', they wrongly then conceive of the need to `look', `note', `focus' etc. This inadvertently causes them to downplay pariyatti, indeed it issues from `wrong understanding'. Were there right intellectual understanding enough to appreciate its importance and scope, instead of seeking to `experience directly' one will think in terms of just developing understanding. T: Good, it is good that you see the importance of direct knowledge. Please also note that sati, satipatthana, and pa~n~na fly above the intellectual understanding, which clings to one's favorite teacher and her teaching. Further, I think you're incorrect about the meaning of 'experience'. It is the knowledge from mindfulness & awareness that is not distracted by the anuvya~njana in 'what is seen, heard,...' . While you are experiencing the 'world' (loka), you are observing/discerning or 'noticing' with no attachment to what is appearing/disappearing here & now. Suk: 4) The direct connection between pariyatti and patipatti is appreciated and not made distorted by force of tanha and wrong view. Indeed, the process from the beginning to end involves "straightening of view" / Ditthujukamma and no unnecessary conflict are created between pariyatti and patipatti. T: While one is in the patipatti phase, pariyatti is often revisited; so they are neither separated nor in conflict. If one approaches patipatti (patipada), that is supported by Sila, and discerns the kusala/akusala along with their origins, then there need not be fear of tanha and wrong views; although anusayas are still there (in the background, like Sarah's famous Self Demon). Suk: 5) So when Sarah or anyone of us are talking about "understanding the realities appearing now", she is not talking about the need particularly, for direct experience of characteristics, but rather *understanding* as much as conditions allow. In this regard, it is enough to have any little intellectual understanding arise, without which we may otherwise think to try and be mindful of `concepts'. T: No, not enough. Indeed I have been trying to caution Sarah, or anyone of her same-minded DSG gang members, that it is better to move away from getting stuck in the deep pit of being contented with mediocre worldling's intellectual understanding of "the realities appearing now", to directly experiencing the dhammas. How many years have they been talking, just happily talking and dreaming, about the same themes of intellectual understanding, or about the theoretical paramttha dhammas that arise and pass away much faster than they can blink? Too many. >Suk 6): Besides we are not talking about the need to catch individual dhammas, but such common experiences as seeing, thinking, feeling which we otherwise take for "I see, think or feel", this is to be gradually understood as mere elements. This is the effect of having developed a correct intellectual understanding of the way things are being that without this, our understanding of these are otherwise informed by wrong view. T: Good, very good for you to admit, because it is not possible to "catch" those paramattha dhammas in real time. Have you ever wondered why the Buddha or the Arahants (Sariputta, Maha Kaccana...) never mentioned how to citta-synchronize with paramattha dhammas that arise/pass-away in less than a nano-second? Concerning the second point, can you explain how the common experiences (as seeing, etc.) may be understood as "mere elements"? There is a huge gap between "a correct intellectual understanding of the way things are" and abandonment of the "I see" view. How would you compare Khun Sujin's approach with the discernment of nama and rupa in Chapter XVIII of the Vism ? I also asked Sarah the same question. >Suk: 7) To deny this and instead to go along with an as yet undeveloped understanding of the Dhamma, including the common idea of practice /meditation, the effect is not really being interested in studying the Dhamma for the sake of understanding, but rather seeking support for what one `does' re: meditation. What started off as being ditthi papanca namely the idea of `meditation', one ends up adding more fuel and proliferating further away to everything else but the need to understand the present moment, "now". T: You are assuming a lot here. Alex may be aggravated. If you cannot explain how you can go from the raw intellectual understanding to the very first Namarupa-pariccheda~nana, then it is hopeless to convince anyone else that I, Sukin, has developed "understanding of the Dhamma, including the common idea of practice /meditation". Why so? Because Namarupa-pariccheda~nana is only the first knowledge/understanding of the Dhamma. There are nine knowledges (~nana) before Sotapanna's right view, which is the begining of true "understanding of the Dhamma (when there are no doubts in the Dhamma, no clinging to rules and rituals, and no self-identification views). These knowledges are : 1. Knowledge distinguishing between mind and matter (namarupa pariccheda ~nana). 2. Understanding the relationship between cause and effect. It is the second Insight knowledge called 'The knowledge distinguishing between Cause and Effect' (paccaya pariggaha ~nana.) 3. Knowledge of comprehension (sammasana ~nana). 