#90600 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? ajahnjose My Dear Alex, I dont know if you go for ceremonies to Monasteries. People loves to bring food to the Monks, exceselly amounts, hear the Monks the chanting of their traditional suttas from their countries of births and perform simple duties pass to them by thouzands of years of tradition. After that, they go home happy that they have completed their duties as Buddhist.We go to their houses for blessings and remembrances of passed away members, and YES, we all Monks get an envelope, here in Australia, with a minimum of $50 dollars for doing that, including the ceremonies at the Monastery. The money is kept by the Monks and not passed to the Monastery. I am the only Monk known to return the envelop to the widow of the death person or give the money in the collection box of the Monastery. But in all fairness, I am a wealthy Monk, that also goes with everything that a Monk should not do.Metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Wed, 9/24/08, Alex wrote: <...> Dear Bhante, "Simplicity is ultimate complication. " - Leonardo DaVinci (I think). Sometimes what may appear to be a "simple and conventional sutta" is not really simple, nor conventional. Best wishes, Alex #90601 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/9/23 Scott : > Dear Paul (and Sarah), > > P: "...That's a tricky question that for me comes down to the old > chestnut of 'ultimate realities' versus 'conventional designations' > ...Are you able to tell me then whether the Abhidhamma treats the > characteristics of dhammas as 'paramattha dhamma' (ultimate > characteristics) or simply as conventional designations to assist with > recognition of particular classifications of dhammas?..." > > Scott: If, for example, cognizing visible object is the characteristic > of eye-consciousness, and eye-conciousness is empty of seeing, how can > there be seeing? > Well, that's just it, Scott. There is no seeing. There is visible object. Seeing visible object is tautologous. A consciousness that sees is so void it simply isn't there. Cheers Herman #90602 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? ajahnjose Dear Alex, that is a good answer for an educated person, try that on simple peasants and gentle people with no reality of complications and not much understanding of Buddhism except for the traditional chanting and ceremonies. Metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Wed, 9/24/08, TGrand458@... wrote: In a message dated 9/23/2008 6:35:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@ yahoo.ca writes: Dear Bhante, "Simplicity is ultimate complication. "Simplicity is ultimate complicatio Sometimes what may appear to be a "simple and conventional sutta" is not really simple, nor conventional. #90603 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Hi Herman, I was about to reply to another post of yours, but when I saw this one, I’ve decided to write here instead. ============ > I have no plans regarding how this should proceed and am not known to > be systematic in thought. So please be patient if you find what I > write to be erratic at times. In fact I came up with the first > statement below only just now: Herman; Thank you for starting this thread. Suk: I am glad that you appreciate it. =========== > In our day to day life some experiences come across as being that of > "realities" and some of "illusions". Herman: Yes. > The one can be said to distinguish from the other in that these > exhibits characteristics while the other does not. Herman: No, an absence of characteristics is unknowable. Because it is characteristics that are what is known. Illusions are different to realities in that they turn out not to be what was expected. Suk: Or that because realities are shown to be as exhibiting characteristics, that which does not, can be known too. Moreover, because the experience of the latter usually follows that of the former, some discrimination can happen with the arising of a level ‘wisdom’. More importantly however, given that it is the function of panna to ‘understand’ and this accumulates, there is no reason why with ‘concept’ as object of consciousness, the ‘thinking’ can’t be known by its characteristics at that very moment. But perhaps you use ‘illusion’ with a different meaning? =========== > Of the former, there are two kinds: `Mental' reality, that which > experiences / knows and `material' reality, that which does not > experience / know. Herman: I think you have dived straight into your pet theory here, without so much as looking out the window to see what is really happening. :-) You stipulate a fundamental dualism here between knowing and not knowing , without saying why that is your basis. Suk: Yes, I realize that I come in with some preconceived concepts, but I consider these to be a given otherwise the discussion may never proceed. I explained some of this to Tep and Rinze in the post I just wrote. And it is not that they won’t be discussed, of course I intend to do just that in the course of our discussions down the road. But I don’t think it necessary as precondition to starting the discussion. One might even ask why needs to have these things defined first. Why not just go along? Regarding it being ‘pet theory’ and how much so, I hope this too will come to light as we proceed. ;-) =========== Herman: Why not start with what is obvious, and add or delete as is needed by the reality that we are trying to understand. What would be wrong with starting instead in the following way, which seems to me far more intuitive? There is the reality of experiences. Suk: :-) It crossed my mind. But this can be misleading and even this will be questioned by some, I would think. Metta, Sukin #90604 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' sukinderpal Dear Tep, You wrote: =========== You might have missed some little things. ............. >Suk: Satipatthana is *the* practice, and its importance has always been stressed. T: What do you exactly mean by saying that? ............. >Suk: That I don't `practice' Anapanasati the way you and others understand it, is because I have my own understanding about it and which does not agree with yours. T: How does it agree with the Buddha's words? ............ But if you don't really want to repond to the above questions, I will certainly accept your decision. :-) Sukin: My response in the last post was: “As suggested before, I expect that the Dhamma questions posed here and elsewhere, these will be answered in the course of our discussion in that other thread.” If you still wish that I particularly answer these questions, let me know. Metta, Sukin #90605 From: "Video_586" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Scott, ----- Paul: "...to me "eye-consciousness" and "seeing" are synonymous and both point to the same transient event, so the question (as I understand it) is circular." Scott: This is not necessarily a circular question, depending on your understanding, Paul. The sutta quote is a good example of abhidhamma in the suttas. How do you understand 'cakkhuvi~n~naa.na'? ----- Alas I can't really add anything to the above understanding. To me, cakkhuvi~n~naa.na = eye consciousness = seeing. Period. As I caveated earlier, my understanding of Abhidhamma terminology (or more specifically, the nuances given by the Abhidhamma to terms expressed more generally in the Sutta Pitaka) is lacking... I happily admit that. Your point may have to be made a little more directly if it's going to penetrate this thick skull of mine. Metta, Paul. :o) #90606 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... ajahnjose Dear Herman, He He He He.metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Wed, 9/24/08, Herman Hofman wrote: From: Herman Hofman ... > S: "...that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah > are impermanent. .." Hmmmm, did the Buddha teach this or is it your own > interpretation, Tep:-)). > He did often suggest to those with an ear to hear to seek out the foot of trees. Oh dear, what could he possibly have meant? We'd surely be lost without a higher understanding of this :-) Cheers Herman #90607 From: "colette" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. ksheri3 Hi Herman and Sukin, Time to disagree. > Herman: > No, an absence of characteristics is unknowable. Because it is > characteristics that are what is known. Illusions are different to > realities in that they turn out not to be what was expected. > colette: a common cold can turn out to not be what was expected, yet a common cold is by no means an illusion. Illusions stem from the root consciousness of Lobha Moha and Dosa, all are poisonous. Once you allow those illusionary roots to take hold then you condition them with your rationalization which does nothing more than gratify your concsciousness exactly the same way masturbation gratifies your consciousness. Illusions and hallucinations start long before the process of rendering them tangible or not occurs. <....> ---------------------------------------- > Suk: Or that because realities are shown to be as exhibiting > characteristics, that which does not, can be known too. Moreover, > because the experience of the latter usually follows that of the former, > some discrimination can happen with the arising of a level `wisdom'. colette: well, I get to dump on the leader huh? Sukin how can you say that discrimination only happens as a resultant phenomina? What is "COGNITION" if not "DISCRIMINATION"? How does Buddha Nature arise as a phenomina for the mind to cognize it? Buddha Nature has Svabhava and so cannot cease nor can it arise, it is just there. The question is, can your illusions mask the Svabhava of Buddha Nature properly so that it cannot be COGNIZED? It's late and I don't have time now to begin a debate that can and will get long and drawn out. Thank you. toodles, colette <...> #90608 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Greetings Paul, I'd like to go slowly through your comments as I think there are several issues and these will be relevant to other threads as well, especially the paramattha/conventional one. I may end up breaking my reply into a couple of posts. Let's see: --- On Tue, 23/9/08, Video_586 wrote: >Thank you once more for the excellent response which I feel has indeed answered my question nicely. It leaves me feeling suitably more comfortable about the way the Abhidhamma presents itself than I would have had it indeed been the case that it actually 'reified dhammas'. The quotations provided, the phrasing and such, all conform with my understanding of aniccata, as learned from the Sutta Pitaka. .... S: Thanks for your kind reply here and I also find that what I read in the Abhidhamma supports and elaborates on what is said in the Sutta Pitaka, really stressing that there are only impermanent dhammas, no atta to be found anywhere. .... P:> You asked... >>S: I'd also be interested to hear about anything more behind the >question such as whether you're questioning dhammas as having >characteristics or what. >That's a tricky question that for me comes down to the old chestnut of 'ultimate realities' versus 'conventional designations' . If something is in flux (to use the term you used earlier and that I often use when trying to express my understanding) , the only ultimate reality at work seems to be aniccata. ... S: I'd put it that 'the only ultimate reality at work' is a nama or rupa (a mental or physical phenomenon). All such namas and rupas (apart from the nama which is nibbana, of course) have the characteristic of anicca. In other words the specific characteristics (visesa lakkhana) of namas and rupas, such as seeing and visible object, have to be understood before. the general characteristics (saama~n~na lakkhana) of them (i.e anicca, dukkha, anatta) can be realized. In fact, it is by understanding the specific characteristics more and more precisely that the general characteristics of dhammas become known. .... P: > To attribute to, or derive characteristics from a dhamma, seems to me as if such characteristics could only be conventional designations at best. Whilst aniccata is omnipresent, the conventional characteristics of a dhamma would be transient, continuously subject to change. .... S: Let's continue to consider the dhammas, seeing consciousness and visible object. Like all other dhammas, they are impermanent, but the characteristic of seeing consciousness is very different from that of visible object. We use conventional designations to discuss them, but even without words, they have particular characteristics which can be directly known. Seeing is a nama, it experiences what is visible. The object, that which is seen, doesn't experience or know anythig. It is just that which is seen at this moment. to be contd.... Metta, Sarah ========= #90609 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Dear Paul, contd. (2) I just referred to how the specific characteristics (visesa lakkhana) of namas and rupas, such as seeing and visible object, have to be understood before the general characteristics (saama~n~na lakkhana) of them (i.e anicca, dukkha, anatta) can be realized. As I just wrote the characteristic of seeing consciousness is very different from that of visible object. "Seeing is a nama, it experiences what is visible. The object, that which is seen, doesn't experience or know anything. It is just that which is seen at this moment." .... P:> Are you able to tell me then whether the Abhidhamma treats the characteristics of dhammas as "paramattha dhamma" (ultimate characteristics) or simply as conventional designations to assist with recognition of particular classifications of dhammas? .... S: This is what we read in the first chapter of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (translated in C.M.A.,edited by B.Bodhi), a compendium or summary of the Abhidhamma Pitaka: "The Fourfold Ultimate Reality (catudhaa paramattha) "Tattha vutt'aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Citta.m cetasika.m ruupa.m Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa. "The four things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbaana." .... S: The commentary to this text, the Vibhaavinii, (translated by Wijeratne and Gethin) further states: "Therein - in the Abhidhamma - the topics of Abhidhamma spoken of in full, as wholesome and so on, and as aggregates and so on, from the ultimate standpoint - by way of ultimate exposition, setting aside conventional talk - are four - are classified in four ways, namely: consciousness (citta), the aggregate of consciousness (vi~n~naa.na); mentalities, the three aggregates beginning with feeling; materiality, the aggregate of materiality differentiated as the elements and dependent [materialities]; nibbaana, the unconditioned dhamma which becomes the object of the path and fruits. This is the grammatical construction. "Ultimate means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate." ..... S: So when you ask whether the Abhidhamma "treats the characteristics of dhammas as "paramattha dhamma" (ultimate characteristics) or simply as conventional designations to assist with recognition of particular classifications of dhammas?", my answer is that: a) The dhammas themselves (i.e cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana) are "paramattha dhamma". b) These dhammas (or dhammaa) have specific characteristics (visesa lakkhana)and in the case of cittas, cetasikas and rupas, have general characteristics (saama~n~na lakkhana) too. c) When we use these various terms, they are conventional designations (vohaara), but they are pointing to the characteristics of the paramattha dhammas which can be directly known with insight through the development of satipatthana. ... to be contd. Metta, Sarah ========== #90610 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hi Paul, 2008/9/23 Video_586 : > Greetings Sarah, > > Thank you once more for the excellent response which I feel has indeed > answered my question nicely. It leaves me feeling suitably more > comfortable about the way the Abhidhamma presents itself than I would > have had it indeed been the case that it actually 'reified dhammas'. > The quotations provided, the phrasing and such, all conform with my > understanding of aniccata, as learned from the Sutta Pitaka. > and > > Are you able to tell me then whether the Abhidhamma treats the > characteristics of dhammas as "paramattha dhamma" (ultimate > characteristics) or simply as conventional designations to assist with > recognition of particular classifications of dhammas? > In asking your questions about the Abhidhamma perspective on dhammas, do you wish to limit answers to the Abhidhamma proper, or do the Abhidhamma commentaries pass for Abhidhamma as well? If so, it may interest you to know that the commentaries differ in significant ways from the Abhidhamma, and what follows on from this is if people do not tell you their sources, you may well end up with a mistaken notion of what the Abhidhamma teaches. Cheers Herman #90611 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Dear Paul, (Scott & all), contd (3) P:> As you can see, I do have certain reservations about claiming that characterists, let alone dhammas, truly 'exist'. In this respect, I'm very much influenced by SN 12.15: http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn12/sn12. 015.than. html ------------ --------- "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. .... S: Here, I'm just going to take the easy route for now by referring you to "Useful Posts" in the files section. If you scroll down to 'K', you will find the following under 'Kaccanagotta Sutta (SN:12:15(5))': >10500, 15227, 36930, 56882, 63073, 73481, 73841, 74661, 74694, 74870, 89778< If you then click on the highlighted numbers of archived posts(or individually copy and key them in on the homepage), you'll find links to a wealth of explanation and commentary detail, any of which several of us would be happy for you to copy, re-post and discuss in yet more detail:-) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/74870, for example, is one of Scott's in which he recently quoted the relevant commentary notes to the sutta. Simply put, ideas of eternalism and annihilationism all spring from ideas of atta, of self-existence and self-being. No 'polarity', no wrong view when ideas of self have been eradicated at the stage of sotapanna. I'll look forward to any further discussion. Metta, Sarah ======== #90612 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Warning! Don't try this at home! sarahprocter... Dear Alex, (& Tep), --- On Tue, 23/9/08, Alex wrote: >---sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Tep (& Alex), > S: So far, I don't see anything about 'trees' and 'Sarah' >being 'real' and 'impermanent' . > ... .... A:> Tree = Gross Rupa which is far away until the crash, in which case it would be near. Its shape & form is impermanent, especially after the crash... >Furthermore, I think that Tep has meant "sankhata" not sankhara aggregate, so please don't conviniently use that. .... S: First of all, when I asked what khandha 'tree' is, you said 'probably sanna'. Now you say it's 'Gross Rupa', 'far' and then 'near'. You go onto say that when I asked Tep where the Buddha taught that trees were real and impermanent and in response he quoted from the extract on khandhas in the Anattalakkhana sutta about sankhara khandha (in Pali and English to avoid any misunderstanding), that he didn't really mean sankhara khandha and somehow I'm conveniently using his reply. Next you'll be telling me that trees are vedana or vinnana khandha. Isn't this a clutching at straws? In what way are 'trees' sankhata anyway? If you're sticking to 'trees' as rupa for now, perhaps you could tell me which of the 28 rupas they are? To narrow it down a little, which of the gross rupas are they? (Hint: the gross rupas refer to the 7 rupas appearing through the 5 sense-doors and the 5 pasada rupas of eye-sense etc.) Metta, Sarah =========== #90613 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, I'm always glad to find agreement with you. On the quotes from Karunadasa which you found so helpful (which I'd quoted before), I have to say I'm generally pretty 'iffy' about what he writes, but I think in the context, the following was the main point with which we're in agreement: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >"...In point of fact, in commenting upon the > Patisambhidamagga statement that the five aggregates -- and, by > implication, the dhammas -- are devoid of sabhava, the commentator > observes that since the aggregates have no self-nature, they are devoid of > own-nature.50 It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used > as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the > very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of > being." .... S: You then went on to say: ... H: > 3) [I will, below, relate this item to a notion of mine that some here dislike] > > "Accordingly the term 'person' becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently, originated psycho- physical factors."[i.e namas and rupas or paramattha dhammas]." > > Please note the word 'congeries', for which I provide here the dictionary > definition: <..> > Inflected Form(s): plural congeries/same/ > Etymology: Latin, from congerere > : _AGGREGATION _ (javascript:lookWord('aggregation');) , _COLLECTION _ > (javascript:lookWord('collection');) .... S: Yes, 'person' is a common designation given to 'congeries' of namas and rupas. There is no denying of this. The realities are the namas and rupas, the various khandhas only. Metta, Sarah ======= #90614 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- On Fri, 19/9/08, colette wrote: > >S: Let's consider the eye-door. To be precise, it refers to the rupa > of eye-sense which is an essential condition for seeing and other > cittas in the same process to arise. ... >colette: at first I had similar concepts of the "eye-door" consciousness but I've gone so far that I can't possibly accept that any longer as a valid definition. "Rupas" are a noun and "essential condition" is a state of being so how can they be in the same sentence that way, Sarah? ============ ========= = S: What do you mean by "'essential condition' is a state of being"? What I meant in my sentence was that without eye-sense, there cannot be any seeing of visible object. For example, if someone is born completely blind from birth, there is no seeing of visible object at all. In planes of existence where there is no eye-sense, no visible objects are experienced either. .... C:> Gotta go. Thanks for allowing me room to play with the mundane concept of concepts. ... S: As long as we don't take those concepts for being reality, we can play on with them without any misunderstanding at all:-)) Have a good day, Colette! Metta, Sarah ======= #90615 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Fine Friendship is the best Advantage! bhikkhu0 Friends: Wise Company gives the best Advantage: The Blessed Buddha once said: I am a friend and helper to all, I am sympathetic to all living beings. I develop a mind full of love & one who always delight in harmlessness! I gladden my mind, fill it with joy, and make it immovable and unshakable. I develop these divine states of mind not cultivated by simple men. Theragatha 648-9 I am a friend of the footless, I am a friend of the bipeds; I am a friend of those with four feet, I am a friend of the many-footed. May not the footless harm me, may not the bipeds harm me, may not those with four feet harm me, & may not those with many feet harm me. AN II 72 A friend, who always lends a hand, a friend both in sorrow and joy, a friend who offers good counsel, a friend who sympathizes too. These are the four kinds of true friends: One who is wise, who have understood much, will always cherish and serve such friends just as a mother tends her only child. DN III, 188 Among tigers, lions, leopards & bears I lived in the jungle. No one was frightened of me, nor did I fear anyone. Uplifted by such universal friendliness, I enjoyed the forest. Finding great solace in such sweetly silenced solitude… Suvanna-sama Jataka 540 And how does a Bhikkhu abide with his mind imbued with friendliness extending over one direction? Just as he would feel friendliness on seeing a dearly favourite person, so he extends this same loving-kindness to all beings in all directions, one by one, & as above so below. Abhidhamma Pitaka: Appamañña-vibhanga Bhikkhus, whatever kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one sixteenth part of the release of mind by universal friendliness; in shining, glowing and beaming radiance, in invisible shielding protection, such release of mind by universal friendliness far excels & surpasses them all... Itivuttaka 27 <...> Have a nice friendly day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #90616 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:18 am Subject: Survey quotes nilovg Dear friends, Nina. #90617 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, The last reason for giving mentioned in the sutta is giving “because it ennobles and adorns the mind”. Dåna causes the citta of the giver and the receiver to be soft and gentle, the Commentary explains in a previous Sutta on giving. Giving in order to get rid of selfishness is the purest way of giving. We have many moments of stinginess, but when we are considerate of others and we are generous to them there are moments without selfishness. However, we may also be attached to the idea that giving ennobles and adorns the mind. One may be attached to an idea of acquiring kusala for oneself, an idea of “my kusala”. Unselfishness can gradually become one’s nature, but not without practice. The development of right understanding which can eradicate defilements was the topic of our Dhamma discussions in Sri Lanka. This understanding is developed through mindfulness of the nåmas and rúpas which appear in our daily life. Right understanding can be developed together with all kinds of kusala. We discovered in the course of our discussions that it is most important to understand the true purpose of kusala, dåna included: to lessen defilements, to get rid of selfishness. If one does not see that dåna is a means to have less selfishness and one neglects dåna, how can one with sincerity develop satipatthåna which has as its aim the eradication of the wrong view of self and eventually of all the other defilements? In order to develop satipatthåna with a sincere inclination one should see the danger of being attached to oneself. ***** Nina. #90618 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:49 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? nilovg Venerable Bhikkhu Yanatharo, Op 24-sep-2008, om 2:23 heeft Ajahn Jose het volgende geschreven: > My Dear Nina, Khun Sujin has a very charismatic and extremelly > understanding of the abhiddhama, she may happy some people with > simple explanations, but if She gets into the really greety and > deepennes of he Abhiddhama, that people will not have a clue what > She is talking about. ------- N: I am glad you bring up this point. People may hear what they did not hear before, but we all need patience. We need to listen again and consider again before we understand. The Dhamma is deep, as the Buddha said himself. If we see the value of his teachings we are motivated to listen again and again. If we gain more understanding we can also help other people who may at first be pleased only with ceremonies and unwilling to listen to deep teachings. I found all Khun Sujin's reminders of Dhamma in the situation of life very helpful all those years I accompanied her to different temples and also during our many journeys together in Thailand and India. I remember your question as to statues, why was there not a statue in the foundation. And as to the relic, how do we know it is a real relic. Khun Sujin answered that most important is the citta that pays respect to the Buddha's virtues. This is a deep answer. Citta is an inward reality. The objects it experiences are external realities. We get lost in outward circumstances and forget to know the citta that experiences objects. Is it kusala or akusala? Is it not important to know this? When others are disagreeable to us in their words, is the citta kusala or akusala? We are likely to always blame others for aversion we have, but they are not the cause of our aversion. We create long stories and go on and on, accumulating more aversion. All those people you meet at ceremonies have their problems in daily life. Perhaps they do not talk about them, but would it not be useful to help them find the real cause of their problems? Within themselves? With respect, Nina. #90619 From: "Video_586" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Herman, Yes, if people could distinguish between Abhidhamma and Commentary where possible that would certainly be of benefit. Thank you for raising this distinction. Metta, Paul. :) #90620 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Paul, P: "Alas I can't really add anything to the above understanding. To me, cakkhuvi~n~naa.na = eye consciousness = seeing. Period." Scott: Okay. Can we agree, then, that cakkh-vi~n~naa.na is a paramattha dhamma with 'seeing' as characteristic (lakkha.na)? (I'm recalling your concern regarding the distinction between 'ultimate realities' versus 'conventional designations'.) Sincerely, Scott. #90621 From: "Video_586" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Sarah, Thanks once more for your comprehensive and well spoken response. In fact, you've done so well that at this point in time I don't really have any further questions, and would feel comfortable just to sit with what has been presented for a while and see how it naturally synthesizes into my current understanding of the Dhamma through reflection and meditation. The notion of the four "paramattha dhammas" is sitting surprisingly comfortably at this point in time too... much the way that the Sutta concepts of five aggregates, six sense-bases and so on seem fine as well. Metta, Paul. :o) #90622 From: "Video_586" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Scott, > Scott: Okay. Can we agree, then, that cakkh-vi~n~naa.na is a > paramattha dhamma with 'seeing' as characteristic (lakkha.na)? (I'm > recalling your concern regarding the distinction between 'ultimate > realities' versus 'conventional designations'.) Yes we can. Metta, Paul. :o) #90623 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Well, that's just it, Scott. There is no seeing. There is visible object. Seeing visible object is tautologous. A consciousness that sees is so void it simply isn't there." Scott: I'm sorry, Herman, but I can't tell whether or not you are being facetious. If not, then I think this view misunderstands su~n~natta and pushes the concept beyond reasonable limits into an absurdity: There is no seeing. This I can't agree with. If your 'eyes' are open (although you think you are seeing 'computer screen' ;-/) there is seeing. I'll do my best to discuss this with you, but I often fail to meet expectations. Sincerely, Scott. #90624 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Paul, P: "Yes we can." Scott: Well, you're on your way then. Sincerely, Scott. #90625 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. sarahprocter... Dear Tep, (Han & all), Apologies for a slow reply: --- On Sun, 14/9/08, Tep wrote: >>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. >Han: 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. ============ === >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; .... S: With regard to this last point, how about these examples: SN 35:1 “Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be *seen as it really is*(yathaa bhuuta) with correct wisdom…..etc” *** SN35:244 (7) “Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu understands as they really are (yathaa bhuuta) the origin and the passing away of all states (dhammas) whatsoever that entail suffering, then sensual pleasures have been seen by him in such a way that as he looks at them sensual desire, sensual affection, sensual infatuation, and sensual passion do not lie latent within him in regard to sensual pleasures:..” *** In the Upanisa sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#sut Faith (saddha) Joy (pamojja) Rapture (piti) Tranquillity (passaddhi) Happiness (sukha) Concentration (samadhi) **Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhuta~nanadassana)** Disenchantment (nibbida) Dispassion (viraga) Emancipation (vimutti) Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ~nana) ***** Metta, Sarah ========= #90626 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/9/24 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "Well, that's just it, Scott. There is no seeing. There is visible > object. Seeing visible object is tautologous. A consciousness that > sees is so void it simply isn't there." > > Scott: I'm sorry, Herman, but I can't tell whether or not you are > being facetious. > I'm very serious about this, but still smiling :-) > If not, then I think this view misunderstands su~n~natta and pushes > the concept beyond reasonable limits into an absurdity: There is no > seeing. This I can't agree with. If your 'eyes' are open (although > you think you are seeing 'computer screen' ;-/) there is seeing. > What I'm trying to get at is that there is never only seeing. If there is seeing, then it is always seeing of visible object. At this level, the visible object IS the seeing of it. It is when the unity of seeing a visible object is thought about, and split into two distinct realities, namely the nama of seeing and the rupa of what is seen, that is where the voidness comes in. I agree, there is a difference between seeing and the seen at this level. But the component/element seeing only refers to the reality that the seen is no longer identical with itself. There is a voidness that has crept in, in that the being of what is seen and the knowing of it are no longer the same. The characteristic of seeing is it's object, the characteristic of seeing in itself is that lacks any, IMO. > I'll do my best to discuss this with you, but I often fail to meet > expectations. Thanks for taking the time out to try and understand what I am raving on about. If any of it is unclear and maybe worthwhile to pursue I'd be happy to clarify. Could I ask, in your scenario, is there a possibility of objectless seeing? And if there isn't, how would you describe the difference between the seen and the seeing? Cheers Herman #90627 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Warning! Don't try this at home! upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex & Tep) - Trees are neither rupas nor namas, nor are they fictions. Each is a trans-temporal, patterned, dynamic collection (or river) of interrelated dhammas, mainly rupas, cognized via the mind door and typically perceived (erroneously) as an individual. With metta, Howard P. S. A tree is not a nama, because namas, as I understand the term, are not any old mind-door objects, but are either mental operations or mental characteristics & events; i.e., they are either types of knowing (for example mere knowing-as-object, or feeling, or recognizing) or are any of various features of mind states (mainly emotions). #90628 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey quotes upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/24/2008 5:20:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, Nina. ============================== Nina, I'm not happy with the formulation "... citta is actually the reality which thinks." Citta is the being conscious of something. It is an operation, an event that occurs. It is not some "thing that thinks." If it were, it would be a thinker. Buddhaghosa, among others, has cautioned against belief in thinkers. Thinking is a complex mental operation that often accompanies being conscious. IMO, agency terminology should be avoided. With metta, Howard #90629 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Warning! Don't try this at home! TGrand458@... Hi Alex and Sarah Jumping in here cause nothing else was interesting... Trees are obviously "rupa," but these silly "mind games" about realities vs concept are for kids....I mean Abhidhammakids. Its simply a virtual non-issue in the Suttas and for good reason. It don't matter. The Buddha described all sort of things...ships, adze-handles, mountains, societies, palaces, etc. as impermanent. What matters is detaching from phenomena...any kind of phenomena in whatever way it is considered. The "so-called realities" ARE DUKKHA. The Buddha knew that when he talked about people, trees, ships, etc. it was for reference. But the same thing applies to the so-called "realities." They are merely "reference-points" and they are not "things in and of themselves." They are not what are considered "realities with THEIR OWN characteristics" by many folks here. Such a thing is impossible. What are being described as "ultimate realities" here; were called by the Buddha -- coreless, empty, hollow, void, like a conjurer's trick, like a mirage, etc. I think this whole argument, concepts vs realities, is a 99.845% mis-understanding of what the Buddha was driving at. I find it not only useless, but very harmful. It sure is convoluted. The Buddha's teaching has classifications in it but it is not about classifications. Abhidhamma and the subsequent commentaries are largely about classifications. Its no surprise that those who would call themselves Abhidhammists think classifying is the be all end all. The sad truth is, its a trap. The more you indulging in "knowing realities," the further from the Dhamma you will be IMO. The sooner you "chuck away" those "realities" the better off you'll be. I gotta go now, I think I misplaced my 17th rupa. I had it this morning............ TG PS ... Sarah, I think you're making great progress in your tutoring of me...don't you? #90630 From: "Tep" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' dhammanusarin Hi Sukin, - Sukinder wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > You wrote: > =========== > You might have missed some little things. > > > ............. >> > If you still wish that I particularly answer these questions, > let me know. > > Metta, > > Sukin > I can wait. Tep === #90631 From: "Tep" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. dhammanusarin Dear Sarah, - You correctly pointed to an error in my last email. >S: With regard to this last point, how about these examples: > SN 35:1 ... SN35:244 (7) ... In the Upanisa sutta: ... Metta, Sarah ========= >Tep(#90157) : 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. T: The "not" in "Yatha-bhuta~nana-dassana is not taught in the Suttas" was a typo and I am sorry for it. It was meant to be "Yatha- bhuta~nana-dassana is taught in the Suttas". The next sentence indicates that the Abhidhamma-pitaka gives MORE details over and above those taught in the Suttas. Thank you for reading my email carefully. Tep === #90632 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:50 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey quotes nilovg Hi Howard, Op 24-sep-2008, om 14:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Citta is the being conscious of something. It is an operation, an > event > that occurs. It is not some "thing that thinks." If it were, it > would be a > thinker. Buddhaghosa, among others, has cautioned against belief in > thinkers. > Thinking is a complex mental operation that often accompanies being > conscious. > IMO, agency terminology should be avoided. ------- N: Thinking is used in a general sense, not in the precise sense of vitakka or vicara. But your objection is against reification. Also when one says: citta is conscious of an object you prefer: citta is the being conscious of an object. I think there is no danger of reification so long as we know that citta arises and passes within a split second. No time for reifying. Citta is beyond control. It has arisen already because of conditions before you realize that it is there. Nina. #90633 From: "Tep" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:56 am Subject: Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. dhammanusarin Dear Sukin (Rinze), - Thank you for the following three replies to my skeptical questions. >Suk: 1. ... one main objective, while avoiding reference to the Abhidhamma, is to determine how well grounded both of us are with regard to things we keep asserting and making statements about. Besides, I don't see any difference between Abhidhamma and the other parts of the Tipitaka when it comes to the Truth being conveyed. 2. I am now also motivated to try to convince you that the knowledge about paramattha dhammas is knowledge about the way things are and this has to do more with `attitude' towards one's moment to moment experience, than some `theory' to acquire. 3. ... this is also an exercise whereby I am testing out my own understanding, I've decided to go ahead with it. So please also don't feel that I am taking the role of a `teacher' or anything. T: I accept them all as being reasonable. A clear demonstration through real examples to show me that "the knowledge about paramattha dhammas is knowledge about the way things are" will be satisfying, and I look forward to that. Your attitude of equality in discussion, rather than superiority of a 'teacher', is commendable. >Suk: And if you still want me to define those terms above, let me know. But I am also hoping not only to being questioned, but also to hearing anything you might suggest as alternative. T: I only questioned the terms you had introduced. Since you know them better, the responsibility to explain is yours. Tep === #90634 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:38 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey quotes upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/24/2008 2:51:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 24-sep-2008, om 14:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Citta is the being conscious of something. It is an operation, an > event > that occurs. It is not some "thing that thinks." If it were, it > would be a > thinker. Buddhaghosa, among others, has cautioned against belief in > thinkers. > Thinking is a complex mental operation that often accompanies being > conscious. > IMO, agency terminology should be avoided. ------- N: Thinking is used in a general sense, not in the precise sense of vitakka or vicara. But your objection is against reification. Also when one says: citta is conscious of an object you prefer: citta is the being conscious of an object. I think there is no danger of reification so long as we know that citta arises and passes within a split second. ----------------------------------------- Howard: It doesn't matter how quickly an operation is completed. The problem is in thinking that there is a thing that performs the operation - in this case, a thinker that thinks fast. ----------------------------------------- No time for reifying. ---------------------------------------- Howard: There's plenty of time. Lifetimes of time. It is a matter of thinking again and again in the wrong way, only solidifying wrong view. ---------------------------------------- Citta is beyond control. It has arisen already because of conditions before you realize that it is there. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Are we not discussing it and thinking about it? (Rhetorical question!) --------------------------------------- Nina. ====================== With metta, Howard #90635 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? kenhowardau Hi Herman (and Paul), I have a couple of comments on your post to Paul: -------- H: > In asking your questions about the Abhidhamma perspective on dhammas, do you wish to limit answers to the Abhidhamma proper, or do the Abhidhamma commentaries pass for Abhidhamma as well? If so, it may interest you to know that the commentaries differ in significant ways from the Abhidhamma, and what follows on from this is if people do not tell you their sources, you may well end up with a mistaken notion of what the Abhidhamma teaches. Cheers -------- Firstly, you make the contentious allegation that the commentaries differ in significant ways from the Abhidhamma. Please, let us know what those differences are! They would make excellent topics for discussion. Secondly, you conclude that if people do not tell us their sources we "may well end up with a mistaken notion of what the Abhidhamma teaches." I would have to agree with that *if,* as you allege, the commentaries differed significantly from the Abhidhamma. Might I also point out, however, that you and several other DSG members reject large portions of the Pali texts (not just the commentaries), and put forward your own, wildly divergent, interpretations. When you make comments the way you do, *without telling us your sources* is there not a danger that some people "may well end up with mistaken notions" of the Dhamma that is found in the Pali texts? Ken H #90636 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] don't drink and drive truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex, (& Tep), > .... > S: First of all, when I asked what khandha 'tree' is, you >said 'probably sanna'. Now you say it's 'Gross Rupa', 'far' and >then 'near'. Word + memory "tree" = sanna-khanda. The rupa that is being labelled is rupakhanda. >In what way are 'trees' sankhata >anyway? Lots and lots of "atoms" , strings, call them as you will. > > If you're sticking to 'trees' as rupa for now, perhaps you could >tell me which of the 28 rupas they are? To narrow it down a little, >which of the gross rupas are they? (Hint: the gross rupas refer to >the 7 rupas appearing through the 5 sense-doors and the 5 pasada >rupas of eye-sense etc.) > > Metta, > > Sarah > =========== In the Buddha's teaching (MN28) about mahabhutas, trees are Earth Element in particular arrangement. Maybe some tiny internal space as well. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html By ABh classification, tree would probably be classed under hardness+cohesion+little bit of heat (earth, water, fire) perceived through the body door and labeled by the mind. Regardless of this, all we have to know is to "don't drink and drive". This sort of analysis may be actually quite good for deep Jhanas, but not when driving at 60mph+ at night. Best wishes, Alex #90637 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:24 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. hantun1 Dear Sarah, Sarah wrote: Dear Tep, (Han & all) Apologies for a slow reply: ----------------------- Han: I know you are very busy. So there is no need to apologize. The only problem with me is that by the time I read your reply I have completely forgotten what I have written. Respectfully, Han #90638 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Here's my attempt: H: "What I'm trying to get at is that there is never only seeing. If there is seeing, then it is always seeing of visible object. At this level, the visible object IS the seeing of it." Scott: I understand that 'seeing' requires the confluence of two elements: 'eye-consciousness' and 'visible object'. We diverge when the concept which designates consciousness (naama) is merged conceptually with the concept which designates 'the seen' (ruupa). I see this merged entity to be entirely conceptual (pa~n~natti) and no longer a concept pointing to a reality (that is, either naama or ruupa). H: "It is when the unity of seeing a visible object is thought about, and split into two distinct realities, namely the nama of seeing and the rupa of what is seen, that is where the voidness comes in." Scott: We differ in that I consider naama and ruupa to be, a priori, two distinct realities. I agree that thinking distorts, and this distortion would be a function of a reality (naama) known as ignorance arising conascently with citta. The concept naama (that is a word which designates a reality) and the concept ruupa are thought about, for sure. To me, though, the thinking about concepts called 'naama' and 'ruupa' does not effect the existence of realities such as 'eye-consciousness' and 'visible object'. These words designate two separate, irreducible realities. I understand su~n~natta to refer to the fact that no self exists in any dhamma and that no dhamma stands alone and self-arisen. I don't agree that this then leads to the conclusion that everything is a total mish-mash. H: "I agree, there is a difference between seeing and the seen at this level. But the component/element seeing only refers to the reality that the seen is no longer identical with itself. There is a voidness that has crept in, in that the being of what is seen and the knowing of it are no longer the same. The characteristic of seeing is it's object, the characteristic of seeing in itself is that lacks any, IMO." Scott: I'm afraid that the above is a bit convoluted. 'The seen', in my opinion, is ruupa. Ruupa doesn't experience anything; such a characteristic is that of naama. Whether ruupa is 'identical with itself' or not is not relevant. Ruupa is anatta, for one thing, and insentient, for another. H: "...Could I ask, in your scenario, is there a possibility of objectless seeing? And if there isn't, how would you describe the difference between the seen and the seeing?" Scott: I don't think that 'objectless seeing' is possible. This might be called 'thinking', for all I know - or day-dreaming. The seen is ruupa; 'seeing', specifically, is cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na, which technically refers to two vipaaka cittas which arise in the citta-viithi following on from when visible object (ruupa) disturbs the bhavanga flow and impinges on the eye-sense (ruupa as well) which, in total, can also be described as 'seeing' (taken as a process). And I thought your prose was convoluted. Sincerely, Scott. #90639 From: "Tep" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. dhammanusarin Dear Han and Sarah, - > Sarah wrote: > Dear Tep, (Han & all) > Apologies for a slow reply: > > ----------------------- > > Han: I know you are very busy. So there is no need to apologize. > The only problem with me is that by the time I read your reply I have completely forgotten what I have written. > > Respectfully, > Han > That's very funny. Tep === #90640 From: "Tep" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:16 pm Subject: Re: don't drink and drive ... Flunking Sarah's Quiz .. dhammanusarin Hi Alex, Sarah, and Howard, - I can tell that you are having a good time giving Alex a dhamma quiz. Let me take your quiz too, Sarah. >Sarah: First of all, when I asked what khandha 'tree' is, you >said 'probably sanna'. Now you say it's 'Gross Rupa', 'far' and >then 'near'. Alex: Word + memory "tree" = sanna-khanda. The rupa that is being labelled is rupakhanda. T: I think both cases are volitional formations. .............. >Sarah: In what way are 'trees' sankhata anyway? Alex: Lots and lots of "atoms" , strings, call them as you will. T: I think Alex means "the formed" (or the fabricated). ............. > Sarah: > If you're sticking to 'trees' as rupa for now, perhaps you could >tell me which of the 28 rupas they are? To narrow it down > a little, which of the gross rupas are they? > (Hint: the gross rupas refer to the 7 rupas appearing > through the 5 sense-doors and the 5 pasada rupas > of eye-sense etc.) > Alex: In the Buddha's teaching (MN28) about mahabhutas, trees are Earth Element in particular arrangement. Maybe some tiny internal space as well. .... By ABh classification, tree would probably be classed under hardness+cohesion+little bit of heat (earth, water, fire) perceived through the body door and labeled by the mind. T: I am lost here, so I'm turning in a blank answer sheet. Tep === #90641 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Colette, > Suk: Or that because realities are shown to be as exhibiting > characteristics, that which does not, can be known too. Moreover, > because the experience of the latter usually follows that of the former, > some discrimination can happen with the arising of a level `wisdom'. colette: well, I get to dump on the leader huh? Sukin how can you say that discrimination only happens as a resultant phenomina? What is "COGNITION" if not "DISCRIMINATION"? How does Buddha Nature arise as a phenomina for the mind to cognize it? Buddha Nature has Svabhava and so cannot cease nor can it arise, it is just there. The question is, can your illusions mask the Svabhava of Buddha Nature properly so that it cannot be COGNIZED? Sukin: Do you consider me the leader because I initiated this particular thread? If what you say is in relation to the group as a whole, I must tell you that I am far from being a leader. I don’t have the accumulations to be one but even if I did, I’d probably be good at leading people towards the wrong direction. ;-) But judging from this and an earlier post to me, it seems that perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else? Anyway, to your question about ‘discrimination’ being resultant, I wasn’t suggesting this, but it may have come across this way due to how I expressed myself. The fact is I mean discrimination as a function of wisdom and this can arise to know any reality, be it that which is cause, effect or neither. With regard to Buddha Nature, I don’t think in terms of this concept at all, so I won’t comment on that part. Thanks for showing your interest in what I write; it gives me a little more reason to do so. :-) Metta, Sukin #90642 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. hantun1 Dear Tep, It was not my intention to be funny. Han --- On Thu, 9/25/08, Tep wrote: Dear Han and Sarah, - > Sarah wrote: > Dear Tep, (Han & all) > Apologies for a slow reply: > > ------------ --------- -- > > Han: I know you are very busy. So there is no need to apologize. > The only problem with me is that by the time I read your reply I have completely forgotten what I have written. > > Respectfully, > Han > That's very funny. Tep === #90643 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. ksheri3 Dear Sukin, I was led to believe that most of the people on this list/forum are your students. So what, it's nothing more than a side point. So essentially, what you're saying about discrimination is that it results after an act, kindof like judging an gymnasts performance, no? Is discrimination resultant from the pleasurable taste of sugar or the non-pleasureable, sour, taste of salt? I ponder this thing they call THE GOLD STANDARD, ooops, that's before international banking became a standard which caused money to float, like turds, no? I'm getting at the Standard of Value, could be the Paradox of Value but that's a stretch since that's between "Diamonds" and "Water" and my conceptualization is between the value of a standard based on the predictability that a group of leaders, a group of communists, no, calluding together to come to the agreement that their decisions will be more favorable as long as they lace the powdered milk with sugar and the babies will still get that aged old man's disease in the feet called goat, no some babies just have the gaul to cry thus they get gaul stones, OBSCURATIONS. Now if ya let this chemical compostition travel through the hydrualic system of the common robot then it will reach their micro-processor and have significant changes on the output. thank you. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Dear Colette, > > > Suk: Or that because realities are shown to be as exhibiting > > characteristics, that which does not, can be known too. Moreover, > > because the experience of the latter usually follows that of the former, > > some discrimination can happen with the arising of a level `wisdom'. > > colette: well, I get to dump on the leader huh?<....> #90644 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, > > I was led to believe that most of the people on this list/forum are > your students. > Dear Colette I am curious as to why you think that? robert #90645 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. gazita2002 Hello Robert, Colette and others, Mayb there's a name confusion bet. Sukin and Sujin !!!! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" > wrote: > > > > Dear Sukin, > > > > I was led to believe that most of the people on this list/forum are > > your students. > > > Dear Colette > I am curious as to why you think that? > robert > #90646 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:00 pm Subject: Gods, Satans, Buddhas & re-Creation. bhikkhu0 A good Friend asked: Question: What do you think of the Christian God? Answer: The Christian God Jehovah exists, but he is neither the sole creator, nor almighty, nor all-knowing. Hehehe… He is at level 10: Devas Delighting in Creation (nimmanarati deva). He still has desire, hate and ignorance. His opponent Satan (in Buddhism Mara) is at level 11: Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva). He also still has desire, hate, and ignorance in his polluted mind. The Buddhas and Arahats are beyond and above all deities, gods, and any form of being, since they have eliminated all Greed, all Hate, and all Ignorance irreversibly! They have transcended existence and becoming by attaining NibbÄ?na! A deathless sameness of absolute peace, freedom & supreme bliss… There no even slight trace of any desire, anger or doubt remains! For the 31 levels of existence please see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html On the recurring re-Creation of the cyclic genesis of the World: See Digha Nikaya 27: Aggañña Sutta. Understanding the beginnings. In this fundamental Book of the historical Buddha Gotama: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=251033 Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90647 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:24 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey quotes nilovg Hi Howard, Op 24-sep-2008, om 23:38 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It doesn't matter how quickly an operation is completed. The > problem is > in thinking that there is a thing that performs the operation - in > this case, > a thinker that thinks fast. > ----------------------------------------- > > No time for reifying. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > There's plenty of time. Lifetimes of time. It is a matter of thinking > again and again in the wrong way, only solidifying wrong view. > ---------------------------------------- > > Citta is beyond control. It has arisen already because of conditions > before you realize that it is there. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Are we not discussing it and thinking about it? (Rhetorical question!) --------- N: We can think in the right way about realities or in the wrong way. If we begin to think in the right way there are conditions for direct awareness of characteristics of realities without naming them and then there will be no doubt that what we call person are only citta, cetasika and rupa. It is citta not us, that is the chief in knowing an object. It is cetasika, not us, performing its function. It is rupa, not us, that appears to citta. But taking citta, cetasika and rupa as a person is only eradicated at the stage of enlightenment of the sotaapanna. Nina. #90648 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm Subject: Survey quote. nilovg Dear friends, Citta is the reality which cognizes, which clearly knows the different characteristics of the objects which appear. Is what is appearing through the eyes at this moment one and the same colour or are there different colours appearing? Reality is true dhamma (sacca dhamma), it can be verified. We should find out whether at this moment we see only one thing, only one colour, or whether we see that which is appearing as different colours, in a detailed way, so that we can distinguish between different things which are perceived. Can we, for example, distinguish between a real diamond and a synthetic diamond? Citta is the reality which sees and knows clearly, it clearly knows the different characteristics of the different objects, and that even into the smallest details. At this moment the rúpa which is the eyesense has as its characteristic a special clarity, it can be compared to a mirror in which the image of whatever passes is clearly reflected. The eyesense can come into contact with visible object. The earsense can come into contact just with sound, smellingsense just with odour, tastingsense just with flavour, and bodysense just with those rúpas which are tangible object. Whatever colour appears, colour of a real diamond, of a synthetic diamond, of jade, of a stone, even the colour of the look in someone’s eyes which expresses envy, all that can appear to the citta which sees. What appears at this moment through the eyes appears to citta which clearly knows it. It sees all the colours of the different objects which appear, and thus the meaning of things can be known, the shape and form perceived, and there can be thinking about what has appeared through the eyes. *********** Nina. #90649 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:33 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, All kinds of akusala are bound to arise time and again. Also when we saw other people giving gifts to monks we noticed that aversion, jealousy and conceit could arise and we discussed our akusala. One may think with feelings of guilt: “The others are giving and I am not giving.” One may be jealous of other people’s kusala. Or there may be conceit while giving, one may find oneself important when thinking of the giver and the receiver. Or the thought may arise: “The others are ahead of me with regard to kusala, I am behind.” Not only when we think ourselves better than others, but also when we think ourselves equal or less than others we may find ourselves important and that is conceit. Not only giving is difficult, also receiving is difficult; receiving can condition akusala cittas. When we receive a gift we are likely to have attachment to the gift or to the giver, or we may think that we have to do something in return and then cittas rooted in aversion (dosa-múla-cittas) may arise. We can learn to receive with kusala citta, with true appreciation of the giver’s good deed. That is anumodana dåna. We noticed during our journey how difficult pure generosity is and how rare kusala cittas are. It is better to know this than to continue living in ignorance, taking for kusala what is akusala. Generosity is a form of alobha, non-attachment. Alobha is a cetasika (mental factor) which can arise only when there are the right conditions for its arising. There is no self who can force its arising and we found this out, time and again during our journey. When we see the value of dåna as a means to lessen selfishness there will be more conditions for genuine generosity; we shall be more considerate of others. We find ourselves important but should we not begin to see the importance of others? Non-attachment can be developed through right understanding. The arahat who has fully developed right understanding has eradicated all forms of clinging. He has achieved the highest form of giving, and that is the giving up of one’s defilements. ******* Nina #90650 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/9/25 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman (and Paul), > > I have a couple of comments on your post to Paul: > > -------- > H: > In asking your questions about the Abhidhamma perspective on > dhammas, do you wish to limit answers to the Abhidhamma proper, or do > the Abhidhamma commentaries pass for Abhidhamma as well? If so, it > may interest you to know that the commentaries differ in significant > ways from the Abhidhamma, and what follows on from this is if people > do not tell you their sources, you may well end up with a mistaken > notion of what the Abhidhamma teaches. Cheers > -------- > > Firstly, you make the contentious allegation that the commentaries > differ in significant ways from the Abhidhamma. Please, let us know > what those differences are! They would make excellent topics for > discussion. Thank you for the invitation, KenH. To some, it may have seemed just being argumentative had I gone and reposted what follows below, without Paul asking for it. However, you did ask, and I would recommend that the whole essay, found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html be read, but in answer to your specific point, B. Bodhi wrote: "Bearing this in mind, we might briefly note a few of the Abhidhammic conceptions that are characteristic of the Commentaries but either unknown or recessive in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself. One is the detailed account of the cognitive process (cittavithi). While this conception seems to be tacitly recognized in the canonical books, it now comes to be drawn out for use as an explanatory tool in its own right. The functions of the cittas, the different types of consciousness, are specified, and in time the cittas themselves come to be designated by way of their functions. The term khana, "moment," replaces the canonical samaya, "occasion," as the basic unit for delimiting the occurrence of events, and the duration of a material phenomenon is determined to be seventeen moments of mental phenomena. The division of a moment into three sub-moments — arising, presence, and dissolution — also seems to be new to the Commentaries.10 The organization of material phenomena into groups (kalapa), though implied by the distinction between the primary elements of matter and derived matter, is first spelled out in the Commentaries, as is the specification of the heart-base (hadayavatthu) as the material basis for mind element and mind-consciousness element. The Commentaries introduce many (though not all) of the categories for classifying kamma, and work out the detailed correlations between kamma and its results. They also close off the total number of mental factors (cetasika). The phrase in the Dhammasangani, "or whatever other (unmentioned) conditionally arisen immaterial phenomena there are on that occasion," apparently envisages an open-ended universe of mental factors, which the Commentaries delimit by specifying the "or-whatever states" (yevapanaka dhamma). Again, the Commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma). The task of defining specific dhammas is finally rounded off by the extensive employment of the fourfold defining device of characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause, a device derived from a pair of old exegetical texts, the Petakopadesa and the Nettipakarana." > > Secondly, you conclude that if people do not tell us their sources > we "may well end up with a mistaken notion of what the Abhidhamma > teaches." I would have to agree with that *if,* as you allege, the > commentaries differed significantly from the Abhidhamma. > See above. > Might I also point out, however, that you and several other DSG > members reject large portions of the Pali texts (not just the > commentaries), and put forward your own, wildly divergent, > interpretations. When you make comments the way you do, *without > telling us your sources* is there not a danger that some people "may > well end up with mistaken notions" of the Dhamma that is found in > the Pali texts? For the record, if it was not already obvious, I am not, and do not aim to portray myself as a student of a particular teacher, I am a student of reality. I believe the Buddha was too. And I certainly don't believe that everything recorded in the Suttas or Vinaya as being his teachings, are his teachings. If they are, then the Buddha had his good days and his bad days :-) Cheers Herman #90651 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/9/25 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Here's my attempt: > Thank you. > H: "What I'm trying to get at is that there is never only seeing. If > there is seeing, then it is always seeing of visible object. At this > level, the visible object IS the seeing of it." > > Scott: I understand that 'seeing' requires the confluence of two > elements: 'eye-consciousness' and 'visible object'. What should I understand from this? You assert that eye-consciousness and visible object are independent of one another, yet you boldly deny objectless seeing. What is the characteristic of eye-consciousness in the absence of visible object? > Scott: I don't think that 'objectless seeing' is possible. This might > be called 'thinking', for all I know - or day-dreaming. The seen is > ruupa; 'seeing', specifically, is cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na, which > technically refers to two vipaaka cittas which arise in the > citta-viithi following on from when visible object (ruupa) disturbs > the bhavanga flow and impinges on the eye-sense (ruupa as well) which, > in total, can also be described as 'seeing' (taken as a process). And > I thought your prose was convoluted. I accept that my prose is convoluted. That may well be a reflection of the complexity of the subject matter. And you rattle of some ideas that are unique to Abhidhamma commentary. What are they a reflection of? Cheers Herman #90652 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "What should I understand from this? You assert that eye-consciousness and visible object are independent of one another, yet you boldly deny objectless seeing. What is the characteristic of eye-consciousness in the absence of visible object?" Scott: No, I assert that naama and ruupa are *separate* realities, not 'independent of one another'. I would suggest that the characteristic of eye-consciousness is always, theoretically, cognizing visible object, but that the experience of visible object does not occur until the confluence of visible object, eye-consciousness, and eye-sense. Me: "I don't think that 'objectless seeing' is possible. This might be called 'thinking', for all I know - or day-dreaming. The seen is ruupa; 'seeing', specifically, is cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na, which technically refers to two vipaaka cittas which arise in the citta-viithi following on from when visible object (ruupa) disturbs the bhavanga flow and impinges on the eye-sense (ruupa as well) which, in total, can also be described as 'seeing' (taken as a process). And I thought your prose was convoluted." H: "I accept that my prose is convoluted. That may well be a reflection of the complexity of the subject matter. And you rattle of some ideas that are unique to Abhidhamma commentary. What are they a reflection of?" Scott: Herman, I'm sorry I was unclear. The quip about your convoluted prose was a poke at my own paragraph - see above. Have you ever seen such a convoluted thing? Your prose has nothing on mine when it comes to convoluted. Were you angry or has the tone of the discussion shifted this quickly? Sincerely, Scott. #90653 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 9/24/2008 11:28:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Dear Sukin, I was led to believe that most of the people on this list/forum are your students. So what, it's nothing more than a side point. ========================== Colette, I think it likely you are confusing the name 'Sukin' with the name 'Sujin'. Khun Sujin, who is a Thai Dhamma teacher and expositor but not a member of this list, is well known and admired by many of the list members including the list founders. With metta, Howard #90654 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - In a message dated 9/25/2008 6:31:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Scott, 2008/9/25 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Here's my attempt: > Thank you. > H: "What I'm trying to get at is that there is never only seeing. If > there is seeing, then it is always seeing of visible object. At this > level, the visible object IS the seeing of it." > > Scott: I understand that 'seeing' requires the confluence of two > elements: 'eye-consciousness' and 'visible object'. What should I understand from this? You assert that eye-consciousness and visible object are independent of one another, yet you boldly deny objectless seeing. What is the characteristic of eye-consciousness in the absence of visible object? ============================= Herman, I think you make a cogent point here. The fact that consciousness is ever and only consciousness OF some object guarantees that there is no consciousness-on-its-own. That puts you halfway through the phenomenalist door. Now, if you would also adopt the position that there is knowable only the "mere object" and no object-of-consciousness-on-its-own; i.e., that an alleged entity underlying the object-content of experience [what is rejected in the Kalaka Sutta and is referred to as a known, an unknown, or a to-be-known] is in principle unknowable, because all that is actually known is content of consciousness, you would have walked all the way through the door. ;-) With metta, Howard #90655 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: > 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. > A fair comment. I think it's true to say that "denial of the existence of beings" (or of conventional objects) is not a particular focus of the suttas. What *is* a focus of the suttas is those things (i.e., dhammas) concerning which awareness and understanding are to be developed, and what is to be understood about them (their characteristics, conditioned nature, etc). According to the teachings, it is these dhammas (aka khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, etc) that constitute what we know as the world, and that are the proper object of insight development. This assertion underlies the whole of the teachings. It is these dhammas that have existence (albeit momentary) in the ultimate sense. The "non-existence" of anything other than these dhammas is a necessary corollary of that. However, that non-existence is not something to be directly known as part of the development of the path. The focus of the teachings is understandably on those things that are to be directly known by insight. Jon #90656 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] no lurking today jonoabb Hi Ann Good to see you, and thanks for sharing your thoughts about 'Survey'. Thanks to Nina's current series from the book, I am enjoying a steady diet of it ;-)) > One thing that struck me was a comment about seeing arising naturally > (one does not go around looking for it) and sati arising the same > way. Sati seems so elusive before we start to learn more about its > development - and even when we know that hearing the dhamma correctly > and reflecting on it wisely are conditions for for its developoment, > along with Panna, it is hard to let go of subtle wanting, searching > and trying to create conditions for it's arising. > On first hearing, it seems difficult to conceive of the arising of sati as being as natural as the arising of seeing, but when you think about it that has to be how it is, even for the beginner. You are right about the subtle wanting and trying to create conditions. > Jonothan, I hope that your broken toe is well on the mend. Coming on fine, thanks. Mobility almost back to normal. > I can appreciate the shock was to find your gentle, kind surfing > friends in so much trouble. > The shock is still there. Everyone at the beach is wondering how an argument over noise could have ended in one person's death and four in hospital, all victims of our gentle, kind surfing friends ... Jon #90657 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Being aware only of "Ultimate Realities"? No meditating on concepts? jonoabb Hi Alex > Hello Nina, Sarah, Jon, Sukinder, Scott, KenH and all, > > I have read that one is not supposed to meditate or be aware of > concepts, that only ultimate realities should be seen or read about. I know I'm rather late in coming in on this, but as you've not responded to some of the replies given by others I thought it might be useful to mention again the importance of the difference between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Do you agree with the general statement that the object of vipassana bhavana is a dhamma, while the object of samatha bhavana is not? Jon #90658 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Jon > Phil wrote: > > 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. > > > > A fair comment. I think it's true to say that "denial of the existence > of beings" (or of conventional objects) is not a particular focus of the > suttas. Ph: I was thinking today also of the different angle different areas of the suttanta take. For example, one reason I am having trouble with this these days (am also asking about it at e-sangha and DSG's newest member Paul has been very helpful) is that I have been in Anguttara Nikaya a lot this year, with its many suttas aimed at householders, and therefore - I suspect - a more liberal usage of the term "beings." In the previous two years I had mostly been in SN, and mostly in SN 35 where there are very, very few if any references to beings and everything is very paramattha. I didn't run into much confusion when my study was limited to that samyutta and abhidhamma. > > What *is* a focus of the suttas is those things (i.e., dhammas) > concerning which awareness and understanding are to be developed, and > what is to be understood about them (their characteristics, conditioned > nature, etc). > > According to the teachings, it is these dhammas (aka khandhas, ayatanas, > dhatus, etc) that constitute what we know as the world, and that are the > proper object of insight development. This assertion underlies the > whole of the teachings. > > It is these dhammas that have existence (albeit momentary) in the > ultimate sense. The "non-existence" of anything other than these > dhammas is a necessary corollary of that. > > However, that non-existence is not something to be directly known as > part of the development of the path. The focus of the teachings is > understandably on those things that are to be directly known by insight. I think this is well said, Jon. Thanks. As you know, I still refuse to agree that "every word in the tipitaka is about knowing present realities", as AS has said and you and others have seconded - yesterday I read a very good and helpful sutta in SN3 (I forget the king's name) with great diet advice after he was "huffing and puffing" after eating a "bucket measure of curries and rice" - but most of the most important suttas are certainly in the flavour that you describe above. (I certainly prefer "dhammas" to "presently arisen realities.) metta, phil #90659 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 am Subject: No Qualities or Characteristics of Their Own TGrand458@... Hi All Whatever phenomena has arisen, that the mind can discern, has zero characteristics of its own. There are qualities, (characteristics if you prefer,) but they do not belong to the feature being discerned. The "feature being discerned" is a conglomeration of multifarious conditions. It is the "other conditions combined" that propagate the quality. The object being discerned is a mere by-product, "a resultant," and essentially "a phantom," whereby qualities appear, but no qualities of its own. It is utterly empty "of itself." Therefore the Buddha calls the Five Aggregates and the like -- Hollow, Void, Empty, Insubstantial, Alien, Like a Conjurer's Trick, Like a Mirage, etc. Isolating formations as having "characteristics of their own" is a view of exactly what is NOT happening. The minds deluded tendency is to see formations as "their own thing," but in actuality, formations ," (or "Dhammas") are totally empty of what they appear to be. They are empty of "their own content and are just a conduit of conditional transformation. Conditions convey qualities, but no-thing has "its own" qualities. There is no such thing as ultimate realities that have their own characteristics. To think that a state has "its own characteristic" is delusion based and self view oriented.. TG #90660 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Qualities or Characteristics of Their Own upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 9/25/2008 12:20:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi All Whatever phenomena has arisen, that the mind can discern, has zero characteristics of its own. There are qualities, (characteristics if you prefer,) but they do not belong to the feature being discerned. The "feature being discerned" is a conglomeration of multifarious conditions. It is the "other conditions combined" that propagate the quality. The object being discerned is a mere by-product, "a resultant," and essentially "a phantom," whereby qualities appear, but no qualities of its own. It is utterly empty "of itself." Therefore the Buddha calls the Five Aggregates and the like -- Hollow, Void, Empty, Insubstantial, Alien, Like a Conjurer's Trick, Like a Mirage, etc. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not entirely sure that I agree with what *may* underlie what you have written here, TG. The dhamma (or quality or phenomenon or operation) that arises has "nothing of its own" in that it is inseparable from and entirely dependent on the requisite conditions. However, it is not identical with the set of those conditions nor is it to be found among them. There are two extremes that Nagarjuna has pointed out, 1) the "effect" being separate from the "causes," and 2) the "effect" being within the "causes." In Stephen Bachelor's translation, the very first line of Nagarjuna's seminal work, the Mulamadhyamaka Karikas, is as follows: No thing anywhere is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause. --------------------------------------------- Isolating formations as having "characteristics of their own" is a view of exactly what is NOT happening. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you in the sense that "of their own" when taken to mean "intrinsic" is contrary to dependent origination. --------------------------------------------- The minds deluded tendency is to see formations as "their own thing," but in actuality, formations ," (or "Dhammas") are totally empty of what they appear to be. --------------------------------------------- Howard: They are empty of self, of OWN being and of OWN nature, for their very existence is borrowed (from equally empty phenomena). But they are not nothing at all either. ---------------------------------------------- They are empty of "their own content and are just a conduit of conditional transformation. Conditions convey qualities, but no-thing has "its own" qualities. --------------------------------------------- Howard: That is a statement with which I concur without reservation. --------------------------------------------- There is no such thing as ultimate realities that have their own characteristics. To think that a state has "its own characteristic" is delusion based and self view oriented.. TG ========================== With metta, Howard #90661 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:38 pm Subject: Re: don't drink and drive ... Flunking Sarah's Quiz .. truth_aerator Hi Tep and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > Hi Alex, Sarah, and Howard, - > > Alex: In the Buddha's teaching (MN28) about mahabhutas, trees are > Earth Element in particular arrangement. Maybe some tiny internal > space as well. .... By ABh classification, tree would probably be > classed under hardness+cohesion+little bit of heat (earth, water, > fire) perceived through the body door and labeled by the mind. > > T: I am lost here, so I'm turning in a blank answer sheet. > > > Tep > === > "And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. Which is the internal earth property? Whatever internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained: This is called the internal earth property" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html The matter we call 'tree' falls into 'external earth property'. Best wishes, Alex #90662 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Being aware only of "Ultimate Realities"? No meditating on concepts? truth_aerator Hi Jon and all, >--- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > Do you agree with the general statement that the object of vipassana > bhavana is a dhamma, while the object of samatha bhavana is not? > > Jon Is Anapanasati meditation of concepts or ultimates? Does it develop; samatha, vipassana or both? Best wishes, Alex #90663 From: "colette" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. ksheri3 Hi Robert, A friend on this list and on another list that I partake of, which is associated to/with this list, said something to that effect, and my CONTINUAL observation and rationalization and comparissons etc, of everything that I get involved in, has led me also to that same conclusion. I am more than willing to change my position on what I interpreted to be the reality here. colette > > I was led to believe that most of the people on this list/forum are > > your students. > > > Dear Colette > I am curious as to why you think that? > robert > #90664 From: "colette" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. ksheri3 Good Morning Howard, YES, that kind of substantive answer is a good conclusion to how I reached the belief I had of Sukin. It also gave me tremendous insight as to the false realities I was formulating. Thank you for the light! toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ========================== > Colette, I think it likely you are confusing the name 'Sukin' with the > name 'Sujin'. Khun Sujin, who is a Thai Dhamma teacher and expositor but not a > member of this list, is well known and admired by many of the list members > including the list founders. >....> #90665 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:10 pm Subject: Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration truth_aerator Hello all, Here is an interesting thing. Take Ud8.1 & AN10.6/7 talking about Nibbana. Ud 8.1 says this about Nibbana: "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html In AN10.6 the Buddha says that: "There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.006.than.html What is this attainment of concentration? With Best wishes, Alex #90666 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:21 pm Subject: Re: don't drink and drive ... Flunking Sarah's Quiz .. dhammanusarin Hi Alex (Connie, Sarah, Han, Sukin), - It seemed that you did not want me to submit a blank paper. ;-) "Alex" wrote: > The matter we call 'tree' falls into 'external earth property'. > Let me give a different viewpoint below; whether it is right or wrong is up to your discretion. MN 28 defines the "internal earth property" as "whatever within oneself" that is "hard, solid, & sustained by craving" e.g. hairs, nails, ..., flesh, ...intestines, and so on. That is the "hardness characteristic" of materiality (in and of the body) as stated in the Vism. The sutta MN 28 says that the "earth property can be either internal or external", and it is clear (to me) that the external earth property does not mean body organs in other persons or beings. The "external earth property" simply means the vast and external solid earth (vast lands and mountains; possibly trees as well). This meaning is implied in the next paragraph of the sutta: "Now there comes a time, friends, when the external liquid property is provoked, and at that time the external earth property vanishes. So when even in the external earth property — so vast — inconstancy will be discerned, destructibility will be discerned, a tendency to decay will be discerned, changeability will be discerned, ...". It is clear that 'anicca' is also a characteristic of the nature in general, not limited to the 'paramattha dhammas'. My understanding is : the Buddha taught the monks to discern, contemplate, observe, or meditate the inconstancy(anicca) charateristic of their solid body parts through direct knowledge of the solid earth (as described above) so that the knowledge(~nana) MAY be reached thus "then what in this short-lasting body, sustained by clinging, is 'I' or 'mine' or 'what I am'? It has here only a 'no.' ". I think it is very important to notice that such contemplation or discernment of the "external and internal earth property" as impermanence is for the purpose of truly "seeing and knowing" materiality everywhere in order to abandon clinging in the rupa. Following this stage of insight-development based on rupa, the immaterial states [namas] may also "become plain" to the meditator through "contact" at the five sense doors. For example : "Now if other people insult, malign, exasperate, & harass a monk [who has discerned this], he discerns that 'A painful feeling, born of ear- contact, has arisen within me. And that is dependent, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact.' And he sees that contact is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, consciousness is inconstant. His mind, with the [earth] property as its object/support, leaps up, grows confident, steadfast, & released." [MN 28] Tep === #90667 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:41 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,303 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 303. 4. [As to similes:] ignorance is like a blind man because there is no seeing states according to their specific and general characteristics; formations with ignorance as condition are like the blind man's stumbling; consciousness with formations as condition is like the stumbler's falling; mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition is like the appearance of a tumour on the fallen man; the sixfold base with mentality-materiality as condition is like a gathering that makes the tumour burst; contact with the sixfold base as condition is like hitting the gathering in the tumour; feeling with contact as condition is like the pain due to the blow; craving with feeling as condition is like longing for a remedy; clinging with craving as condition is like seizing what is unsuitable through longing for a remedy; becoming with clinging as condition is like applying the unsuitable remedy seized; birth with becoming as condition is like the appearance of a change [for the worse] in the tumour owing to the application of the unsuitable remedy; and ageing-and-death with birth as condition is like the bursting of the tumour after the change. Or again, ignorance here as 'no theory' and 'wrong theory' (see par. 52) befogs beings as a cataract does the eyes; the fool befogged by it involves himself in formations that produce further becoming, as a cocoon-spinning caterpillar does with the strands of the cocoon; consciousness guided by formations establishes itself in the destinies, as a prince guided by a minister establishes himself on a throne; [death] consciousness conjecturing about the sign of rebirth generates mentality-materiality in its various aspects in rebirth-linking, as a magician does an illusion; the sixfold base planted in mentality-materiality reaches growth, increase and fulfilment, as a forest thicket does planted in good soil; contact is born from the impingement of the bases, as fire is born from the rubbing together of fire sticks; feeling is manifested in one touched by contact, as burning is in one touched by fire; craving increases in one who feels, as thirst does in one who drinks salt water; one who is parched [with craving] conceives longing for the kinds of becoming, as a thirsty man does for drinks; that is his clinging; by clinging he clings to becoming as a fish does to the hook through greed for the bait; when there is becoming there is birth, as when there is a seed there is a shoot; and death is certain for one who is born, as falling down is for a tree that has grown up. So this Wheel of Becoming should be known thus 'as to similes' too in whichever way is appropriate. ********************** 303. yasmaa panettha salakkha.nasaama~n~nalakkha.navasena dhammaana.m adassanato andho viya avijjaa. andhassa upakkhalana.m viya avijjaapaccayaa sa"nkhaaraa. upakkhalitassa patana.m viya sa"nkhaarapaccayaa vi~n~naa.na.m. patitassa ga.n.dapaatubhaavo viya vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupa.m. ga.n.dabhedapii.lakaa viya naamaruupapaccayaa sa.laayatana.m. ga.n.dapii.lakaagha.t.tana.m viya sa.laayatanapaccayaa phasso. gha.t.tanadukkha.m viya phassapaccayaa vedanaa, dukkhassa pa.tikaaraabhilaaso viya vedanaapaccayaa ta.nhaa. pa.tikaaraabhilaasena asappaayaggaha.na.m viya ta.nhaapaccayaa upaadaana.m. upaadi.n.naasappaayaalepana.m viya upaadaanapaccayaa bhavo. asappaayaalepanena ga.n.davikaarapaatubhaavo viya bhavapaccayaa jaati. ga.n.davikaarato ga.n.dabhedo viya jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.na.m. yasmaa vaa panettha avijjaa appa.tipattimicchaapa.tipattibhaavena satte abhibhavati pa.tala.m viya akkhiini. tadabhibhuuto ca baalo punabbhavikehi sa"nkhaarehi attaana.m ve.theti kosakaarakimi viya kosappadesehi. sa"nkhaarapariggahita.m vi~n~naa.na.m gatiisu pati.t.tha.m labhati pari.naayakapariggahito viya raajakumaaro rajje. upapattinimittaparikappanato vi~n~naa.na.m pa.tisandhiya.m anekappakaara.m naamaruupa.m abhinibbatteti maayaakaaro viya maaya.m. naamaruupe pati.t.thita.m sa.laayatana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m paapu.naati subhuumiya.m pati.t.thito vanappagumbo viya. aayatanagha.t.tanato phasso jaayati ara.nisahitaabhimanthanato aggi viya. phassena phu.t.thassa vedanaa paatubhavati agginaa phu.t.thassa daaho viya. vedayamaanassa ta.nhaa pava.d.dhati lo.nuudaka.m pivato pipaasaa viya. tasito bhavesu abhilaasa.m karoti pipaasito viya paaniiye. tadassupaadaana.m, upaadaanena bhava.m upaadiyati aamisalobhena maccho ba.lisa.m viya. bhave sati jaati hoti biije sati a"nkuro viya. jaatassa avassa.m jaraamara.na.m uppannassa rukkhassa patana.m viya. tasmaa eva.m upamaahipeta.m bhavacakka.m vi~n~naatabba.m yathaaraha.m. #90668 From: "connie" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:46 pm Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,303 nichiconn Path of Purity (Pe Maung Tin, trans.), pp.702-3: And because ignorance is like a blind man who does not see the states in their intrinsic and general characteristics, the activities conditioned by ignorance are like the stumbling of the blind man, consciousness conditioned by the activities is like the fall after the stumbling, name-and-form conditioned by consciousness is like the appearance of an abscess on the fallen man, sixfold sense conditioned by name-and-form is like the accumulation of matter when the abscess is about to burst, contact conditioned by the sixfold sense is like hurting the accumulated matter on the abscess, feeling conditioned by contact is like the pain due to the hurting, craving conditioned by feeling is like the longing for a cure, grasping conditioned by craving is like having recourse to wrong medicine, [583] becoming conditioned by grasping is likethe application of wrong ointment resorted to, birth conditioned by becoming is like the manifestation of a change {The .Tiikaa says the change is shown by the swelling of the abscess and the appearance of pus.