4. Knowledge of arising & passing away (udayabbaya ~nana) 5. Knowledge of dissolution' (bhanga ~nana) 6. Knowledge of fearfulness (bhaya ~nana, 7. Knowledge of misery (adinava ~nana) 8. Knowledge of disgust (nibbida ~nana). 9. Knowledge of equanimity about formations (sankharupekkha ~nana) References: ---------------- 1. The Visuddhimagga (translated by Venerable Bhikkhu Nanamoli) 2. Satipatthana Vipassana by Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/wheel370.html ........................................... >Suk: 8) In conclusion, I think it is wrong to believe that the Buddha taught us to begin the practice/patipatti with noting concepts. This is denying the effect of having heard about dhammas and how this effects a change in our understanding of experiences. Sure, we will still have atta sanna, but how would even this be known if we kept encouraging the same while trying to note `bodily postures' and such?! Indeed how could any nama or rupa be known if `patipatti' is not understood as being a `conditioned nama' but instead as something which a `self' has to do?! The development of understanding takes time as it must given the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, but let's not make it harder by insisting on an interpretation of the Dhamma, theory and practice, which seems so clearly to be taking us in the wrong direction! T: Again, you are claiming a lot here. Review the Mahasatipatthana Sutta again, Sukin, The very first kayanupassana is Anapanasati, the first tetrad (of four vatthus). If the in-and-out breaths are not "concepts", then what are? Denying Anapanasati, you are doomed to failure of missing what samatha-vipassana means. And that is a lot of missing ! Tep === #90184 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear TG, TG: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we separately classify the conceived." Scott: Yet more fantastic airs are wrought, when all is one and one is nought. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #90185 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/14/2008 9:45:19 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Alex, A: "Are you saying that 'concept has no characteristics and is timeless'? Concept Permanent (nicca) and unconditioned (asankhata)? Scott: I understand this to be the Abhidhamma clarification regarding pa~n~natti. They are not paramattha dhammas (hence no characteristics) but, as I understand them, they are conditioned. Nibbaana is the only unconditioned element, as I understand it. Sincerely, Scott. Hi Scott and Alex and All Of course, I am not one who thinks that the "features" we identify have "their own characteristics." But from an Abhidhammically minded point of view, why not attach "characteristics" to concepts? Let's try this out for size... Concepts have the characteristic of 'imagination.' Its function is to organize in-form-ation. It is manifested as thought. Its proximate cause is memory-mentation. That wasn't so bad now was it? ;-) Whatever "characteristics" that phenomena may "appear to have" are at best -- provisional, relative, and non-absolute. Its much better to look at what "appears now" and realize that THAT appearance, if discerned as "its own thing," is a 'lie in progress.' It is a false facade. Insight strips phenomena of the ability to delude the mind of the notion that anything has anything of "its own." Phenomena are insubstantial, empty, hollow, coreless, utterly dependent, relative to conditional forces, and disintegrating accordingly. TG #90186 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/14/2008 12:07:20 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, TG: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we separately classify the conceived." Scott: Yet more fantastic airs are wrought, when all is one and one is nought. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. Hi Scott That would be a 'good one' if I were one who held any notion resembling "all is one" or that "all is nothing" ... which I do not. I like the poetry though! :-) Now, if you can 'zing me' with -- "all has no essence of its own" -- or the like ... that would apply! TG #90187 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana as Requisite for Nibbana dhammanusarin Dear Sarah (and Alex), - Your reply is fettered with speculation. > >T: Yes, you can say "the attaining of enlightenment (usually)" > is "with joy, happiness and always, of course, without doubt". > > >BTW, what are you trying to correct, expand, or disagree? > ... > S: I'm questioning/disagreeing with the suggestion that the passage quoted suggests that prior jhana "is a requisite for Nibbana". When right understanding is developed and enlightenment occurs, I would assume it would be with much joy and happiness. > T: Do not assume. Everybody can assume. But how do I know if your assumption is right? Tep === #90188 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/14/2008 11:53:02 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: I understand this to be the Abhidhamma clarification regarding pa~n~natti. They are not paramattha dhammas (hence no characteristics) but, as I understand them, they are conditioned. Scott: Concepts are not sa"nkhaara as I understand it. As I see it, since impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned realities - paramattha dhammas - and since concepts are not paramattha dhammas, then they do not arise and fall away - they are not impermanent. Hi Scott (and Alex) Scott, from your two above, are you saying that "concepts" are "conditioned unrealities"? I'll be working on a poem just in case. ;-) TG #90189 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear TG, TG: "...I like the poetry though! :-)" Scott: Thanks. Sincerely, Scott. #90190 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:39 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Dear Scott and all, > "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "...what about 'timeless' part? How can conditioned concepts > be timeless? Sabbe Sankhara anicca - remember?" > > Scott: Concepts are not sa"nkhaara as I understand it. As I see it, > since impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned realities - > paramattha dhammas - and since concepts are not paramattha dhammas, > then they do not arise and fall away - they are not impermanent. > > This is all subject to correction. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > So there *is* something permanent? I disagree here. I believe that concepts are sanna/naama and thus impermanent AND conditioned (at least by language). Best wishes, Alex #90191 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: was: Warnings . Survey and concepts. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 14-sep-2008, om 15:50 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > I'm carefully re-reading Kh. Sujin's 'A > Survey of Paramattha Dhammas', going through each reference I can > find. I, of course, don't consider her to be my teacher. I consider > the Dhamma to be my teacher. That I see it as she does, or as Sarah > does, or as the so-called DSG Abhidhammakas do is not my fault. I > just happen to find no disagreement. ------- N: When you have time, I will be delighted if you quote parts from Survey. It is on line and easily accessible on Rob's site Abhidhamma. Always something to ponder over in it. You rightly say that concepts are timeless, I read this in Abhidhamma topics. They have no past, present, future. You also wrote: --------- You also wrote correctly: Concepts are not sa"nkhaara as I understand it. As I see it, since impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned realities - paramattha dhammas - and since concepts are not paramattha dhammas, then they do not arise and fall away - they are not impermanent. --------- N: Conditioned, is in Pali: sankhaata, or sankhaara dhamma. As you say: what is conditioned arises and then has to fall away. Therefore it cannot be said that concepts are conditioned as you wrote before. Nina. #90192 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:50 am Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. dhammanusarin Dear Scott (Sarah), - We were talking about tees, pannatti, sankhara and nama. >Scott: Concepts are not paramattha but sammuti. They form part of conventional speech and abound in ordinary thinking about things. I think the Abhidhamma method suggests that 'trees' would have a conceptual 'mode of being'. Concepts are constructed in the mind. Concepts are mental objects - that is naama bends towards them. I think this is object condition. This alone should show how I was wrong in including concepts as naama. I don't think, although I may be wrong, concepts have any 'function'. I understand concepts to be timeless and without sabhava. T: Whatever is "constructed in the mind" is a sankhara; isn't that true? Isn't sankhara khandha a nama (see MN 9)? Please clarify. No, you were not wrong, Scott. Being attached to views on paramattha versus sammuti causes doubts in you. It is a sore tooth so to pseak. So, get rid of that view. .......................... >Scott: I really enjoy that sutta as well. I was trying to learn how 'tree' is not paramattha, took a bit of a wrong turn, and now, am learning more about it. I'm carefully re-reading Kh. Sujin's 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas', going through each reference I can find. I, of course, don't consider her to be my teacher. I consider the Dhamma to be my teacher. That I see it as she does, or as Sarah does, or as the so-called DSG Abhidhammakas do is not my fault. I just happen to find no disagreement. T: I appreciate your clarification about what/who is or is not your true teacher. Why isn't the Buddha your teacher? That is a saddha. Taking refuge in the Dhamma and recollecting the Teachings is Dhammanusati. You can have both, can't you? And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Tathagata... As he is recollecting the Tathagata, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/90163 Tep === P.S. Dear Sarah, Scott and I have never signed a contract that forbids sutta quotes. #90193 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavi nilovg Dear Herman, I agree that also synthesis is necessary, and the Book of Patthaana is important, I very much respect it and keep it in mind all the time, every day. I do not think of a denial of persons. I just have in mind to develop more understanding of what it is we take for a person. I am well aware that it may not be so attractive to see a person as khandhas that ripen and then break up as the Visuddhimagga states in the upcoming section that will be posted by Larry! It is hard to let go of ideas about persons, or the world we had our whole life. Nina. Op 14-sep-2008, om 8:16 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > An analysis of synthetic wholes into component dhammas > requires a synthetic whole to start with. In simple English, in order > to be able to pluck the petals of a rose, you need a rose to start > with. The denial of beings/persons, which a selective use of the > abhidhamma may lead to, says nothing about reality, but everything > about the method used to study it. #90194 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:03 pm Subject: Re: capable of alighting on the stream dhammanusarin Dear Alex (and all), - I need you to give more motivation by answering the good questions you posted. > Alex: > Have you commited any of the 5 bad actions with certain result? > No. I don't think anyone here has done it. > T: Which five actions, Alex? > Have you ever blissed out in meditation? > T: Not at all, Alex. Tell me more, but please don't suggest a meditation retreat. I am too old for that. ;-) > > Furthemore, lets discuss this quote: > > "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting > on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even > while listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? > > "He is not endowed with a (present) kamma obstruction, a defilement > obstruction, or a result-of-(past)-kamma obstruction; he has > conviction, has the desire (to listen), and is discerning. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.086.than.html > > Does anyone know what: > a) Present Kamma obstruction is? > b) Defilement obstruction is? > c)result-of-(past)-kamma obstruction is? > T: I flunked this quiz, Alex. Tell me what they are, please. Tep === #90195 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings ... The No-book Rule Does Not Apply Here?. dhammanusarin Dear Scottie, - Thank you very much for the sincere elaboration on the various personal issues with me like good friends do. > T: Once you are able to put the books > back on the shelve, then you are free to depend on your own > understanding that is not contaminated by book knowledge and > pannatti. You become a free man." > > Scott: I think care should be taken here, Tep. You read all the time - you've said so yourself. You have favourite suttas and often cite the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, for example. This sort of misunderstanding about 'book knowledge' is often brought up here. Very much a red herring. Where is the Dhamma today but in the books? There is no Buddha to listen to any more. And the dhammas to be known are arising and falling away constantly. I'll not be putting any books back on any shelf any time soon. T: Please carefully note what I said above, "when you are able to put the books back on the shelve". It is up to each individual to decide when it is the best time. I think mine has come. For the rest of your message I have some thoughts to offer as follows. Once the books are well studied, it is time to put them away and start experimenting with the dhammas. Like a daughter who has to leave her parents to start her own family one day. ;-) Direct experiencing the dhammas is not thinking dependent. Thinking is a sankhara; beyond thinking is freedom from sankhara. [Sabba sankhara samatho] Sincerely yours, Tep === #90196 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:10 pm Subject: Re: capable of alighting on the stream truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, >--- "Tep" wrote: > > Dear Alex (and all), - > > I need you to give more motivation by answering the good questions > you posted. > > > > Alex: > > > Have you commited any of the 5 bad actions with certain result? > > No. I don't think anyone here has done it. > > > > T: Which five actions, Alex? Panchanandriya kamma that forbid attaining fruits in this life: Parricide, Matricide, killing an Arahant, wounding a Buddha and deliberately causing schism in the sangha. 2 last ones definately do not apply to us. Finding an Arahant is very tough. Mogok Sayadaw: If you have not committed any of these sins just try your best in the practice. It will take only seven years if a person is very dull, seven months for an average and seven days for very bright persons with the right practice. It won't happen without practice. You must work hard with faith, mindfulness, concentration, energy, and wisdom (Saddha, Sati, Samadhi, Viriya and Panna). http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/thtutmg.htm > > Have you ever blissed out in meditation? > > > > T: Not at all, Alex. Tell me more, but please don't suggest a > meditation retreat. I am too old for that. ;-) Oh no. How did you know I was going to say that? See you already have a mind-reading nana :). Are you sure you can't go to the retreats? Maybe you should stock up on prepared food and camp somewhere for as long as possible, meditating. Or in worst case scenario do it at home, but switch off the internet and similiar distraction for the duration of the home-retreat. > > > > Furthemore, lets discuss this quote: > > > > "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting > > on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even > > while listening to the true Dhamma. Which six? > > > > "He is not endowed with a (present) kamma obstruction, a defilement > > obstruction, or a result-of-(past)-kamma obstruction; he has > > conviction, has the desire (to listen), and is discerning. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.086.than.html > > > > Does anyone know what: > > a) Present Kamma obstruction is? > > b) Defilement obstruction is? > > c)result-of-(past)-kamma obstruction is? > > > > T: I flunked this quiz, Alex. Tell me what they are, please. > > > Tep > === I'd myself like to know the specific answers to the above. I think that the 5 heineous crimes is one answer. Another is: "Sensual desires, anger, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry and doubts are obstacles, mental over growths, the things that weaken wisdom. Bhikkhus, that the bhikkhu should know his own good, the good of others or the good of both or will know and realize something noble above human without dispelling without making weak wisely considering the danger, of the obstacles sensual desires, anger, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry and doubts is not a possibility" http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/006-nivaranavaggo-e.html Note: realizing above human state requires making weak 5 hindrances. ========== Some food for thought, Best wishes, Alex #90197 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:14 pm Subject: Difference of opinion hantun1 Dear Sarah, Nina, and Tep, I would like to share what I have learned when there is a strong difference of opinion among groups of people. In Burma before WWII there was a group of Sayadaws and their followers who believed that the kamma (kaaya kamma, vacii kamma, mano kamma) is more important in accumulating kusala and akusala. These persons were called Kamma Sect. Then, there was another group of Sayadaws and their followers who believed that the dvaara (kaaya dvaara, vacii dvaara, mano dvaara) is more important in accumulating kusala and akusala. These persons were called Dvaara Sect. There was an endless debate for years between the two groups. They wrote countless number of articles in newspapers, journals, and magazines. But they could not get any agreement, and neither side won the debate. Then WWII came. During the war nobody could think about kamma or dvaara. It was the time for survival, the time to stay alive. After the war it seemed that both the groups were exhausted and no energy left to continue their debate. And the difference in opinion died a natural death. The lesson I learned was that when there is a strong difference in opinion, it is impossible to get an agreement, and neither side can win the debate. Respectfully, Han #90198 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott, and Alex) - In a message dated 9/14/2008 2:07:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Scott and Alex and All Of course, I am not one who thinks that the "features" we identify have "their own characteristics." But from an Abhidhammically minded point of view, why not attach "characteristics" to concepts? Let's try this out for size... Concepts have the characteristic of 'imagination.' Its function is to organize in-form-ation. It is manifested as thought. Its proximate cause is memory-mentation. That wasn't so bad now was it? ;-) Whatever "characteristics" that phenomena may "appear to have" are at best -- provisional, relative, and non-absolute. Its much better to look at what "appears now" and realize that THAT appearance, if discerned as "its own thing," is a 'lie in progress.' It is a false facade. Insight strips phenomena of the ability to delude the mind of the notion that anything has anything of "its own." Phenomena are insubstantial, empty, hollow, coreless, utterly dependent, relative to conditional forces, and disintegrating accordingly. TG ============================== The English 'concept' is being used here differently by different people. You, TG, and Alex are using it as I always have to mean the sort of mental phenomenon we call an idea. Others here use it to refer to the intended referent of an idea, which often isn't an existent. In the case that it is a collection, these referent-of-an-idea folks consider it not to exist. With metta, Howard #90199 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:25 pm Subject: Re: Difference of opinion dhammanusarin Dear Han (Nina, Sarah), - Thank you for this special thread on the issue that is appropriate for any discussion group : lesson to learn when there is a strong diference in opinion (idea or belief). >Han: The lesson I learned was that when there is a strong difference in opinion, it is impossible to get an agreement, and neither side can win the debate. That's true. But how can we tell which opinion or idea is right, or better than the other? I think one way to find out which issue is right is to put each to test in several case studies. The better idea (or "opinion") is the one that can explain most real life situations better. For example, dana is kusala. Is dana accumulated by means of the three wholesome actions or through the six-sense doors? Tep ===