} in the abscess due to the application of the wrong ointment, old-age-and-death conditioned by birth is like the bursting of the abscess due to the change; - or again, because ignorance overpowers beings through lack of vision, or false vision, as cataract overpowers the eyes; and the fool, who is over-powered by it, wraps himself with the activities which produce fresh becomings, as the silkworm wraps itself with bits of cocoon; consciousness possessed by the activities finds a resting-place in the courses of life as a prince, taken in hand by the prime minister, finds a place in the kingdom; by dwelling on the sign of rebirth, consciousness gives rise to various kinds of name-and-form at rebirth, as the magician creates false objects; sixfold sense established in name-and-form attains to growth, increase and development, like a forest bush growing on a good soil; contact is produced from the friction of sense-organs, as fire is produced from the rubbing of fire-sticks; feeling arises in him touched by contact, as burning arises in him who is touched by fire; craving increases in him who experiences feelings, as thirst grows in one who drinks salt water; the man of craving has a desire for becoming, as the thirsty man longs for water; the grasping of such a man through itself clings to becoming, as the fish through greed for raw food grasps at the hook; birth takes place when there is becoming, as sprout comes out when there is seed; there is certain old-age-and-death to one who is born, as a tree that has risen must surely fall: - therefore by way of simile also is the wheel of becoming to be fittingly understood. #90669 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:55 pm Subject: What Causes Ceasing of Suffering? bhikkhu0 Friends: What Causes the Conditioned End of Suffering? What is Dependent Co-Cessation? Cut short: When this cause is absent, that effect too is non-existent! When this condition ceases, that state too fades away… In Detail: The fading away of Ignorance, causes Mental Construction to cease. The fading away of Mental Construction, causes Consciousness to case. The fading away of Consciousness, causes Name-&-Form to cease. The fading away of Name-&-Form, causes The 6 Senses to cease. The fading away of The 6 Senses, causes Contact to cease. The fading away of Contact, causes Feeling to cease. The fading away of Feeling, causes Craving to cease. The fading away of Craving, causes Clinging to cease. The fading away of Clinging, causes Becoming to cease. The fading away of Becoming, causes Birth to cease. The fading away of Birth, causes Ageing, Decay & Death to cease. The fading away of Ageing, Decay & Death, causes Pain to cease... Such is the Complete Ceasing of this entire immense mass of Suffering!!! This is called the Right Way ... It is deeper, than initially appearing! This is Dependent Co-Cessation! Breaking the Chain of Events! Everything has a Cause: Conditioned Origination & Cessation, Cause & Effect: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Caused_by_What.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Cohesive_Co-Origination.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Collapsible_Co-Cessation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Causes_of_Emergence.htm Source: Grouped Sayings on Causation. Nidana Samyutta Nikaya XII http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice ceasing day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... What Causes Ceasing of Suffering? #90670 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Sudden Insight In My Dream sukinderpal Dear Rinze, Sorry for the delay in responding. ========== > Sukin: > I've heard explanations, but I can't recall them. I therefore remain > clueless what it means for wisdom to be out of balance with faith. > > Rinze: > Let me give you an illustration, which I hope, will bring > this `balancing act' into perspective. Let's say I come across a > long bridge, that is full of potholes you can see right through, > down to the river some meters below. But unfortunately, the bridge > is under water, about a few 100 cm, so much so that, I can't see > where to place the footing………………………… ………….. > Now, I would understand your instructions, even in depth, since my > wisdom has grown along with faith, as I have covered quite a long > distance, following your instructions! In this way my wisdom is in > proportionate, to the faith I place in your instructions when > followed. In this way there is balance in faith and wisdom. S: I like your illustration. :-) But I can’t help thinking in terms of conditioned realities arisen in the moment, performing its function, and falling away instantly. I can appreciate that saddha aside from the fact that it arises with all kusala cittas, includes those moments when we reflect on the virtues of the Buddha, in which case there will be moments where no panna is involved. These I can see as possibly motivating us to keep on studying the Teachings even when there is no ‘understanding’ of what is heard. I can also see that this kind of motivation must happen quite often, and your conventional description may apply in this regard. However my question pertained to the suggestion of wisdom arising with not enough saddha. This I can’t picture, since in reality, wisdom can’t arise without saddha and when it does, we can only talk about these two in terms of levels of wisdom, namely suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna or bhavanamaya panna. But you clarified below that what you really meant wasn’t panna. ========= Rinze: > You say, "I LIKE IT that you believe FIRMLY in the Abhidhamma ". > Lord Buddha says that one should maintain equanimity in the face of > the eight vagaries of this world, Labo/Alabo, Ayaso/Yaso, > Ninda/Prasansa, Sapa/Dukh (gain/ loss, fame/blame, honour/dishonour, > happiness/grief). So, in this instance, when you maintain a > polarized attitude, you might not see the dhamma in what I write (if > any), but would only be focused on changing my views, if I'm not so > inclined to your taste. S: Yes, akusala is akusala and all akusala is rooted in ignorance. But even akusala can be pakatupanissaya paccaya for panna to arise, and metta too can arise at anytime. ;-) ======== > Sukin: > Can you elaborate on what you mean by, "Faith (in something), is a > set of instructions, which when followed, alters the mental state of > a person…?" Can you expand further, especially the part about "When > PS is seen in some aspects, faith and wisdom works in tandem (apart > from the other enlightenment factors)"? > > Rinze: > I think the illustration above would have made this clear. When my > confidence in your instructions, to cross the bridge grows, with the > wisdom while doing it, then my anxiety ceases and relief is the > outcome. Hence the change in mental, state from suffering to > happiness. Of course one must not read too much dhamma, into a > simple illustration, which brings out only a part of it. S: I appreciate your last sentence. And I agree that as we progress, the ‘mental state’ can be said to be altered, however I can’t picture anything taught by the Buddha as being ‘set of instructions to be followed’, this I’m uneasy with. =========== Rinze: > When you do merit, or there is skillfulness, in your actions, one > would find that there is harmony in your life, things are happening > to the better. This is the Paticcasamuppada (PS) at the `shallow' > end of the sea, where the Dhamma touches every one. Things do not > happen without cause and condition. So when good things are > happening to you and around you, you will see what their causes are, > if mindfull. When bad things are happening to you and around you, > you will see what their causes are, if mindfull. In this way you > will see whether there is progress in your actions or not. Or the > path that you have taken is right or not. S: I must say that I like the way you picture things and express your ideas, very pleasant to read, and I’m sure that behind them there are very many wholesome cittas. :-) Personally however, I’m wary about coming to a conclusion about my own progress based on ‘situations’, since this can and usually is done with ignorance and attachment, and therefore must be with citta and sanna vipallasa at the minimum. =========== Rinze: > Lord Buddha says, "When there is this, this is. With the arising of > this, this arises. When there is not this, this is not. With the > cessation of this, this ceases". This is the basic principle of PS. S: But very hard to really know ‘this’ and ‘this’ isn’t it? =========== > Sukin: > We come to the Dhamma having judged other teachings as not being > right. We continue with the kind of discriminative thinking as we go > along, otherwise we won't go very far. And discriminate right or > wrong we all do, regardless there is direct experience or not, > besides what would any discussion be like without this? We may feel > duty bound to cite a Sutta, or we may prefer to discuss using > reason. Who is to say which is better? > > Rinze: > Yes, I agree, that we come to the Dhamma, having judged other > teachings as not right. But once we have decided on Buddhadhamma as > the way, our discriminative thinking, should be within the framework > of the Teachings. And that includes all aspects of the Teachings, > not just the preferred against not what is preferred. Because there > are those who have realized the Dhamma, in ways that may not be to > our preference. S: I think that you are suggesting that I am leaving out parts of the Dhamma which does not suit my taste. I don’t think that I do this. Though I’ll admit that there are parts of the Teachings which I find hard to comprehend, for example about the 37 enlightenment factors, this is more a matter of the complexity. However, I believe that I am going along with it in the way it should, namely to coming back to the basics about nama and rupa in relation to the five sense and the mind. More importantly however, accepting the fact of the need to keep developing the understanding at the level of ‘hearing’, I don’t make any decision with regard to what “suits” me. The objections such as about ‘meditation’, comes down to be a matter of interpretation, not of preference. =========== Rinze: > My contention is that, we cannot say this way is correct, and that > way is wrong. Unless we can prove why it is wrong, citing the > Dhamma. And that too, there must be PS (cause & condition) in our > citation, as the Dhamma is beyond reason, which as you may note, is > the principal difference when compared to other Teachings. All other > Teachings stopped at `Self View', but not Buddhadhamma, which > accounts to its profoundity! S: I would like to think that I *do* often if not always, give reasons based on what I understand are the principles of Dhamma. Perhaps it is because the other side is caught up in reasoning based on ‘self view’, that what I and some others are trying to get across, often does not even register? ;-) =========== > Sukin: > I've heard explanations, but I can't recall them. I therefore remain > clueless what it means for wisdom to be out of balance with faith. > It would seem to me that wisdom arises with faith and therefore when > it does it performs its function as it must. Are you talking about > different moments of citta? And are you referring to panna when you > mention "queries of this sort" or something else? > > Rinze: > Confusion is bound to arise, when we try to think in terms > of `cittas and cetasikas' for ordinary conventional ideas, which may > be one of the reason why, the Suttas define Nama as vedana, sanna, > chetana, passa and manasikara, while the Abhidhamma defines it as > vedana, sanna, and 50 other cetasikas. S: Sounds interesting. I’ve never thought along this line, so please elaborate. I believe that confusion arises very often, however this itself is dealt with well enough, by reference to `cittas and cetasikas'. I don’t think that we ever go wrong in coming back to the present moment and understanding it in terms of momentary arisings, be this at the level of hearing or considering. The problem is when there is no understanding, but instead thinking with attachment and / or wrong view. =========== Rinze: > Imagine the confusion, in the minds of those listening to the > Dhamma, while Lord Buddha speaks, in terms of Cittas and Cetasikas, > for every encounter experienced in daily life! Don't forget that, if > there is any one who could `split hairs' in Dhamma He can! But He > did it, only occasionally, depending on his audience. But if you > read the Suttas closely, you will find, the cetasikas spoken of in > conventional terms. S: I would think that if any confusion were likely to arise, this would be due to the Buddha’s using the ‘terminology’ not in use by his audience. With regard to ‘formulation’ however, such as khandhas, dhatu or ayatanas, I don’t think that those audiences would have any confusion. Yes, one of these may suit a particular person more than another, in that hearing it can condition even insight or enlightenment in that person. However, there would certainly not be confusion were one of the other formulations used instead. Why would it? Isn’t the purpose of the Teaching at the time was to lead to insight into the reality of the moment and not just to think over about it? And if the prospect of confusion were there, this would have been a sign of ignorance being still quite dominant wouldn’t it? The important thing is that the Buddha’s direct audience did not have wrong view arise when given the ‘conventional’ teaching. People of today however, in failing to accept that ‘functions and causes’ exists only between paramattha dhammas, they then attribute some of these functions to a ‘self’, such as ‘making an effort’ and all that is involved in this idea of ‘meditation’. ========== Rinze: > I said "….needless queries of this sort, even disagreement of either > one or the other facets of Dhamma". Here I mean doubts in the > various aspects of dhamma and not panna. S: OK, you cleared this up. And thanks for reminding me about doubt and how this possibly manifests. However, wouldn’t you think that the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha, and that of suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna, when this is understood with enough conviction, it should lead to ‘straightening of view’? Metta, Sukin #90671 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Sudden Insight In My Dream sukinderpal Dear Rinze, ============ > Sukin: > I refer you to the fact of the Noble Eightfold Path or > Satipatthana / Vipassana being the One Way. How does Jhana fit in > here? > > Rinze: > "Mano pubbhanga ma Dhamma, Mano setta, Mano maya" Dhammapada.- "Mind > precedes all Dhammas, mind is their chief, mind made are they" > Everything arises in the mind, that includes the Noble Eightfold > Path or Satipatthana / Vipassana, except Nibbana. What is common to > them, is the kind of object. Objects range from, the gross, to the > subtle, culminating in Nibbana, the object of path consciousness. > These objects (except Nibbana) are cognized by the mind and has to > be very clear and great (not obscure). Only then, investigation > (vipassana) can arise. As the nature of the objects, become > increasingly subtle, the concentration needed is great. > > For an object to be clear, it has to be continuously attended to, ie > mindfulness must be without a break, such that every preceeding > moment and the succeeding moment has the same object. The most > suitable object for this purpose, is the Breath. > > Being mindfull of the breath, while going about with one's day to > day chores, is difficult, though not impossible. Because, one could > also cultivate momentary concentration, paying attention to the > changing nature of the object, presented in every moment, which is > what is implied, in the mindfulness of the postures, of the body, in > 4 Foundation of Mindfulness Sutta. Nevertheless, concentration is a > precondition, for investigation of the object (Vipassana), to be > effective. S: I’ve read very little of the Texts, but I’m quite sure that there is no such thing taught in the Tipitaka. It seems to be a ‘reasoning’ that of the uninstructed worldling’s, namely that mindfulness and concentration arising continuously on a chosen object, long enough to then result in insight. I think it is ditthi papanca on both the concepts of sati and samadhi, these being given roles which they do not have. Let me explain: But sati and samadhi which accompanies a moment of samatha has quite a different object to that which is vipassana. This is because the accompanying panna in either case is *different*. In the development of samatha the understanding involved pertains to the danger of tanha but with no clue about the greater danger of avijja. In vipassana, avijja is seen as being the cause for continued existence and this includes the fact of kusala of other kinds of which Jhana is one, that these at best only lead to more pleasant rebirths. Developed samatha practice leads to seeing the danger of continued experience of sense objects in that there is the understanding that tanha would arise quite easily when left ‘uncontrolled’. Control is therefore had by seeing the need for Sila and at a higher level, the need for ‘concentration’. This level however demands great power of discernment, in that one knows which particular object is suited to bring about calm. Imagine, first being able to recognize the attachment which comes from contact with sense objects, and this then being enough to alter one’s way of life, namely to live away from the hustle and bustle of the crowd. And much later on, coming to know how to calm the mind for an extended period and the best way to do it. Also there is the power of discernment with regard to the different mental factors, starting with vitaka and vicara and on to more refined objects. But even this level of discernment does not in itself have any bearing on the kind of understanding required for the development of vipassana. The conditions for vipassana to arise at all, is hearing the Dhamma, association with the wise, right consideration on what is heard and practice in accordance with the Dhamma / dhammas, namely satipatthana. All these refer to a different kind of panna. The panna arisen on hearing for the first time, the object is whatever happens to be the reality of the moment, only this must necessarily be ‘conceptual’. Depending on the accumulated understanding, one extreme of which was in the case of Ven. Sariputta, for whom the Path arose almost immediately, for those like us, we need to hear again and again for aeons over aeons before something similar could happen. The important thing however is that, enough panna arises to see the importance of not being drawn to believe that there is any other time than the present moment to be studied. Either ignorance dictates the next step or else a level of understanding (suttamaya panna) will condition by sankhara, a confidence that this is the only way. It does not matter if ignorance arises all day bringing with it tanha and other friends. But let not one of these be ‘miccha ditthi’, because I believe that it is exactly miccha ditthi that is involved in any idea about the need to first do this or that before there can be any development of understanding of the vipassana kind. It seems that people mix the two ideas together, namely that which is involved in the development of samatha and that of vipassana and end up going completely wrong. Samatha leading to Jhana requires concentration on a particular object of which breath is one. This is possible because the understanding here has nothing to do with the fact of the ‘practicing citta’ being conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. In the development of vipassana however, of which pariyatti is the beginning, the very citta which professes to do the observation is seen as being “conditioned”. This is an important first step which then leads to an attitude of not overlooking to always come back to “Now”. Most people failing this and the fact of it all being just ‘thinking’, end up following the suggestions, which must necessarily be dictated by ignorance and craving, if not also wrong view. Rinze, I’m suddenly feeling quite tired from sitting and would like to go get some exercise. I think also that this may be enough of a response to this post. If however you think that I should respond to something else that you’ve written please let me know and I’ll do it later. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Metta, Sukin #90672 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Herman, >>>S: Let's consider the eye-door. To be precise, it refers to the rupa of eye-sense which is an essential condition for seeing and other cittas in the same process to arise. > ... > H:> What is there to consider? You are telling me about a theory, > something you have read. I put it to you there is nothing knowable in > any of what you have said above. > ... > S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. > H:>I was pleased to read this. But then I remembered. >starship dsg : cadet's log : april 4, 2002 : msg 12436 >Captain Sarah: Personally, when I consider cakkhu pasada (eye-sense/base) or any of the bases, I don't find it very helpful to think about the organs, circles, locations at all. What we're attempting to understand (even intellectually) in the case of cakkhu pasada, is the rupa which arises and falls away momentarily- - when the eyes are open-- .... S: I'm glad to see you remember all the Captain's words so well:-). .... ==== H:> That was six and a half years ago. Have you genuinely changed your position and eyes (as organs) are now identical with eye-sense, ... S:Sorry, no change of position. If you read the sentence at the top after 'Hi Herman', you'll see that it's eye-sense, the rupa, I'm referring to. You're telling me that this is all theory and that we can't know that eye-sense is essential for seeing, so I'm trying to make it more 'practical' for you, that's all. ... H:> or ifI continue with the thread, will I end up being told that eyes are actually only concepts ? ... S: You got it! .... H:> If so, my reply will be the same. .... S: OK, I don't intend to stab my eyes with a sharp pencil or drive into a tree to keep you, Alex and others happy:-) Thanks for the good humour, nonetheless. Back to some 'air sandwiches', Metta, Sarah ======== starship dsg : cadet's log : april 6, 2002 : msg 12483 cadet Herman: Dear Sarah, I have been finding it a little difficult to take you seriously lately. What about this to renew my confidence? Take a conceptually sharp pencil (both the sharpness and the pencil), stab it repeatedly into both your conceptual eyes for about 5 minutes (it doesn't matter whether you take a wet or dry approach at this time), and then share with us the precise conditions required for seeing now. For the less advanced, don't try this unless you have survived on air sandwiches for more than two months. Herman Cheers Herman #90673 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Herman, Tep, Alex & quiz lovers), --- On Tue, 23/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- Howard: Answer: Visible object/sight. The content has changed, but there is still seeing and seen. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Yes, good answer. No colour, because no light, but still visible object. OK, here's more of the quiz for you, Howard, as that one was too easy (or you were too smart). 1. When you're sleeping and having those disturbing dreams, what doorway(s) are the objects experienced through? 2. When you're in a really deep sleep (without any dreams), what doorway(s) are the objects experienced through? 3. What kind of cittas are there in this latter case? [For clues, anyone, I refer you to Howard's comments in #90377) to which this is also a response. [Herman, Tep, Alex and anyone else who likes quizes are of course welcome to give their answers too:-)] Metta, Sarah ======== #90674 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi TG, We are discussing the extract from 'Survey', 'The World'. --- On Wed, 24/9/08, TGrand458@... wrote: S: "Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: " 'The world! The world!' is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?" "What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called 'the world' in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Aananda, is transitory by nature, visible object is transitory by nature, seeing-consciousnes....." ... S:"For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, but this is not so for the person who does not realize yet the arising and falling away of realities. Someone cannot become an ariyan if he does not see the arising and falling away of the realities which appear. The Buddha said to Aananda that whatever is transitory by nature is the world in the ariyan discipline. The world is everything that arises and falls away. The dhamma that does not arise and fall away is not the world; it is distinct from the world, supramundane, lokuttara. This is nibbaana." **** >TG: Huge disagreements. Of course the commentary is taking a predisposed biased view by interjecting that the conversation is about "realities." "Realities" in your book translates to "Dhammas." .... S: In the other sutta, it was made clear that 'the world' are the 5 khandhas. Are not seeing consciousness, visible object, eye-sense and so on realities, i.e those dhammas which arise and fall away, which can be understood by the wise to be impermanent? ... TG:> Then we're dealing with the theory about "Dhammas." That theory has the view that "Dhammas" are "Ultimate Realities with their own characteristics. " In addition, Dhammas arise and "their own thing" and immediately fall away....not in accordance with Dependent Origination principles IMO. .... S: Dhammas, realities arise by conditions in accordance with D.O. They fall away immediately. For example, seeing consciousness is vinnana, a vipaka citta conditioned by past kamma (sankhara in D.O). ... TG:> Again, these "realities" are vire as having "their own essence." All of this BAGGAGE is attached to this commentary by the interjection of the term "realities" and all its come to mean. .... S: Realities have characteristics, that's all. The characteristic of seeing is different from that of visible object. As Howard put it neatly the other day: "there is no question that qualities are distinguishable - hardnesses, for example, are not warmths." Or would you disagree with this as well? Let's not get side-tracked by red herrings about "own essence":-). .... TG:> Now, the first line of the above commentary is unintelligible. ... S: Just to repeat it, so I know what you're talking about: "For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, but this is not so for the person who does not realize yet the arising and falling away of realities." ... TG:> Its just bad and incomplete English...as "transitoriness is NATURAL period. I think what they meant to say was that it was "understood" by the ariyan. ... S: Yes. Just as wrong view and the idea of permanence is 'natural' for ignorant worldlings, so the appearing of realities as transitory is natural for the ariyan. ... TG: >The second sentence is a proposition not in line with any teaching in the Suttas I am aware of. ... S: Let me check it: "Someone cannot become an ariyan if he does not see the arising and falling away of the realities which appear." .... S: What about the sutta we were discussing about the world disintegrating and all the other suttas on understanding impermanence? For example, 35:79 "...when a bhikkhu knows and sees the eye as impermanent....forms....feeling.....ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge arises." I was discussing the MN sutta about the chariots, the visuddhis, with Alex recently. These visuddhis refer to the development of right understanding. Without the third stage of insight when dhammas (realities) are clearly understood as being impermanent, there cannot be the higher insights which turn away from conditioned dhammas towards the unconditioned. ... TG:> In essence, and as propoganda, the seccond line is saying -- unless you follow "our Dhammas theory" you can not be enlightened. LOL This is so typical of virtually every religious sect of virtually any religion. I.E., you must see it "our way" or you are doomed..... So, instead of letting the Sutta speak for itself, we are infusing new concepts within that Sutta and BASING practice on those new concepts. ... S: So you don't read the suttas as explaining the impermanence of conditioned dhammas which has to be understood in order for the eventual eradication of defilements? ... TG:> Well, as you can see, I won't be your easiest student. ;-) Perhaps I can dissuade you of these pernicious cankerous intrusions into the Dhamma. (Yes, Dhamma can be spelled without an "s". LOL) ... S: Well, no surprises here:-) Though perhaps I'd mistakenly thought we might get at least a couple of sentences through before the disagreements started, lol:-) Btw, we've had discussions about Dhamma, dhamma and dhammaa before. I think I asked you before (and never got a response), when the Buddha uses dhammaa (not Dhamma, the teachings), how would you translate it? If you prefer dhammaa to 'dhammas' (or realities) in translation, fine. The same with our use of cittas, namas, rupas, khandhas or anything else with an 's', just translate back into the Pali proper, why not? Looking forward to your comments on sentences 3 and 4:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #90675 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Hi Howard (TG & Paul), --- On Tue, 23/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: S:... > Whilst dhammas can be understood to be existent and with definable characteristics, like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging. Let's take cittas (moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors), though they are said to have an arising, presence and dissolution, there is a continual change occurring. The impermanence is of course a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. ============ ========= ========= = H:>As may not surprise you, Sarah, I like the foregoing very much. ... S: Kind of you to say so, Howard. Perhaps now you could kindly knock some sense....I mean kindly give TG a few tips for me:-)). Metta, Sarah ======== #90676 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Greetings Paul! --- On Wed, 24/9/08, Video_586 wrote: >The notion of the four "paramattha dhammas" is sitting surprisingly comfortably at this point in time too... much the way that the Sutta concepts of five aggregates, six sense-bases and so on seem fine as well. ... S: Thx for your kind response. And yes, when we appreciate that the paramattha dhammas, aggregates, sense-bases and so on all just point to the realities of our daily life right now, we mind less, I think, what words are used:-). As you'll have seen, a sentence like this is hotly contested round these parts, but the teachings are there to be tested and known:-). Look forward to further chat in due course. Metta, Sarah ======== #90677 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:09 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Daer friends, We read in the “Discourse on an Exhortation to Råhula at Ambalatthika” (Middle Length Sayings II, no. 61) that the Buddha taught his son Råhula to train himself in skilled moral habit, in kusala síla. We read that the Buddha said: “If you, Råhula, are desirous of doing a deed with the body, you should reflect on that deed of your body thus: ‘That deed which I am desirous of doing with the body is a deed of my body that might conduce to the harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of others and that might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of body is unskilled, its yield is anguish, its result is anguish.’ If you, Råhula, reflecting thus, should find, ‘That deed which I am desirous of doing with the body is a deed of my body that might conduce to the harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of others and that might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of body is unskilled, its yield is anguish, its result is anguish’ -- a deed of body like this, Rahula, is certainly not to be done by you....” The Buddha then told Rahula that a deed of body which would not conduce to the harm of himself, of others or of both, was skilled, with a happy result, and that such a deed might be done by him. He told Rahula to reflect in the same way at the moment he was doing a deed with the body and after he had done a deed with the body. The same was said with regard to action through speech and through the mind. While we speak do we always reflect whether the citta is kusala or akusala, whether our speech leads to the harm of ourselves or of others or of both? A word is spoken so quickly, it has been spoken before we realize it. We usually speak with akusala citta. Síla is behaviour or conduct through body and speech. Síla has many aspects. Abstaining from ill deeds is included in síla. Laypeople can observe five precepts, or they can observe eight precepts, for example, on ‘Uposatha days’ (vigil or fasting days), and there are ten precepts that are obligatory for all monks and samaneras (novices). Moreover, the síla the monks have to observe are the rules of Påtimokkha of the Diciplinary Code, consisting of twohundred- and- twentyseven rules. Not only abstaining from ill deeds is included in síla, but also skilled behaviour through body and speech, such as paying respect and helping others. ****** Nina. #90678 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:20 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (32 - 33) nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: Knowledge and liberation. (Vijjaa ca vimutti ca.) The Co refers to dha sa( Pali 1367) which enumerates the three kinds of wisdom: Knowledge of past lives, knowledge of the passing away and arising of beings and knowledge of the extinction of the cankers. There are two kinds of freedom: freedom of citta and nibbaana. The eight attainments (of jhaana) are freedom of citta in the sense of being well freed from the hindrances. Nibbaana should be known as freedom from all conditioned realities. ---------------- Co: Vijjaati tisso vijjaa. Vimuttiiti dve vimuttiyo, cittassa ca adhimutti, nibbaana~nca. Ettha ca a.t.tha samaapattiyo niivara.naadiihi su.t.thu muttattaa adhimutti naama. Nibbaana.m sabbasa"nkhatato muttattaa vimuttiiti veditabba.m. ---------- We read in the “Atthasaalinii” (Expositor II, p. 517, Suttanta Couplets): < The knowledge which pierces the darkness covering the aggregates of past existences is vijjaa (wisdom). Piercing that darkness it makes the past aggregates plain, manifest- hence vijjaa is used in the sense of making plain. ‘Knowledge of decease-rebirth’ is knowledge both of decease and of rebirth. This also pierces the darkness covering the decease and reconception of beings and is vijjaa. Piercing that darkness it makes plain the decease and reconception of beings- hence vijjaa here also is used in the sense of making plain. ‘Knowledge in the loss of the Intoxicants (or drugs)’ is knowledge at the ariyan Path-moment of the loss of all corruptions. This also pierces the darkness covering the Four Truths and is vijjaa. Piercing that darkness it makes plain the Four Truths- hence vijjaa here also is used in the sense of making plain.> -------- sutta: Knowledge of the destruction [of the defilement] and of [their] non-recurrence. (Khaye~naa.na.m anuppaade~naa.na.m.) ------- The Co, refers to dha sa 1367. We read: (transl U Kyaw Khine, 1382): ------ N: The Co adds that awareness of complete extinction refers to the cessation of rebirth. These are the thirtyfive pairs the thera (Saariputta) taught in unity. The explanation of the pairs is finished. --------- Pali: Khaye ~naa.nanti kilesakkhayakare ariyamagge ~naa.na.m. Anuppaade ~naa.nanti pa.tisandhivasena anuppaadabhuute ta.mta.mmaggavajjhakilesaana.m vaa anuppaadapariyosaane uppanne ariyaphale ~naa.na.m. Tenevaaha ‘‘khaye ~naa.nanti maggasama"ngissa ~naa.na.m. Anuppaade ~naa.nanti phalasama"ngissa ~naa.na’’nti. Ime kho, aavusotiaadi ekake vuttanayeneva yojetabba.m. Iti pa~ncati.msaaya dukaana.m vasena thero saamaggirasa.m dassesiiti. Dukava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. ******* Nina. #90679 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a sarahprocter... Dear Han, Belatedly back to your reply #90152 --- On Sun, 14/9/08, han tun wrote: >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. .... S: I understand different terminologies are used in different contexts for teaching purposes. For example, in the guide to ch 1 #2, B.Bodhi writes: "In the Abhidhamma teaching the ultimates are grouped into the four categories enumerated in the text. The first three - consciousness, mental factors, and matter - comprise all conditioned realities. The five aggregates of the Suttanta teaching fit within these three categories. The aggregate of consciousness (vi~n~naa.nakkhandha) is here comprised by consciousness (citta), the word 'citta' generally being employed to refer to different classes of consciousness distinguished by their concomitants. The middle three aggregates are, in the Abhidhamma, all included within the category of mental factors (cetasikas), the mental states that arise along with consciousness performing diverse functions. The Abhidhamma philosophy enumerates fifty-two mental factors: the aggregates of feeling and perception are each counted as one factor; the aggregate of mental formations (sankhaarakkhandha) of the Suttas is finely subdivided into fifty mental factors. The aggregate of matter is, of course, identical with the Abhidhamma category of matter, which will later be divided into twenty-eight types of material phenomena. "To these three types of reality, which are conditioned, is added a fourth reality, which is unconditioned. That reality, which is not included in the five aggregates, is Nibbaana, the state of final deliverance from the sufering inherent in conditioned existence. Thus in the Abhidhammma philosophy there are altogether these four ultimate realities: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbaana." .... S: In the commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (PTS transl), Ch 7, 'The Explanation of the Collection of the Whole', it says: "The aggregates are the various dhammas of a similar class which can be differentiated according to the categories of past, present, future, etc., taken together in the sense of a mass. Thus, the Blessed One has said, 'Having gathered [all] that together and piled it up, it is called the aggregate of materiality', and so forth.[Vibh 1,3,5,7,9.] ***** H:> 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. ... S: The point is just that what is 'past' is gone by definition. What is 'future' is yet to come. Yes, of course we think about the past and future, as well as the present, but such thinking is surely only ever in the present, wouldn't you agree. I don't believe there is any purpose in trying to "catch *this very moment*". This would certainly be Self up to its old tricks:-). However, just by appreciating that there are only ever present dhammas, we come closer and closer to the realities. ... H:> 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. ... S: All agreed, but no need for any annoyance:-). I probably didn't reply together because I didn't wish to condition such annoyance. Metta, Sarah ======== #90680 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/26/2008 2:41:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (Herman, Tep, Alex & quiz lovers), --- On Tue, 23/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- Howard: Answer: Visible object/sight. The content has changed, but there is still seeing and seen. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Yes, good answer. No colour, because no light, but still visible object. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: There IS a color - black. (Don't be influenced by optics, Sarah. This is a matter of eye-door consciousness, not physics theory.) ----------------------------------------------------- OK, here's more of the quiz for you, Howard, as that one was too easy (or you were too smart). ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, I'll play. (But is there a "dean" who interrogates "the professor? ;-) ---------------------------------------------- 1. When you're sleeping and having those disturbing dreams, what doorway(s) are the objects experienced through? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: It is 98% via mind door. (The other 2% of input consists of subliminal body-door, ear-door, and nose-door inputs that the mind incorporates into the constructed dreams.) ----------------------------------------------- 2. When you're in a really deep sleep (without any dreams), what doorway(s) are the objects experienced through? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The professor's answer would be the mind door, in the form of bhavanga citta. My answer is "No objects, no experiencing, and no (internal) time flow." So, the "professor" wants to give the "student" a zero on this question, but he wants to go to the "dean" to complain that the "teacher" is basing her answer on material not in the primary texts! -------------------------------------------------- 3. What kind of cittas are there in this latter case? [For clues, anyone, I refer you to Howard's comments in #90377) to which this is also a response. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Already answered. ----------------------------------------------- [Herman, Tep, Alex and anyone else who likes quizes are of course welcome to give their answers too:-)] Metta, Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard #90681 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and TG) - In a message dated 9/26/2008 4:07:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (TG & Paul), --- On Tue, 23/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: S:... > Whilst dhammas can be understood to be existent and with definable characteristics, like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging. Let's take cittas (moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors), though they are said to have an arising, presence and dissolution, there is a continual change occurring. The impermanence is of course a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. ============ ========= ========= = H:>As may not surprise you, Sarah, I like the foregoing very much. ... S: Kind of you to say so, Howard. Perhaps now you could kindly knock some sense....I mean kindly give TG a few tips for me:-)). ----------------------------------------- Howard: Hardly likely, as TG & I see many things eye-to-eye and I have learned much from him, especially as regards self and not-self. :-) ---------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ======================== With metta, Howard #90682 From: "colette" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See ksheri3 Good Morning All, Can I play the Stick-In-The-Mudd? > S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- > Howard: > Answer: Visible object/sight. The content has changed, but there is > still seeing and seen. > colettee: nope! You only have sight BECAUSE OF (remember your D.O. please) the CONDITIONING your mind has been subjected to, tortured by, programmed through. I use it all the time: I was almost murdered in approx. 1997, by eyes closed because of the swelling, I had sight only because of the conditioning my mind had been put through i.e. I thought TABLE and visualized the table after my touch sense organ reported to my brain. ******************************************************** ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- > > S: Yes, good answer. No colour, because no light, but still visible object. > colette: NO CHANCE! Visible to who? Visible to what? If your eyes are covered then your eye consciousness has not been contacted so there is no sight other than that of the ability to visualize. ******************************************* gotta go, be back later today. toodles, colette #90683 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Survey quotes. nilovg Dear friends, Are sounds which appear through the earsense entirely the same or are there different sounds? Each sound is different depending on the conditions which cause the arising of that sound. No matter how many people there are, the sound of each individual is different. Citta clearly knows each of the different sounds which appear. Citta knows the sound of ridicule, of sarcasm, of contempt, of a fan, of a waterfall, the cry of an animal, the different calls of various kinds of animals, or even the sound of a man who imitates the sound of an animal. Citta clearly knows the characteristics of the different sounds, it hears each different sound. All kinds of realities can appear when citta arises and clearly knows the object which presents itself. The citta which smells through the nose can arise and clearly know the different odours which appear. It can clearly know the smell of different kinds of animals, plants or flowers, the smell of food, of curry and of sweets. Even if we only smell without seeing anything, we can know what kind of smell it is. ---------- Nina. #90684 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 9/26/2008 9:26:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: colettee: nope! You only have sight BECAUSE OF (remember your D.O. please) the CONDITIONING your mind has been subjected to, tortured by, programmed through. I use it all the time: I was almost murdered in approx. 1997, by eyes closed because of the swelling, I had sight only because of the conditioning my mind had been put through i.e. I thought TABLE and visualized the table after my touch sense organ reported to my brain. ========================= Nope! ;-) Close your eyes. Now what do you see? An expanse of brown or black. With metta, Howard #90685 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Being aware only of "Ultimate Realities"? No meditating on concepts? jonoabb Hi Alex >> Do you agree with the general statement that the object of vipassana >> bhavana is a dhamma, while the object of samatha bhavana is not? >> > > Is Anapanasati meditation of concepts or ultimates? > Does it develop; samatha, vipassana or both? > OK, I'll come to anapanasati. But I'm trying to focus on the difference between samatha development and vipassana development. In general terms, what do you see that difference to be? Useful to discuss, I think. Jon PS To my understanding, anapanasati can refer to either samatha or vipassana, depending on the context. When it refers to the development of vipassana, it refers to insight into dhammas; when it refers to the development of samatha, it does not refer to insight into dhammas. #90686 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:03 am Subject: The Practice (MN 39) upasaka_howard Hi, all - The following is from MN 39 with a few comments of mine interspersed: ____________________________________________________________ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Angas. Now, the Angas have a town named Assapura. There the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "'Contemplative, contemplatives': That is how people perceive you. And when asked, 'What are you?' you claim that 'We are contemplatives.' So, with this being your designation and this your claim, this is how you should train yourselves: 'We will undertake & practice those qualities that make one a contemplative, that make one a brahman, so that our designation will be true and our claim accurate; so that the services of those whose robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites we use will bring them great fruit & great reward; and so that our going forth will not be barren, but fruitful & fertile.'_1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#n-1) ___________________________________ Howard: The first three paragraphs pertain to sila. -------------------------------------------------------------- Conscience & concern "And what, monks, are the qualities that make one a contemplative, that make one a brahman? 'We will be endowed with conscience & concern (for the consequences of wrong-doing)': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Purity of conduct "And what more is to be done? 'Our bodily conduct will be pure, clear & open, unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage others on account of that pure bodily conduct': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. "And what more is to be done? 'Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct will be pure, clear & open, unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage others on account of that pure verbal... mental conduct': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. "And what more is to be done? 'Our livelihood will be pure, clear & open, unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage others on account of that pure livelihood': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Restraint of the senses "And what more is to be done? 'We will guard the doors to our sense faculties. On seeing a form with the eye, we will not grasp at any theme or variations by which — if we were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail us. We will practice for its restraint. We will protect the faculty of the eye. We will achieve restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an aroma with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the tongue... On feeling a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, we will not grasp at any theme or variations by which — if we were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail us. We will practice for its restraint. We will protect the faculty of the intellect. We will achieve restraint with regard to the faculty of the intellect': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The next paragraph pertains to additional preparation for meditation. ------------------------------------------------ Moderation in eating "And what more is to be done? 'We will have a sense of moderation in eating. Considering it appropriately, we will take food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, "I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort"': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. We have a sense of moderation in eating. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. --------------------------------------------- Howard: The remainder deals with meditating, the first two paragraphs dealing with ongoing mindfulness at all times. ------------------------------------------- Wakefulness "And what more is to be done? 'We will be devoted to wakefulness. During the day, sitting & pacing back & forth, we will cleanse the mind of any qualities that would hold it in check. During the first watch of the night,_2_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#n-2) sitting & pacing back & forth, we will cleanse the mind of any qualities that would hold it in check. During the second watch of the night_3_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#n-3) reclining on his right side, we will take up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with the mind set on getting up [either as soon as we awaken or at a particular time]. During the last watch of the night,_4_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#n-4) sitting & pacing back & forth, we will cleanse the mind of any qualities that would hold it in check': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. We have a sense of moderation in eating. We are devoted to wakefulness. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Mindfulness & alertness "And what more is to be done? We will be possessed of mindfulness & alertness. When going forward and returning, we will act with alertness. When looking toward and looking away... when bending and extending our limbs... when carrying our outer cloak, upper robe, & bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & tasting... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, we will act with alertness': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. We have a sense of moderation in eating. We are devoted to wakefulness. We are possessed of mindfulness & alertness. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. ------------------------------------------------- Howard Next comes what some disparagingly refer to as "formal meditation." ---------------------------------------------- Abandoning the hindrances "And what more is to be done? There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore. "Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty. "Suppose that a man, taking a loan, invests it in his business affairs. His business affairs succeed. He repays his old debts and has extra left over for maintaining his wife. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, taking a loan, I invested it in my business affairs. Now my business affairs have succeeded. I have repaid my old debts and have extra left over for maintaining my wife.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man falls sick — in pain & seriously ill. He does not enjoy his meals and has no measure of strength in his body. At a later time he is released from that sickness. He enjoys his meals and has a measure of strength in his body. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, I was sick....Now I am released from that sickness. I enjoy my meals and have a measure of strength in my body.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man is bound in prison. At a later time he is released from that bondage, safe & sound, with no loss of property. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, I was bound in prison. Now I am released from that bondage, safe & sound, with no loss of my property.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man, subject to others, not subject to himself, unable to go where he likes. At a later time he is released from that slavery, subject to himself, not subject to others, freed, able to go where he likes. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, I was a slave....Now I am released from that slavery, subject to myself, not subject to others, freed, able to go where I like.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man, carrying money & goods, is traveling by a road through desolate country. At a later time he emerges from that desolate country, safe & sound, with no loss of property. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, carrying money & goods, I was traveling by a road through desolate country. Now I have emerged from that desolate country, safe & sound, with no loss of my property.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. In the same way, when these five hindrances are not abandoned in himself, the monk regards it as a debt, a sickness, a prison, slavery, a road through desolate country. But when these five hindrances are abandoned in himself, he regards it as unindebtedness, good health, release from prison, freedom, a place of security. Seeing that they have been abandoned within him, he becomes glad. Glad, he becomes enraptured. Enraptured, his body grows tranquil. His body tranquil, he is sensitive to pleasure. Feeling pleasure, his mind becomes concentrated. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Now comes meditation proper, also known as right concentration. --------------------------------------------------- The four jhanas "Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates... this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. "Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from the east, west, north, or south, and with the skies supplying abundant showers time and again, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; even so, the monk permeates... this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure. "And furthermore, with the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, is mindful & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. Just as in a lotus pond, some of the lotuses, born and growing in the water, stay immersed in the water and flourish without standing up out of the water, so that they are permeated and pervaded, suffused and filled with cool water from their roots to their tips, and nothing of those lotuses would be unpervaded with cool water; even so, the monk permeates... this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded with pleasure divested of rapture. "And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure nor stress. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Following from right concentration, cutivation of wisdom occurs, and finally liberation. ----------------------------------------------------- The three knowledges "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives._5_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#n-5) He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details. "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town], and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting in the central square.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma... "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There's nothing further for this world.' Just as if there were a pool of water in a mountain glen — clear, limpid, and unsullied — where a man with good eyesight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting, and it would occur to him, 'This pool of water is clear, limpid, and unsullied. Here are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There's nothing further for this world.' ============================= With metta, Howard #90687 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > I have > been in Anguttara Nikaya a lot this year, with its many suttas aimed > at householders, and therefore - I suspect - a more liberal usage of > the term "beings." In the previous two years I had mostly been in > SN, and mostly in SN 35 where there are very, very few if any > references to beings and everything is very paramattha. I didn't run > into much confusion when my study was limited to that samyutta and > abhidhamma. > Some of the most difficult parts of the Suttanta to understand are those that, in conventional terms, are the most pleasant to read. I'm thinking for example of the Dhammapada. Lots of nice imagery, but a message that's very difficult to see. A lot more work is needed to understand what's really being said here than in the case of the suttas that speak more directly of dhammas and their characteristics. > I think this is well said, Jon. Thanks. As you know, I still > refuse to agree that "every word in the tipitaka is about knowing > present realities", as AS has said and you and others have seconded - > yesterday I read a very good and helpful sutta in SN3 (I forget the > king's name) with great diet advice after he was "huffing and > puffing" after eating a "bucket measure of curries and rice" - but > most of the most important suttas are certainly in the flavour that > you describe above. > I would be very surprised if the sutta you mention did not also make reference to the understanding of dhammas. Because it is this that distinguishes the Buddha's teaching from that of others who taught about kusala of all kinds other than satipatthana/vipassana. I think you'll find that in most suttas, including those in AN, there's a reference to the understanding of dhammas somewhere, even if heavily disguised as some form of conventional expression. > (I certainly prefer "dhammas" to "presently > arisen realities.) > I agree that "realities" is a non-literal translation of "dhammas", and I too prefer "dhammas" where the term is known and understood. As regards the "presently arising" aspect, I would say that in suttas such as SN 35s the references to dhammas are fairly clearly to presently arising ones. Jon #90688 From: "connie" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:20 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos, Conclusion nichiconn Dear Friends, CSCD < Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Being aware only of "Ultimate Realities"? No meditating on concepts? truth_aerator Hi Jon, >--- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > > >> Do you agree with the general statement that the object of >vipassana > >> bhavana is a dhamma, while the object of samatha bhavana is not? > >> > > > > Is Anapanasati meditation of concepts or ultimates? > > Does it develop; samatha, vipassana or both? > > > > OK, I'll come to anapanasati. But I'm trying to focus on the >difference > between samatha development and vipassana development. In general > terms, what do you see that difference to be? Useful to discuss, I >think. > > Jon > > PS To my understanding, anapanasati can refer to either samatha or > vipassana, Is there any sutta where the Buddha has recommended developing samatha only Anapanasati? In fact can one following the MN118 instructions ever develop Samatha Anapanasati only? No way. Anapanasati when properly followed, develops 4 sattipatthanas, 7 awakening factors, and lots of other things, not to mention Arhatship. Best wishes, Alex #90690 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:05 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Hi Han and Sarah, - In the message #90679 you were comparing "ultimate realities" with the five aggregates in the Suttas. Sarah, I cannot find the term "ultimate realities" in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please help me locate this term in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? So far I have studied only the Dhammasangani, the Vibhanga, the Dhatukatha, and the Puggalapa~n~natti. Thanks. Tep === #90691 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:21 am Subject: Re: The Practice (MN 39) & DN2 truth_aerator Hello Howard and all, >--- upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > The following is from MN 39 with a few comments of mine interspersed: The sutta is awesome. Its plan of action can be summarized as: Conscience & concern -> Purity of conduct -> Restraint of the senses-> Moderation in eating -> Wakefulness ->Mindfulness & alertness -> Abandoning the hindrances -> 4 jhanas ->3 knowledges "And how is a monk learned? His evil, unskillful qualities that are defiled, that lead to further becoming, create trouble, ripen in stress, and lead to future birth, aging, & death have streamed away. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#t-10 Note: There isn't any direct passage as to "knowing ultimate realities", at least not after Jhanas. In DN2 sutta the above sequence : Sense Restraint -> Mindfulness & Alertness ->Contentedness ->Abandoning the Hindrances -> 4 Jhanas -> Insight Knowledge -> 6 Abhinnas (one of which is Arhatship) New step is: Insight Knowledge "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.' Just as if there were a beautiful beryl gem of the purest water — eight faceted, well polished, clear, limpid, consummate in all its aspects, and going through the middle of it was a blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread — and a man with good eyesight, taking it in his hand, were to reflect on it thus: 'This is a beautiful beryl gem of the purest water, eight faceted, well polished, clear, limpid, consummate in all its aspects. And this, going through the middle of it, is a blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html An important note: This "insight knowledge" is followed after 4 Jhanas. Best wishes, Alex #90692 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah (and Howard) In a message dated 9/26/2008 2:04:41 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: "Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: " 'The world! The world!' is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?" "What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called 'the world' in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Aananda, is transitory by nature, visible object is transitory by nature, seeing-consciousnesS: ... S:"For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, .................................................... TG: Why do you insist on throwing in the term "realities" (what happened to the "ultimate"?) when it does not appear in the text you are dealing with? Transitoriness IS natural. Your theoretical bias toward viewing phenomena as "realities" is not. The Sutta says "the world" but lets face it, you can't neutrally deal with the Suttas because you are heavily involved with overlaying your personal bias into them. Sorry to be so extremely blunt. But its a tiring game you play...and you play fast and loose with the Suttas. Essentially, it renders any other scholarship you apply to the teachings as irrelevant. Why would I want to listen to someone's logic who is continually following the lines of saying that the most important thing the Buddha taught ... was something he actually never said. Hummm. ............................................................... but this is not so for the person who does not realize yet the arising and falling away of realities. Someone cannot become an ariyan if he does not see the arising and falling away of the realities which appear. The Buddha said to Aananda that whatever is transitory by nature is the world in the ariyan discipline. The world is everything that arises and falls away. The dhamma that does not arise and fall away is not the world; it is distinct from the world, supramundane, lokuttara. This is nibbaana." **** >TG: Huge disagreements. Of course the commentary is taking a predisposed biased view by interjecting that the conversation is about "realities." "Realities" in your book translates to "Dhammas." .... S: In the other sutta, it was made clear that 'the world' are the 5 khandhas. Are not seeing consciousness, visible object, eye-sense and so on realities, i.e those dhammas which arise and fall away, which can be understood by the wise to be impermanent? .................................................................... TG: The Buddha does not use the term "realities," ultimate realities," "own characteristic," own essence," etc. to refer to the Five Aggregates. He DOES call the Five Aggregates -- void, empty, hollow, insubstantial, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. What gives??? Why are you so invested in hiding the truth??? Hint: It comes after craving and before being. ............................................................... ... TG:> Then we're dealing with the theory about "Dhammas." That theory has the view that "Dhammas" are "Ultimate Realities with their own characteristics. " In addition, Dhammas arise and "their own thing" and immediately fall away....not in accordance with Dependent Origination principles IMO. .... S: Dhammas, realities arise by conditions in accordance with D.O. They fall away immediately. ............................................................. TG: What the hell does that mean??? Fall away immediately? You mean something arises that has no time duration??? That's quite a trick. You see, I'm a simple guy who thinks that what arises does so due to conditions, that it changes due to conditions, and that it falls away due to conditions. Call me crazy...but...that's how the Suttas describe it. I do understand that from your point of view that the Sutta description is of minor note except where it can be twisted to teach Abhidhammic commentarial views. I'm "on board" with you on that. It will be our secret. ;-) As far as "zero time duration," I'm of the belief that some thinker correctly realized that phenomena are continuously changing and therefore the "immediate fall away" line came from that. Unfortunately, the observation got tied together with "individual phenomena as having their own characteristics." The whole problem is when "Dhammas" come to be seen as "realities with their own characteristics." A totally anti-Buddhist notion IMO. Any view or teaching based of these principles is utterly flawed from a Buddhist point of view...IMO. This view runs counter to conditionality and conditionality is the heart of the Buddha's teaching. .............................................................. For example, seeing consciousness is vinnana, a vipaka citta conditioned by past kamma (sankhara in D.O). ... TG:> Again, these "realities" are vire as having "their own essence." All of this BAGGAGE is attached to this commentary by the interjection of the term "realities" and all its come to mean. .... S: Realities have characteristics, that's all. The characteristic of seeing is different from that of visible object. As Howard put it neatly the other day: "there is no question that qualities are distinguishable - hardnesses, for example, are not warmths." Or would you disagree with this as well? Let's not get side-tracked by red herrings about "own essence":-). .............................................................. TG: Here you're involved with trying to twist things to win an argument. I'm not interested in twisting things. Because Howard say that qualities are distinguishable, by no means supports your contention of "realities." BTW, the "red herrings" (own essence or own characteristic) are the terms you folks introduced. You can't call "your own terms" "red herrings" when they are used in the fashion you use them. LOL All of this is "gameswomanship." Whether I agree that different phenomenal formations are distinguishable or not would be irrelevant and absurd. Because they obviously are. It would be impossible to function in any way whatsoever if they were not. How could I possible use the keyboard for example? I couldn't. This is not in any way to say that "realities (or phenomena) have their own characteristics." The fact that phenomena are distinguishable by no means implies that these phenomena "have their own" characteristics. You are making a huge ontological leap by saying so...a leap the Buddha did not make. ........................................................................... .... TG:> Now, the first line of the above commentary is unintelligible. ... S: Just to repeat it, so I know what you're talking about: "For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, but this is not so for the person who does not realize yet the arising and falling away of realities." .............................................................. TG: Obviously I cannot deal with any premise that deal with "realities." That term is loaded to bear with view view view. That aside, the statement above is too incomplete a pronouncement to know where it is going. .................................................................... ... TG:> Its just bad and incomplete English...as "transitoriness is NATURAL period. I think what they meant to say was that it was "understood" by the ariyan. ... S: Yes. Just as wrong view and the idea of permanence is 'natural' for ignorant worldlings, so the appearing of realities as transitory is natural for the ariyan. ..................................................... TG: The problem is, I think your view on impermanence is very wrong. You seem to have a view of realities with their own characteristics that function very much on their own terms, including time duration ... that are somehow part of a conditional make-up. The two views are incompatible. I gotta go. TG #90693 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a nilovg Hi Tep, Op 26-sep-2008, om 18:05 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > In the message #90679 you were comparing "ultimate realities" with > the five aggregates in the Suttas. Sarah, I cannot find the term > "ultimate realities" in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please help > me locate this term in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? So far I have studied > only the Dhammasangani, the Vibhanga, the Dhatukatha, and the > Puggalapa~n~natti. ------- Kathavatthu, right at the beginning: Ch 1: In other contexts, about the arahat, paramattha means: the highest good (attha also means what is beneficial). Nina #90694 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:26 am Subject: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, all - In the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, the Buddha used a metaphor of two sheaves of reeds supporting each other. In particular, he taught the following: "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." One thing I find of interest in this is "...from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form" (or, as Ven ~Nanananda, translates it in his Magic of the Mind, "With the cessation of consciousness, name & form ceases"). This dependency of namarupa (rupa in particular) on consciousness for its very existence seems to me to be an unambiguous statement in favor of phenomenalism! With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #90695 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Sarah, Herman, Alex, Han, Howard, Scott, Sukin), - Thank you for kindly offering a help. Earlier I wrote to Sarah: > In the message #90679 you were comparing "ultimate realities" with > the five aggregates in the Suttas. Sarah, I cannot find the term > "ultimate realities" in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please help > me locate this term in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? So far I have studied > only the Dhammasangani, the Vibhanga, the Dhatukatha, and the > Puggalapa~n~natti. ------- And you wrote : Kathavatthu, right at the beginning: Ch 1: In other contexts, about the arahat, paramattha means: the highest good (attha also means what is beneficial). Nina T: So I see that the term 'paramattha' here has the meaning "absolute" and "highest good". What about the 'paramattha dhamma' that is defined by rupa, citta, cetasika, and nibbana? Is it specifically defined the same in any of the 7 Abbhidhamma books ? That is what I have been curious to find out. Tep === #90696 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:41 pm Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Hello Howard and all, Lets discuss vinnana & namarupa. "There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear- consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body- consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness. "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html 1) Why isn't vinnana included into nama? 2) Can there be eye(&other) consciousness separate from namarupa? 3) Does namarupa here refer to internal only, or external world as well? This is not a critique, just points of discussion. Best wishes, Alex #90697 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/26/2008 4:41:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard and all, Lets discuss vinnana & namarupa. "There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear- consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body- consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness. "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html 1) Why isn't vinnana included into nama? ----------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know: perhaps because an instance of vi~n~nana can't take itself as object, so contact serves as its surrogate in the nama aggregate. Do you know? ---------------------------------------- 2) Can there be eye(&other) consciousness separate from namarupa? --------------------------------------- Howard: I don't follow the question. In the presentation given in MN 9, no vi~n~nana is included in nama, but that doesn't mean there is no vi~n~nana. Vi~n~nana is simply the other sheaf of reeds - other than namarupa. Vi~n~nana is subject and namarupa is object in that subject/object split. ---------------------------------------- 3) Does namarupa here refer to internal only, or external world as well? ---------------------------------------- Howard: However it is experienced, it is the object of consciousness. For me, the external/internal dichotomy isn't of much importance. As the Buddha put it: a tangle without and a tangle within - it's still a tangle. ---------------------------------------- This is not a critique, just points of discussion. -------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. What's your discussion? :-) -------------------------------------- Best wishes, Alex ======================= With metta, Howard P. S. In this reply of yours to my post, you haven't addressed my point. It's fine, BTW, should you show that I've misunderstood and that cessation of consciousness guaranteeing cessation of namarupa somehow does not imply phenomenalism, but I do think it would be helpful to address that issue. #90698 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See egberdina Hi colette and Howard, 2008/9/27 : > Hi, Colette - > > In a message dated 9/26/2008 9:26:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > ksheri3@... writes: > > ========================= > Nope! ;-) Close your eyes. Now what do you see? An expanse of brown or > black. > I'm sure it will be different for different folks, but when I close my eyes I see what I would call a field of brightnesses that is ever changing. No colours. And if I close my eyes after having looked at something fairly bright the initial field of brightness will have the same shape as the seen object, and will linger for some time. Cheers Herman #90699 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses egberdina Hi TG, > In a message dated 9/23/2008 6:14:26 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > You refer to phenomena and say they have nothing of their own. But > still, in order to deny the own-being of the phenomena you have to > know the phenomena, right? You are knowing a something, right? But > somehow you say this something is not itself, it is utterly dependent. > But that is not apparent from the phenomena, surely. So apart from the > phenomena, which you need to know in order to deny, you posit > something on which it is utterly dependent? And would could that be? > > > TG: I am not denying the phenomena. I am denying the deluded view of the > phenomena. Sorry about the delay, I've been doing a bit of pondering, prompted by what you wrote. It seems to me that any view of a phenomenon is something other than that phenomenon. Therefore all views of phenomena are deluded, if they are taken as part and parcel of those phenomena, in that it is a seeing what is not there. Views on phenomena are not necessary, yet they are ubiquitous and often unrecognised. Views are pretty much identical with intentions. No phenomena require intentions towards them. Yet intentions abound. (And when the phenomenon itself is an intention, of course no intention to that intention is required). What would be an undeluded view of, say, yellow, other than just yellow? Or murderous rage, it is just murderous rage, isn't it. Phenomena are just what they are, and no more or less. All views of phenomena are kamma. As to WHAT the phenomena are utterly dependent on...the answer is > conditions. Conditions that are also empty, etc. > If conditions are empty, how can they create their effect? > > TG: LOL I can see you're not going to make this easy. ;-) > "Conditionality" is the key. Infinite regress is not necessary. When the principles and > mechanics of conditionality are understood, the mind understands that > phenomena of the present, past, and future are all coreless, empty, void, etc., due > to Dependent Arising. The principles of the past are no different than what > is happening now. > Well, DO says when this IS, that IS. When this IS NOT, that IS NOT. If there is contact, then there is feeling. If there is no contact, there is no feeling. Given there is feeling, there must be contact. Are you saying, emptiness contacts emptiness? Enough for now :-) Cheers Herman #90700 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/24 : > Hi, Herman (and TG) - > > In a message dated 9/23/2008 8:14:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > You refer to phenomena and say they have nothing of their own. But > still, in order to deny the own-being of the phenomena you have to > know the phenomena, right? You are knowing a something, right? But > somehow you say this something is not itself, it is utterly dependent. > But that is not apparent from the phenomena, surely. So apart from the > phenomena, which you need to know in order to deny, you posit > something on which it is utterly dependent? And would could that be? > Something else that is not itself, but utterly dependent on something > else that isn't itself either? So, in short, your version of emptiness > is infinite regress, aka absurdity or my translation, insanity :-) > ============================ > Not insanity but an emptiness that is a thoroughgoing as anything could > ever be - an emptiness that "goes beyond," beyond intellectual grasping and > beyond the samsaric, imagined realm of separate conditions. It is an Indra's > Net of infinite reflections within reflections - without foundation. Reality > is not something simple, graspable, discrete and self-existent. It does not > consist of dhammas that are separate, self-existent "realities". It is a > seamless "un-thing" beyond the range of our avijja-based conceptualization. > You write very well, and I would agree with your closing statements about reality not being simple etc. But I'm stuck on the infinite reflections bit. I can't help but read into what you write that there is nothing that is reflected. I expect that you will reply to the contrary, and say it isn't nothing that is reflected, but whatever is reflected is just empty of it's own being. And if I have predicted your responses correctly :-), then I will reply that it therefore makes not one iota of difference whether things are empty of their own being or not. Both views, that things are empty of being, or fully themselves, are just that, views. They are kamma. Cheers Herman #90701 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Chariot Simile egberdina Hi Tep, 2008/9/17 Tep : > Hi Herman (and Scott), - > > > T: This is the first time I find myself talking like an Abhidhammika! > The three dhammas are mutually dependent. In the seeing example > above, contact is the consequence of the three dhammas coming > together. Form is known via eye-consciousness; eye-consciousness does > not know eye; eye does not know form or eye-consciousness. Makes > sense? I admit that contact is not as clear to justify as form or eye > or eye-consciousness. Contact is like a pannatti rather than a > reality. We need an expert to tell us more. > I think that after 10 days we can assume that there is no understanding of the above (no experts), just repetitions of formulae that have been leant :-) Cheers Herman #90702 From: "colette" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See ksheri3 Good Morning All, Hey, didn't I say that earlier when I was getting coffee and wiping the sleep from my eyes? I repeat myself sometimes, I guess. King Crimson had an album called DISCIPLINE when Adrian Beluw left the Frank Zappa band and began his own carreer, I guess, and on that album there was a explanation for repeating oneself i.e. "I repeat myself when under stress" but there is no stress other than the stress of begining the day, which then implies INERTIA and a whole host of concepts that we apply to reality as a means of rationalizing the reality that we are a part of. Sorry, I'm out of character here, I'm supposed to be THE STICK IN THE MUD. > OK, here's more of the quiz for you, Howard, as that one was too easy (or > you were too smart). > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Okay, I'll play. colette: boy Howard, aren't we generous this morning? Is it possible not to play? How is it that you have the choice and some others do not have the choice? ***************************** (But is there a "dean" who interrogates "the professor? > ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- colette: darn, now you've done it! You've gone and raised that most ugly of issues called THE HEIRARCHY and it's companion THE VALUE STRUCTURE. Okay, how should we do this? I have enough explosives here to bring down the entire edifice of Values and it's descriptive HEIRARCHY. The question is do we want to DECONSTRUCT and DEMOLISH this edifice so that it comes down in a straight line where the higher collapses upon the lower or are there people that will be traveling past the structure and I can eliminate the competition simply by moving the upper floors of the edifice from their location above the foundation to a place where the tourists, the visitors, the competition, will enjoy having the upper floors "come to them" instead of they having to take an elevator or escalator to get to the upper floors? Explosives and gravity offer me a lot of room to play here. People are lazy (SLOTH & TOPOR) and probably would enjoy having the upper floors come to them so that they can revel in their laziness. Lets start naturally: What is a "Dean" and what is a "professor"? Hey, didn't Alan Parsons have a song about the professor? How does a "dean" interogate a "professor"? Why doesn't the "professor" interogate the "dean"? ************************************************** > > > 1. When you're sleeping and having those disturbing dreams, what doorway(s) > are the objects experienced through? colette: boy, this is gonna be a good one! What's up Sarah: "Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturning role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. [here it comes girlfriend] Using the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance." So, you theorize that a person's dreams are as real as reality is real? How is it that a person remembers so much of reality yet has such a terrible memory when it comes to dreams? I first ran into this type of thought through Dion Fortune's work in the Golden Dawn and then through her Society of the Inner Light, back in the mid-1980s. It has to do with the dream state and dream consciousness where the dreamer has to remember that they are dreaming and if they can achieve that level of consciousness in a Theta or Delta level of consciousness then they are to "look at their hands". That's a conscious action. In Dzogchen we do it less obviously since our concentration is so sensative and active, it's generally prescribed as the act of knowing that you are dreaming. How can you be sure that what is disturbing in the waking reality is the same as disturbing in the dreaming reality? I have a lot of actual experience in this area. My past has been filled with "Astral Projections" and "out-of-body-experiences" YET they are still reality. It's almost as if the movie THE MATRIX was the reality since I know that I am not the first person to study these things and I know the Hollywierd writers union fairly well, some rules can be bent while other rules can be completely broken since they do not apply in that state of consciousness. ******************************************************** > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is 98% via mind door. (The other 2% of input consists of subliminal colette: STOP, "Jane, stop this crazy thing" George Jetson. SUBLIMINAL you say? Does that imply SUBLIMATION? Ah, maybe you're just maintaining that addiction you have to HEIRARCHY. This illusion of a 2% just hanging out there without any linear rationale must be your escape route in case the upper floors happen to come down. <...> Just in case this is your escape route from COSMIC DEBRIS I'll leave a few land mines and booby-traps that inform me of your presence on the escape route, if that eventuality occurs. There's quite a bit of explaining to do with that meaning of "subliminal" that you conveniently slipped in there. *********************************************** > body-door, ear-door, and nose-door inputs that the mind incorporates into the > constructed dreams.) colette: Who built those dreams? Construction implies building, doesn't it? Has the dream that was constructed within your subsconscious or unconscious, has that dream changed since it's construction? ************************************************ > ----------------------------------------------- > 2. When you're in a really deep sleep (without any dreams), what doorway(s) > are the objects experienced through? > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The professor's answer would be the mind door, in the form of bhavanga > citta. colette: uh-ho, it looks like the ameba is getting wise! ******** My answer is "No objects, no experiencing, and no (internal) time > flow." colette: yep, he's on the run! BUT is he "faster than a speeding bullet"? Those bullets are so magical, we might even suggest a magic bullet, no? ********************************************** So, the "professor" wants to give the "student" a zero on this question, > but he wants to go to the "dean" to complain that the "teacher" is basing her > answer on material not in the primary texts! colette: this is a common guerrila tactic since now you've raised the issue that the Publisher's Union is wrong and false since they printed worthless texts that you are being examined on.<...> Sorry, look at the time. I gotta go. toodles, colette <...> #90703 From: "colette" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See ksheri3 Good Morning Howard, Yea, I know I got trivial and you're being just as trivial HOWEVER I'm gonna be even more trivial! > Nope! ;-) Close your eyes. Now what do you see? An expanse of brown or > black. > colette: I agree that the signal sent through the optical transmittors is that of blackness BUT I particularly focus on the "visions" I see when I'm first going to sleep in the darkness. Yes, the majority is darkness, one may even say it's DARK MATTER such as in outer space. If so, then I'm sure as science progresses we will find that the DARK MATTER that scientists search for in outer space is actually all around us and that we are part of that very same dark matter. While I've stated that there is a majority of Dark Matter I focus on the "sparks" or flashes of light I see. Here it's generally a mess of flashes such as a SCATTER PLOT. It makes no sense and has no meaning but as I concentrate upon the flashes I find that sometimes they take on exact characteristics of faces, people's faces, etc, but the majority always starts with geometric shapes fleeting here & there. Sometimes I'm astounded by the resolution of the faces and things that I see. I ponder these things. thanx for the input. toodles, colette #90704 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/27 : > Hi, all - > > > One thing I find of interest in this is "...from the cessation of > consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form" (or, as Ven ~Nanananda, > translates it in his Magic of the Mind, "With the cessation of consciousness, name & > form ceases"). This dependency of namarupa (rupa in particular) on > consciousness for its very existence seems to me to be an unambiguous statement in favor > of phenomenalism! > I think it depends on how rupa is understood. From MN28 we have: "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness." This sutta unambigously denies a dependence of forms on consciousness. Cheers Herman #90705 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? kenhowardau Hi Herman, Thanks for this reply. I think DSG has discussed the B. Bodhi essay on previous occasions, but it's worth another look. -------- <. . .> KH: > > you make the contentious allegation that the commentaries > differ in significant ways from the Abhidhamma. Please, let us know > what those differences are! They would make excellent topics for > discussion. H: > Thank you for the invitation, KenH. To some, it may have seemed just being argumentative had I gone and reposted what follows below, without Paul asking for it. However, you did ask, and I would recommend that the whole essay, found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html be read, but in answer to your specific point, B. Bodhi wrote: "Bearing this in mind, we might briefly note a few of the Abhidhammic conceptions that are characteristic of the Commentaries but either unknown or recessive in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself. --------------- I will remind you, Herman, that you were talking about "significant differences" whereas BB is talking about things "unknown or recessive in the Abhidhamma Pitaka." That sounds to me like the commentaries contained additional details rather than significant differences. Isn't that the role of commentaries? Daily news headlines, for example, are added to by the six o'clock news bulletin, aren't they? We wouldn't say the bulletin contained "differences." ------------------------ BB: > > One is the detailed account of the cognitive process (cittavithi). While this conception seems to be tacitly recognized in the canonical books, it now comes to be drawn out for use as an explanatory tool in its own right. ------------------------- So what? Is BB suggesting that some parts of the Buddha's - previously unknown - teaching were not major explanatory tools in their own right? ------------------------------------ BB: > The functions of the cittas, the different types of consciousness, are specified, and in time the cittas themselves come to be designated by way of their functions. The term khana, "moment," replaces the canonical samaya, "occasion," as the basic unit for delimiting the occurrence of events, and the duration of a material phenomenon is determined to be seventeen moments of mental phenomena. The division of a moment into three sub-moments — arising, presence, and dissolution — also seems to be new to the Commentaries.10 The organization of material phenomena into groups (kalapa), though implied by the distinction between the primary elements of matter and derived matter, is first spelled out in the Commentaries, as is the specification of the heart-base (hadayavatthu) as the material basis for mind element and mind-consciousness element. ------------------------------------- So, no significant differences? ---------------------------- BB: > The Commentaries introduce many (though not all) of the categories for classifying kamma, and work out the detailed correlations between kamma and its results. ----------------------------- Again, these are not differences. I am sure arahant teachers - from the Buddha's day on - added details not specifically mentioned in the suttas. ------------------------------------ BB: > They also close off the total number of mental factors (cetasika). The phrase in the Dhammasangani, "or whatever other (unmentioned) conditionally arisen immaterial phenomena there are on that occasion," apparently envisages an open-ended universe of mental factors, which the Commentaries delimit by specifying the "or-whatever states" (yevapanaka dhamma). ------------------------------------ Now that would be a significant difference! If the suttas said there was an open ended universe. and the commentaries said there was a defined universe that would be a big difference. But I can't believe the universe is open ended, can you? I can't believe there could be dhammas unknown to a Tathagatha. ------------------- BB: > Again, the Commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma). The task of defining specific dhammas is finally rounded off by the extensive employment of the fourfold defining device of characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause, a device derived from a pair of old exegetical texts, the Petakopadesa and the Nettipakarana." -------------------- DSG has had this discussion many times. To believe in dhammas is to believe dhammas have their own characteristics. Without their own characteristics, dhammas would be just theoretical models. People such as yourself and Ven Bodhi - who believe in formal (ritualistic) vipassana practices - *must deny* the ultimate reality of conditioned dhammas. If conditioned dhammas were ultimately real then formal practices would be redundant and contradictory (which they are!). ------------------- <. . .> KH: > > When you make comments the way you do, *without > telling us your sources* is there not a danger that some people "may > well end up with mistaken notions" of the Dhamma that is found in > the Pali texts? H: > For the record, if it was not already obvious, I am not, and do not aim to portray myself as a student of a particular teacher, I am a student of reality. I believe the Buddha was too. And I certainly don't believe that everything recorded in the Suttas or Vinaya as being his teachings, are his teachings. If they are, then the Buddha had his good days and his bad days :-) ------------------- Thanks for that clarification. I worry too much. I worry that some people will read expositions from DSG's various Abhidhamma-deniers and think they are somehow consistent with the Dhamma that is contained in the original Theravadin texts. Ken H #90706 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a sarahprocter... Hi Tep & all, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Tep wrote: >In the message #90679 you were comparing "ultimate realities" with the five aggregates in the Suttas. Sarah, I cannot find the term "ultimate realities" in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please help me locate this term in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? .... S: As Nina said, try the Kathaavatthu. You may like to read the following which I sent before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/30417 >Kathaavatthu transl as 'Points of Controversy' by Shwe Zan Aung & Mrs Rhys Davids (PTS) Kathaavatthuppakara.na-A.t.thakathaa as 'The Debates Commentary' by Bimala Churn Law (PTS) ================ 1. From Kathavatthu above - summary of commentary: ..... "1. Of the Existence of a Personal Entity. Controverted Point. That the ‘person’ is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. (S:paramattha dhamma). From the commentary- The Theravadin questions a Puggalavadin (one who believes in the existence of a personal entity, soul, or perduring immortal essence in man) concerning his position. Who among the eighteen schools of thought were Puggalavadins? In the Saasana the Vajjiputtakas and Sammitiyas, and many other teachers besides, not belonging to the Saasana. ‘Person’(puggala) means soul, being, vital principle. ‘Is known’: is approached and got at by the understanding, is cognized. ‘Real’: not taken as an effect of magic or mirage, actual. ‘Ultimate’(paramattho): highest sense, not taken from tradition, or hearsay. ‘Known’ as one of the fifty-seven ultimates of our conscious experience (i.e 5 aggregates, 12 sense organs and objects, 18 elements, 22 controlling powers). ***** 2.From Kathaavatthu above, Book 1, 1 The Eight Refutations. The First Refutation, 1) The fivefold Affirmative Presentation. "Theravadin - Is ‘the person’ known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact? Puggalavadin - Yes Th - Is the person known ‘in the same way’ as a real and ultimate fact is known? P - Nay, that cannot truly be said. Th - Acknowledge your refutation: i) If the person be known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, then indeed, good sir, you should also say, the person is known in the same way as [any other] real and ultimate fact[is known]. ii) that which you say here is wrong, namely, 1) that we ought to say,’the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact,’ but 2) we ought not to say, the person is known in the same way as [any other] real and ultimate fact [is known]. iii) If the latter statement 2) cannot be admitted, then indeed the former statement 1) should not be admitted. iv) In affirming the former statement 1), while v) denying the latter 2), you are wrong. ***** 3.From the Kathavatthu above,Bk1, 111, Derivatives: "Theravadin - Is the concept of soul (puggala) derived from the corporeal qualities (rupas)? Puggalavadin - Yes. T: But has a soul also any or all of these qualities? P: Nay, that cannot truly be said.... T: Or is the concept of soul derived from feeling, from perception, from mental coefficients, from consciousness? P: Yes (to each aggregate in succession). T: Is any mental aggregate impermanent, conditioned? Does it happen through a cause? Is it liable to perish, to pass away, to become passionless, to cease, to change? P: Yes. T: But has soul also any of these qualities? P: Nay, that cannot truly be said.....â€? ..... [S:The same argument applies to table, chair, tree and so on....] To link this to the SN1, Devatasamyutta thread, we read in SN1:76 (6) Does Not Decay: "What decays, what does not decay? .................. “The physical form (rupa) of mortals decays (jaarati), Their name and clan does not decay.â€?< ***** Metta, Sarah ======= #90707 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? truth_aerator Hi Ken, Herman and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > I will remind you, Herman, that you were talking about "significant > differences" whereas BB is talking about things "unknown or >recessive in the Abhidhamma Pitaka." That sounds to me like the >commentaries > contained additional details rather than significant differences. > Isn't that the role of commentaries? Daily news headlines, for > example, are added to by the six o'clock news bulletin, aren't >they? > We wouldn't say the bulletin contained "differences." The additional information may be mistaken, it may change the original meaning, etc. I don't believe that any commentators were on the same level as the Buddha Himself. > So what? Is BB suggesting that some parts of the Buddha's - > previously unknown - teaching were not major explanatory tools in > their own right? One could use the "previously unknown teachings" to authenticate Mahayana, Vajrayna, Zen and so on. > ------------------------------------ > BB: > The functions of the cittas, the different types of > consciousness, are specified, and in time the cittas themselves come > to be designated by way of their functions. Can consciousness really "function"? Or is it nama's task? > People such as yourself and Ven Bodhi - who believe in formal > (ritualistic) vipassana practices - *must deny* the ultimate >reality > of conditioned dhammas. If conditioned dhammas were ultimately real > then formal practices would be redundant and contradictory (which > they are!). Explain please. "There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html Best wishes, Alex #90708 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep & all, > > --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Tep wrote: > > >In the message #90679 you were comparing "ultimate realities" with > the five aggregates in the Suttas. Sarah, I cannot find the term > "ultimate realities" in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please >help > me locate this term in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? > .... > S: As Nina said, try the Kathaavatthu. There is a lot of talk about "real" and "ultimate facts" Please define these first. Logical fallacies may result when people are using vague, imprecise, loaded and ambiguous terms. Best wishes, Alex #90709 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >>S: "Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: " 'The world! The world!' is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?" "What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called 'the world' in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Aananda, is transitory by nature, visible object is transitory by nature, seeing-consciousnes S: ... >>S:"For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... .... >TG: Why do you insist on throwing in the term "realities" (what happened to the "ultimate"?) when it does not appear in the text you are dealing with? .... S: Just to remind you, this was the quote in 'Survey' we were discussing "the text" we were "dealing with". I don't "insist" in "throwing in" any term:-). .... TG:> Transitoriness IS natural. Your theoretical bias toward viewing phenomena as "realities" is not. The Sutta says "the world" but lets face it, you can't neutrally deal with the Suttas because you are heavily involved with overlaying your personal bias into them. >Sorry to be so extremely blunt. But its a tiring game you play...and you play fast and loose with the Suttas. ... S: Again, we were discussing the comments in 'Survey'. As far as I'm concerned, when the Buddha talked about 'the All' these are dhammas, realities such as seeing and visible object, to be directly known. Realities is a common translation - in the paragraph of B.Bodhi's which I quoted to Han yesterday about paramattha dhammas and khandhas, he also uses realities repeatedly. Yes, I know that you and others (perhaps the Nagarjuna influence?) don't accept that there are realities, but as I see it, if there are only empty concepts, there's no way out - only ever theory and theorising, missing the Buddha's teaching completely. Apologies for being blunt in reply:-). I don't see the teachings as any game. Metta, Sarah ============ #90710 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Hello Sarah, Ken and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi TG, > Yes, I know that you and others (perhaps the Nagarjuna influence?) >don't accept that there are realities, but as I see it, if there are >only empty concepts, there's no way out - only ever theory and >theorising, missing the Buddha's teaching completely. > > Apologies for being blunt in reply:-). I don't see the teachings as >any game. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ============ Exactly how do you see the realities rather than theorizing about them? Best wishes, Alex #90711 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Chariot Simile dhammanusarin Hi Herman , - I expressed a lack of dhamma confidence about contact in an older post ("I admit that contact is not as clear to justify as form or eye or eye-consciousness. Contact is like a pannatti rather than a reality. We need an expert to tell us more). >H (90701): I think that after 10 days we can assume that there is no understanding of the above (no experts), just repetitions of formulae that have been learnt :-) T: Experts around here are busier than we, Herman. Maybe they have been too busy to update their "formulae" (that they learnt long time ago). That's one reason you do not find satisfaction in their replies. :-) I have thought often about the Ptsm (Patisambhidamagga : Path of Discrimination) which is the longest discourse by Arahant Sariputta. Everybody knows that the Lord Buddha taught him the first-hand knowledge of the Abhidhamma. So it is logical to assume that he should have talked a lot about the Abhidhamma in his long discourses like the Sangiita Sutta as well as the Ptsm. But, you know what, I can't find the term abhidhamma in these two discourses. I can find 'ultimate meaning' for 'voidness' in Ptsm, XX, 26, and 'great ultimate meaning' for nibbana in XXI, 8. There is even no definition for 'ultimate reality' anywhere in these two discourses. Nina kindly gave a reply (#90693) to one question I asked her lately. > >Tep (asking Sarah) : Could you please help me locate this term [ "ultimate realities" ] in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? So far I have studied only the Dhammasangani, the Vibhanga, the Dhatukatha, and the Puggalapa~n~natti. ------- >Nina: Kathavatthu, right at the beginning: Ch 1: In other contexts, about the arahat, paramattha means: the highest good (attha also means what is beneficial). Nina ........................ T: I gave her back a reply today : T: So I see that the term 'paramattha' here has the meaning "absolute" and "highest good". What about the 'paramattha dhamma' that is defined by rupa, citta, cetasika, and nibbana? Is it specifically defined the same in any of the 7 Abbhidhamma books ? That is what I have been curious to find out. What is your thought? Tep === #90712 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:52 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Jon > Some of the most difficult parts of the Suttanta to understand are those > that, in conventional terms, are the most pleasant to read. I'm > thinking for example of the Dhammapada. Lots of nice imagery, but a > message that's very difficult to see. A lot more work is needed to > understand what's really being said here than in the case of the suttas > that speak more directly of dhammas and their characteristics. Maybe this is something we can talk about when we have our Skype chat. (Will it be you, or Sarah, or a fierce tag team? I'm eager to find out!!!!!) I think the Buddha taught these clear teachings in his infinite wisdom knowing that they could be understood correctly and helpful by different people with different degrees of wisdom. I think you guys tend to write off the shallow-but-very-helpful understanding of these suttas too quickly and would thereby deny those helpful interpretations to people who could benefit from them. The thinking I think you have is that people get locked in those interpretations and therefore can't get any deeper. I think that's incorrect. I think the easy interpretations help create conditions that allow the understanding to sink deeper... metta, phil #90713 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? kenhowardau Hi Alex, ----- <. . .> A: > Explain please. > "There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a > forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a > charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After > his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his > legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html ----- The seventh word in the first sentence is "monk." Before we can know the "case" the Buddha was describing we have to know the meaning of "monk." In this context it is not just a person wearing a yellow robe. A monk is someone who is practising in accordance with the Buddha's teaching. Therefore, he is someone who directly knows paramattha dhammas. When he seeks out a secluded dwelling (as monks sometimes do) he knows a secluded dwelling as it ultimately is (kusala citta with panna). I assume the monk in this sutta was a jhana partitioner, but that is of secondary relevance: the most relevant thing is that a "monk" knows his normal daily-life activities as they really are (in terms of paramattha dhammas). Ken H #90714 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:31 pm Subject: Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? truth_aerator Hi Ken, >-- "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > ----- > <. . .> > A: > Explain please. > > "There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a > > forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, >a > > charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. >After > > his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses >his > > legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html > ----- > > > The seventh word in the first sentence is "monk." Before we can know > the "case" the Buddha was describing we have to know the meaning of > "monk." In this context it is not just a person wearing a yellow >robe. Read the sutta, before this we have this "monk" "And what more is to be done? We will be possessed of mindfulness & alertness. When going forward and returning, we will act with alertness. When looking toward and looking away... when bending and extending our limbs... when carrying our outer cloak, upper robe, & bowl... " notice the carrying of robes & bowl. > A monk is someone who is practising in accordance with the Buddha's > teaching. Therefore, he is someone who directly knows paramattha > dhammas. Doesn't follow. Please provide sutta quotes. Is there even a word on paramattha dhammas in that sutta? >When he seeks out a secluded dwelling (as monks sometimes do) > he knows a secluded dwelling as it ultimately is (kusala citta with > panna). Where in this sutta is this said? Where in any suttas is this explicitly said that "secluded dwellings should be viewed not as ordinary places but as wholesome states of mind"? >I assume the monk in this sutta was a jhana partitioner, but Are you playing games? Please read the sutta. > that is of secondary relevance: the most relevant thing is that a > "monk" knows his normal daily-life activities as they really are (in > terms of paramattha dhammas). > > Ken H Where is this stated in the sutta? Best wishes, Alex #90715 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/26/2008 1:27:36 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: This dependency of namarupa (rupa in particular) on consciousness for its very existence seems to me to be an unambiguous statement in favor of phenomenalism! With metta, Howard ............................................. Hi Howard One sided. Here's two Suttas that counter a phenomenalism interpretation. They show the dependency of consciousness on rupa for its very existence. Just as, if not more, unambiguously IMO... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) From the above Sutta, seem like "materialsm" would be the correct interpretation. Next Sutta.... “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. “Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the same manner and finishes with...] “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1172) Again, another Sutta that shows consciousness as an outgrowth of physicality. TG #90716 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Dear Sarah (Nina, Herman, Alex), - Thank you very much for your long reply, quoting commentaries and other background material in order to answer my simple question : >Tep: Sarah, I cannot find the term "ultimate realities" in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please help me locate this term in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? T: The two quotes you kindly took from the Kathavatthu ( 'Points of Controversy') provide a background information (such as defintions for the terms 'person', 'real', 'ultimate') and eight refutations (questions and answers) between a Theravadin and a Puggalavadin in order to logically prove that it is impossible for 'the person' to be both known "in the sense of a real and ultimate fact" at the same time. And you put 'paramattha dhamma' in the parentheses after "ultimate fact". What is the ultimate fact? Can you compare it with the term 'ultimate meaning' in the Ptsm that I discussed in my recent posts? I am a little confused here. But, technically, 'fact' is not equivalent to 'reality'. Yes, you are able to locate the term "ultimate fact" in one of the 7 Abhidhamma books. I believe that you can also find 'ultimate reality' in some of the Abhidhamma commentaries as well (so please do not worry about finding more commentaries for me). However, have you seen the definition of paramattha dhammas (i.e. rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana) in the Abhidhamma books, excluding the commentaries? Why do I ask this? I just want to know that the term paramattha dhammas was coined by either the Buddha or the Arahant disciples. Thanks. Tep === #90717 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,303 dhammanusarin Hi Larry (and Connie), In Vism XVII, 303.4 several similes are given, but I do not follow them. For example, "formations with ignorance as condition are like the blind man's stumbling". How do you understand this simile? Further, how would you explain the paticcasamuppada dhammas (ignorance, ..., ageing-and-death) in this section without mixing conventional laguage with paramattha sacca? Thanking you in advance, Tep === #90718 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 9/26/2008 3:39:35 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: If conditions are empty, how can they create their effect? ................................................. TG: Conditions convey momentum and force. This is how they have effect. Conditions are empty of self or "own nature." They "carry" nothing of their own. They transfer action. They don't possess it. The Buddhist use of the word empty does NOT mean non-existent. Conditions do not create "their effect." Conditions generate effects. Cause and effect prevails...but its never "their cause" or "their effect." It is important to use language that does not carry an implicit "self view" ... as much as possible. That's why when Abhidhammists talk about "Dhammas with their own characteristics" one should be deeply cautious about the motives behind that sentiment...and the possible or likely lurking self view behind it. ........................................................ > > TG: LOL I can see you're not going to make this easy. ;-) > "Conditionality" is the key. Infinite regress is not necessary. When the principles and > mechanics of conditionality are understood, the mind understands that > phenomena of the present, past, and future are all coreless, empty, void, etc., due > to Dependent Arising. The principles of the past are no different than what > is happening now. > Well, DO says when this IS, that IS. When this IS NOT, that IS NOT. If there is contact, then there is feeling. If there is no contact, there is no feeling. Given there is feeling, there must be contact. Are you saying, emptiness contacts emptiness? ......................................................... TG: This kind of question just seems to come from left field. In your statement -- "Given there is feeling" what do you mean? Feeling arises if and only when the conditions come together to generate it. There is feeling when the appropriate contacts come together, there is no feeling when the appropriate contacts do not come together. I am not making a philosophical statement regarding feeling or emptiness. I find no philosophy in the Buddha's teaching. What I'm saying is just very mechanistic and follows (hopefully) the -- "This being that is, with the arising of this that arises; this not being that is not, with the ceasing of this that ceases." Technically, emptiness does contact emptiness because all these conditions are empty of self, own characteristics, etc. But up to now, your use of the word "emptiness," I'm pretty sure, does not accord with my understanding or meaning in using the term. Hopefully some of these answers will clarify your first paragraph response that I didn't include. Take care. TG #90719 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/26/2008 3:53:40 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: You write very well, and I would agree with your closing statements about reality not being simple etc. But I'm stuck on the infinite reflections bit. I can't help but read into what you write that there is nothing that is reflected. I expect that you will reply to the contrary, and say it isn't nothing that is reflected, but whatever is reflected is just empty of it's own being. And if I have predicted your responses correctly :-), then I will reply that it therefore makes not one iota of difference whether things are empty of their own being or not. Both views, that things are empty of being, or fully themselves, are just that, views. They are kamma. Cheers Herman ............................................. Hi Herman There are right views and wrong views. Right view lead in the right direction, wrong views lead in the wrong direction. But you are quite right that in the end, they both need to be overcome. Only right views will reach that end. I project. LOL TG #90720 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/26/2008 4:19:42 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.c This sutta unambigously denies a dependence of forms on consciousness. Cheers Herman ................................................ Hi Herman and Howard I agree Herman. This Sutta along with the two I posted are a good antidote to Howard's conclusion. LOL But all our insights are based on conditions. Howard's got a "Phenomenology-Jones" and can't seem to shake it. LOL Its a good track, I just don't think its quite the right track...for me. I do not see it as supportable by the Suttas. Way too many Sutta contradictions. TG #90721 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:37 pm Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your reply. I think I have said all I have to say, and there is nothing much that I can add. I agree with your explanation of the terminologies and the ultimate realities. It is all in the books. But the problem with me is the difficulty to know with direct knowledge those realities. The difference between your understanding and my understanding may be like the following example. Suppose we enter a wooden furniture shop. I see there wooden desks, chairs, tables and so on. I see them as they are displayed, and nothing more. But for you, you not only see those desks, chairs, and tables, and so on as they are displayed there, but you also see one step deeper than me. You see that the ultimate elements of the furniture are just wood and iron (nails). In the same way, when I study suttas, I understand the suttas just as they are written and nothing more. But for you, you not only see the suttas just as they are written, but you also see the ultimate realities in them which could beneficially be applied to our daily life. But I will never be able to see the way you see things. So, I think the best thing will be not to dig in further, to avoid any annoyance:>) Respectfully, Han ------------------------------ > "sarah abbott" sarahprocterabbott@... wrote: > Dear Han, > Belatedly back to your reply #90152 #90722 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 9/26/2008 4:57:46 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: --- On Sat, 27/9/08, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) <_TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) > wrote: >>S: "Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: " 'The world! The world!' is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?" "What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called 'the world' in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Aananda, is transitory by nature, visible object is transitory by nature, seeing-consciousnes S: ... >>S:"For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... .... >TG: Why do you insist on throwing in the term "realities" (what happened to the "ultimate"?) when it does not appear in the text you are dealing with? .... S: Just to remind you, this was the quote in 'Survey' we were discussing "the text" we were "dealing with". I don't "insist" in "throwing in" any term:-). ........................................................ TG: I'm not talking about the Sutta of course. Who is using the term "realities" above? Because if its not you, it seems your intention to use that comment to make your point. Am I wrong? ................................................................ .... TG:> Transitoriness IS natural. Your theoretical bias toward viewing phenomena as "realities" is not. The Sutta says "the world" but lets face it, you can't neutrally deal with the Suttas because you are heavily involved with overlaying your personal bias into them. >Sorry to be so extremely blunt. But its a tiring game you play...and you play fast and loose with the Suttas. ... S: Again, we were discussing the comments in 'Survey'. As far as I'm concerned, when the Buddha talked about 'the All' these are dhammas, realities such as seeing and visible object, to be directly known. Realities is a common translation - in the paragraph of B.Bodhi's which I quoted to Han yesterday about paramattha dhammas and khandhas, he also uses realities repeatedly. Yes, I know that you and others (perhaps the Nagarjuna influence?) don't accept that there are realities, but as I see it, if there are only empty concepts, there's no way out - only ever theory and theorising, missing the Buddha's teaching completely. ............................................................. TG: Physical and mental phenomena appears, arises...due to conditions. I don't deny that. That is granted. By calling that appearance "Ultimate realities with their own characteristics" you have gone WAY WAY beyond mere appearance. I'd say about 10 fold beyond what the Buddha had in mind. I am influenced by Suttas. The last time I read Nagarjuna was 26 years ago. How bout you? I dismissed Nagarjuna as being too philosophical and too conceptual oriented. The Buddha spoke about actual phenomena. Not philosophy about it. However, the Buddha did not call "actual phenomena" -- "Ultimate realities with their own characteristics." In fact, he did pretty much everything possible to dissuade folks from that notion. And as usual, no comments about the terms I keep listing that the Buddha DID actually use to describe the Five Aggregates...shall I try again??? -- Void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. -- How about dealing with the actual terms the Buddha used instead of some very questionable interpretations and claiming those interpretations to BE the Buddha's teaching. Not cool. I understand the zealousness of your views...but really need to be more credible. How bout -- "This is our/my/a interpretation of what the Buddha taught." Quite frankly, I don't see an indication that you understand my understanding of the Buddha's teaching and it seems you throw any understanding that doesn't match you own into the "mere concepts" category. As if it were the "Great Abhidhamma" that saved people from conceptual blunder. Sorry, the Buddha did that infinitely better hundreds of years earlier. The Abhidhamma Pitaka did not necessarily muck up the Buddha's teaching...but it WAS a bridge that led to its mucking up. Only those who carefully tread with the Abhidhamma can use it to advantage. It seems most use it to disadvantage IMO. I'm TG and I approved this message. :-) (PS: I spent at least a hundred-fold more time studying Abhidhamma than Madhyamika. (I don't even know how to spell it anymore.) LOL) TG Apologies for being blunt in reply:-). I don't see the teachings as any game. Metta, Sarah #90723 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Hi All, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Herman and Howard > > > I agree Herman. This Sutta along with the two I posted are a good >antidote to Howard's conclusion. LOL > > > But all our insights are based on conditions. Howard's got a > "Phenomenology-Jones" and can't seem to shake it. LOL Its a >good track, I just don't > think its quite the right track...for me. I do not see it as >supportable by > the Suttas. Way too many Sutta contradictions. > > > TG > "The diversity of elements does not arise in dependence on diversity of perceptions…" pg 632 (SN) Dhatusamyutta (Not diversity of quests 8 (8) ) "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises [similarly with the rest of the six senses]. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. Starting with feeling, the notion of an "agent" — in this case, the feeler — acting on "objects," is introduced: What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes." Through the process of papañca, the agent then becomes a victim of his/her own patterns of thinking: Based on what a person papañcizes, the perceptions & categories of papañca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye [as with the remaining senses]. contact > feeling > perception > thinking > the perceptions & categories of papañca http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html ============== MN18 sutta also shows that concepts and perceptions happen AFTER contact. #90724 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, TG - You are correct in what you say in the following. It is almost as if there were two (or more) Buddhisms! With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/26/2008 8:36:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: One sided. Here's two Suttas that counter a phenomenalism interpretation. They show the dependency of consciousness on rupa for its very existence. Just as, if not more, unambiguously IMO... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) From the above Sutta, seem like "materialsm" would be the correct interpretation. Next Sutta.... “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. “Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the same manner and finishes with...] “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1172) Again, another Sutta that shows consciousness as an outgrowth of physicality. TG #90725 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XVII,303 lbidd2 Hi Tep, Tep: "In Vism XVII, 303.4 several similes are given, but I do not follow them. For example, "formations with ignorance as condition are like the blind man's stumbling". How do you understand this simile?" Larry: It all flows from "ignorance is like a blind man". The first thing a blind man does is stumble, like the first thing after ignorance is formations. However, the commentary probably has a better explanation. Nina will explain in a couple of days. Tep: "Further, how would you explain the paticcasamuppada dhammas (ignorance, ..., ageing-and-death) in this section without mixing conventional language with paramattha sacca?" Larry: The usual way: all language is conventional, but language about paramattha dhammas refers to insight. The insight that arises concerning dependent arising is the second one: purification by overcoming doubt regarding cause and condition. It's like you "see" this came from that. It's an "aha!" moment without the chit chat. Learning the language of dhamma lays the ground for insight. Larry #90726 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) egberdina Hi Howard, TG, Alex, 2008/9/27 : > Hi, TG - > > You are correct in what you say in the following. It is almost as if > there were two (or more) Buddhisms! > I'm very much convinced of that. I believe that within the nikayas we see teachings of different schools. The teachings of the forest dwelling Buddha are quite different to what the monastery dwelling Buddha has to say. I am happy to accept that the DhammaVinaya is a record of Buddhist history that spans time, and that it is up to the individual to find the red threads of meaning that are relevant to them. Cheers Herman #90727 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a sarahprocter... Dear Tep, Thank you for your careful study and interesting comments. --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Tep wrote: T: The two quotes you kindly took from the Kathavatthu ( 'Points of Controversy' ) provide a background information (such as defintions for the terms 'person', 'real', 'ultimate') and eight refutations (questions and answers) between a Theravadin and a Puggalavadin in order to logically prove that it is impossible for 'the person' to be both known "in the sense of a real and ultimate fact" at the same time. And you put 'paramattha dhamma' in the parentheses after "ultimate fact". What is the ultimate fact? .... S: From the text: "Controverted Point. That the 'person' is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact." “Theravadin - Is 'the person' known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?" [S:Puggalo upalabbhati saccika.t.thaparamatthenaa ti] S: "Ultimate fact" is just the translation used here. The question is whether 'person' is found (upalabbhati) according to what is real and known in an ultimate sense (saccika.t.thaparamatthenaa). Of course, the answer is 'no'. As the commentary to the Kathavatthu summary I gave elaborated on the meaning here: 'Person'(puggala) means soul, being, vital principle. 'Is known': is approached and got at by the understanding, is cognized. 'Real': not taken as an effect of magic or mirage, actual. 'Ultimate'(paramattho): highest sense, not taken from tradition, or hearsay. 'Known' as one of the fifty-seven ultimates of our conscious experience (i.e 5 aggregates, 12 sense organs and objects, 18 elements, 22 controlling powers). **** T:> Can you compare it with the term 'ultimate meaning' in the Ptsm that I discussed in my recent posts? I am a little confused here. .... S: In Ptsm XX 26, parama.t.thasu~n~na was referring to nibbana and parinibbana in particular, I believe. Also, I believe the Ptsm is clear than in that context, XX1, 8 ".....what is great understanding?.... It embraces the great ideas (dhammaa).....it embraces the great ultimate meaning, nibbana,(S: parama.t.the nibbaane ~naa.na"m pavattatiiti) thus it is great understanding.(S: puthupa~n~na)" So it always depends on the conext as with so many other terms. .... T:> ....However, have you seen the definition of paramattha dhammas (i.e. rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana) in the Abhidhamma books, excluding the commentaries? ... S: A little further on in the Kathavatthu (ch II, Comparative Inquiry), the Theravadan indicates how 'the person' cannot be known "in the sense of a real and ultimate fact" in the way material quality (rupa, i.e rupa khandha) is. The passage then continues with the other khandhas, then going onto the 12 ayatanas, the 18 dhatus, sights, sounds etc, eye-consciousness etc, the 22 indriyas, etc. Lots of detail is given to indicate that 'person' and other concepts are not paramattha dhammas as the khandhas and so on are. ..... T:> Why do I ask this? I just want to know that the term paramattha dhammas was coined by either the Buddha or the Arahant disciples. ... S: For me, if what I hear and read conforms with the Buddha's teachings and is about dhammas which can be known now, I don't mind who coined which terms and if their meaning varies according to contexts, such as 'sabhava' or 'paramattha'. Metta, Sarah ======== #90728 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Not Agitated = Cool Calm! bhikkhu0 Friends: Non-Agitation through detached Release: The Blessed Buddha once said: How, friends, is there non-agitation through detached release? Regarding this, friends, the educated normal person, who is a friend of a Noble One & who is clever & well trained in his Dhamma, or who is a friend of a Great Man & is clever and well trained in his Dhamma, avoids regarding form as self, he avoids regarding self as having form, he avoids regarding form as inside any self, or any self as inside a form!!! Then inevitably his body form changes & decays. When this change and decay of his material form occurs, his mind does not become occupied with this change of just a form. Therefore does no agitated mental state, arised from worry over this changed body form, remain obsessing his mind ... Because his mind is not obsessed, he is neither frightened, nor distressed, nor anxious, & by this detached non-clinging his agitation is all stilled!!! He does not regard feeling as self ... perception as self ... constructions as self ... consciousness as self, nor the self as possessing consciousness, nor consciousness as being inside any self, nor any self as being 'inside' consciousness ... When his consciousness momentarily changes & alters, his mind does not become engaged with this fast change of consciousness. Therefore does no agitated mental state, born of concern over this changed consciousness, remain obsessing his mind! Because his mind is neither obsessed, nor upset, nor troubled, nor uneasy, this aloof and detached non-clinging still, calm and evaporate all prior agitations! It is exactly in this way, friends, that there is non-agitation through non-clinging. Comment: If these is no EGO, how can there ever be lost anything from such void! ;-) hihi More about this freeing selfless anti-ego impersonality = No-self = AnattÄ?: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_Self.htm Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya XXII (7); [III 16-9] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 An Ocean of Dhamma Teaching! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html#Khandha On Clusters! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90729 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: >There is a lot of talk about "real" and "ultimate facts" Please define these first. Logical fallacies may result when people are using vague, imprecise, loaded and ambiguous terms. ... S: Please read the comments I just sent to Tep and see if they help. Metta, Sarah ======== #90730 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, May I try your good quiz? --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: >Lets discuss vinnana & namarupa. >1) Why isn't vinnana included into nama? .... S: In the context of D.O. nama refers to the (vipaka) cetasikas which accompany vinnana (patisandhi citta and subsequent vipaka cittas conditioned by past kamma). ... >2) Can there be eye(&other) consciousness separate from namarupa? .... S: No. (For the 'other', never without cetasikas and never without rupa in the kamavacara bhumi). .... >3) Does namarupa here refer to internal only, or external world as well? .... S: It refers to cetasikas and rupas conditioned by past kamma, so internal or regarding the 'body'. .... A:> This is not a critique, just points of discussion. Metta, Sarah ======= #90731 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Probably more controversy to follow:-) --- On Fri, 26/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: S:>>1. When you're sleeping and having those disturbing dreams, what doorway(s) are the objects experienced through? ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- >Howard: It is 98% via mind door. (The other 2% of input consists of subliminal body-door, ear-door, and nose-door inputs that the mind incorporates into the constructed dreams.) ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: OK, 98% correct, not bad at all:-) ... S:>>2. When you're in a really deep sleep (without any dreams), what doorway(s) are the objects experienced through? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- >Howard: The professor's answer would be the mind door, in the form of bhavanga citta. ... S: The professor would be sent back to the texts. Bhavanga cittas are 'process-freed', in other words, they arise in between sense and mind door processes. .... H:> My answer is "No objects, no experiencing, and no (internal) time flow." So, the "professor" wants to give the "student" a zero on this question, but he wants to go to the "dean" to complain that the "teacher" is basing her answer on material not in the primary texts! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- S: Dean's response: Your answer is not in any texts at all. It's purely your invention! Remember the passage in the sutta, for example, about consciousness arising and ceasing continually and the simile of the monkey? (see Scott's helpful message #89431, for which I meant to thank Scott, so will slip it in here:-)). By anantara paccaya (continuity condition), there is never a break in cittas experiencing objects. Check your 'Guide to Conditional Relations'! .... Thanks for your good-humoured responses, Howard. Btw, (talking of late replies), I did read with interest your further comments on trees in #90151. Thank you for those. I agree that 'trees are not "nothings"'. Concepts are not nothing - they are concepts. Yes, I agree that without the various rupas, there'd be no sanna marking and no thinking about 'trees'. And yes, as you say, you and your wife feel different 'colds' and 'warmths', all according to past kamma. We think of 'shared experiences', but actually what is experienced now is never shared. We live alone with the experience of visible object or warmth now. Thanks again for your time and consideration as always. Metta, Sarah ======== #90733 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:30 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Dear Han (Sarah and Abhidhammikas), - Like you, I am unable to truly see paramattha dhammas the way Abhidhammikas say they do. > han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you very much for your reply. ... ... ... In the same way, when I study suttas, I understand the suttas just as they are written and nothing more. But for you, you not only see the suttas just as they are written, but you also see the ultimate realities in them which could beneficially be applied to our daily life. But I will never be able to see the way you see things. So, I think the best thing will be not to dig in further, to avoid any annoyance:>) Respectfully, Han --------------- T: It does not seem to me that they make any effort to dig or try as you describe, Han. Remember, only conditioned dhammas arise and then pass away? We have trouble because we cannot separate the human element (the dust in our eyes, so to speak), I think. Easy does it, every time. Tep === #90734 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. egberdina Hi Sukin, 2008/9/24 Sukinder : > Herman: > I think you have dived straight into your pet theory here, without so > much as looking out the window to see what is really happening. :-) > You stipulate a fundamental dualism here between knowing and not > knowing , without saying why that is your basis. > > Suk: Yes, I realize that I come in with some preconceived concepts, but > I consider these to be a given otherwise the discussion may never > proceed. I explained some of this to Tep and Rinze in the post I just > wrote. And it is not that they won't be discussed, of course I intend to > do just that in the course of our discussions down the road. But I don't > think it necessary as precondition to starting the discussion. One might > even ask why needs to have these things defined first. Why not just go > along? > > Regarding it being 'pet theory' and how much so, I hope this too will > come to light as we proceed. ;-) > > =========== > Herman: > Why not start with what is obvious, and add or delete as is needed by > the reality that we are trying to understand. What would be wrong with > starting instead in the following way, which seems to me far more intuitive? > > There is the reality of experiences. > > Suk: :-) It crossed my mind. But this can be misleading and even this > will be questioned by some, I would think. You know, Sukin, I don't buy all your stories about poor concentration and Ritalin and the like :-). You are clearly able to keep many distinct ideas apart and together at the same time. And what you are referring to here is pivotal, I think. I do not remember that any of your dsg friends have been helpful in the past regarding this point. You're on your own. If you are able to make a distinction between illusion and reality, using only what is real, you can make some converts here :-) What is illusion? What does it mean to be misleading? Cheers Herman #90735 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Another good question below: --- On Fri, 26/9/08, Alex wrote: >In AN10.6 the Buddha says that: >"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. .. the dimension of nothingness. .. the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. .. this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an10/an10. 006.than. html >What is this attainment of concentration? .... S: Fortunately, B.Bodhi gives this note to the passage in his AN anthology. "Numerical Discourses of the Buddha": "The word "percipient" (sa~n~nii) rules out the identification of this state with the cessation of perception and feeling (sa~n~naavedayita-nirodha). AA [S: the Tiika to the sutta] identifies this concentration with the concentration of fruition attainment (or arahantship): 'If he applies his mind to the peaceful (aspect of Nibbaana), he may, while seated, continue with that thought 'peaceful' even for a full day. And so with the other (aspects of Nibbaana). All this refers to the concentration of fruition attainment (phala-samaapatti-samaadi)." Hope this helps. Metta, Sarah ========= #90736 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/27/2008 2:32:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, TG, Alex, 2008/9/27 : > Hi, TG - > > You are correct in what you say in the following. It is almost as if > there were two (or more) Buddhisms! > I'm very much convinced of that. I believe that within the nikayas we see teachings of different schools. The teachings of the forest dwelling Buddha are quite different to what the monastery dwelling Buddha has to say. I am happy to accept that the DhammaVinaya is a record of Buddhist history that spans time, and that it is up to the individual to find the red threads of meaning that are relevant to them. Cheers Herman ============================= Yours is an interesting idea. I wonder if there is any hermeneutical evidence (stylistic, lexical, historical, or whatever) that supports it. With metta, Howard #90737 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/27/2008 7:15:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes with regard to my not running to accept bhavanga cittas: Remember the passage in the sutta, for example, about consciousness arising and ceasing continually and the simile of the monkey? (see Scott's helpful message #89431, for which I meant to thank Scott, so will slip it in here:-)). By anantara paccaya (continuity condition), there is never a break in cittas experiencing objects. Check your 'Guide to Conditional Relations'! ============================== My reply, "No objects, no experiencing, and no (internal) time flow" does not contradict no gap in consciousness. Within the given mind stream there has been no gap in consciousness - the consciousness preceding the falling into dreamless sleep is followed immediately by the subsequent dreaming or waking consciousness, though there may be a jump in content. You are envisioning the situation from the perspective of another mind stream, which is inappropriate. With metta, Howard #90738 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XVII,303 dhammanusarin >Tep: "Further, how would you explain the paticcasamuppada dhammas (ignorance, ..., ageing-and-death) in this section without mixing conventional language with paramattha sacca?" Hi Larry, - I appreciate your thought. Larry: The usual way: all language is conventional, but language about paramattha dhammas refers to insight. The insight that arises concerning dependent arising is the second one: purification by overcoming doubt regarding cause and condition. It's like you "see" this came from that. It's an "aha!" moment without the chit chat. Learning the language of dhamma lays the ground for insight. ............ In other words, first thing first. Thanks. Tep === #90739 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/9/24 sarahprocterabbott : > Hi Howard, > > I'm always glad to find agreement with you. > > .... > S: Yes, 'person' is a common designation given to 'congeries' of > namas and rupas. There is no denying of this. > > The realities are the namas and rupas, the various khandhas only. No, stop it , Sarah. It won't do. MN28: "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being is gathered under the feeling clinging-aggregate The perception of what has thus come into being is gathered under the perception clinging-aggregate. The fabrications of what has thus come into being are gathered under the fabrication clinging-aggregate. The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates. Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.' And even to this extent, friends, the monk has accomplished a great deal." Clearly, very clearly, explicitly clearly, clearly enough so no commentator can muddy it, there is being prior to khandas. Cheers Herman #90740 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:37 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a hantun1 Dear Tep (and Sarah), > Tep: Like you, I am unable to truly see paramattha dhammas the way Abhidhammikas say they do. > Tep: It does seem to me that they make any effort to dig or try as you describe, Han. Remember, only conditioned dhammas arise and then pass away? Easy does it, every time. -------------------- Han: I am taking it easy, Tep. I know Sarah enjoys such discussions. I wonder from where she got her energy to do that. If the Buddha were alive today, she might be awarded with etadagga in perseverance. Yours truly, Han #90741 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:44 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Dear Sarah, - Likewise, I thank you for the careful reply below. But any discussion about an "ultimate" quality, no matter how careful it is done, seems to (always) fall short of satisfaction. > sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Tep, > ... ... ... (I) > S: "Ultimate fact" is just the translation used here. The question is whether 'person' is found (upalabbhati) according to what is real and known in an ultimate sense (saccika.t.thaparamatthenaa). > > Of course, the answer is 'no'. > > As the commentary to the Kathavatthu summary I gave elaborated on the meaning here: > > 'Person'(puggala) means soul, being, vital principle. 'Is known': is approached and got at by the understanding, is cognized. 'Real': not taken as an effect of magic or mirage, actual. 'Ultimate'(paramattho): highest sense, not taken from tradition, or hearsay. 'Known' as one of the fifty-seven ultimates of our conscious experience (i.e 5 aggregates, 12 sense organs and objects, 18 elements, 22 controlling powers). > **** T: The meaning "highest sense" above obviously indicates nibbana and the associated bodhipakkheya dhammas in the Arahantship. This indication is in agreement with Ptsm, XXI,8 ['... the great ultimate meaning, nibbana']. ============================== (II) > T:> Can you compare it with the term 'ultimate meaning' in the Ptsm that I discussed in my recent posts? I am a little confused here. > .... > S: In Ptsm XX 26, parama.t.thasu~n~na was referring to nibbana and parinibbana in particular, I believe. > > Also, I believe the Ptsm is clear than in that context, XX1, 8 ".....what is great understanding?.... It embraces the great ideas (dhammaa).....it embraces the great ultimate meaning, nibbana,(S: parama.t.the nibbaane ~naa.na"m pavattatiiti) thus it is great understanding.(S: puthupa~n~na)" > > So it always depends on the conext as with so many other terms. > .... T: Understanding (pa~n~na) and other ideas(dhammas), when nibbana is realized, all become great(maha) with ultimate meaning (paramattha). ======================== > T:> ....However, have you seen the definition of paramattha dhammas (i.e. rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana) in the Abhidhamma books, excluding the commentaries? > ... > S: A little further on in the Kathavatthu (ch II, Comparative Inquiry), the Theravadan indicates how 'the person' cannot be known "in the sense of a real and ultimate fact" in the way material quality (rupa, i.e rupa khandha) is. The passage then continues with the other khandhas, then going onto the 12 ayatanas, the 18 dhatus, sights, sounds etc, eye-consciousness etc, the 22 indriyas, etc. > > Lots of detail is given to indicate that 'person' and other concepts are not paramattha dhammas as the khandhas and so on are. > ..... > T:> Why do I ask this? I just want to know that the term paramattha > dhammas was coined by either the Buddha or the Arahant disciples. > ... > S: For me, if what I hear and read conforms with the Buddha's teachings and is about dhammas which can be known now, I don't mind who coined which terms and if their meaning varies according to contexts, such as 'sabhava' or 'paramattha'. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== T: It remains to be seen what is the truth and what is not: only for wise to see. Tep === #90742 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Dear Han and Sarah, - There is an error that should be corrected. > Tep: Like you, I am unable to truly see paramattha dhammas the way Abhidhammikas say they do. > Tep: It does seem to me that they make any effort to dig or try as you describe, Han. Remember, only conditioned dhammas arise and then pass away? Easy does it, every time. T: Please change "they make any effort to dig or try" to "they make NO effort to dig or try". Now it makes sense! -------------------- Han: I am taking it easy, Tep. I know Sarah enjoys such discussions. I wonder from where she got her energy to do that. If the Buddha were alive today, she might be awarded with etadagga in perseverance. > T: Thank you for taking my advice! Sarah has the energy and perseverance because she has "understanding now" through satipatthana. Did you forget that? By the way, what does that mean : etadagga ? Your friend, Tep === #90743 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:30 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? .. Stop it, Sarah ... dhammanusarin Hi Herman and Sarah, - I think you have caught 'the snake' by its head, Herman. Just put it away in a cage so it won't come out to bite us no more. .................... > S: Yes, 'person' is a common designation given to 'congeries' of > namas and rupas. There is no denying of this. > > The realities are the namas and rupas, the various khandhas only. Herman: No, stop it , Sarah. It won't do. MN28: "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being ... The perception of what has thus come into being ... The fabrications of what has thus come into being ... The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates. Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.' And even to this extent, friends, the monk has accomplished a great deal." Herman: Clearly, very clearly, explicitly clearly, clearly enough so no commentator can muddy it, there is being prior to khandas. ============= T: Sarah's reduction of the five khandhas into namas & rupas is the same as saying that all matters in the universe are nothing but molecules and atoms: therefore, there are no cars, no buildings, no cities, no beings; only molecules and atoms are seen. That is not wrong, but it misses the reality of daily life. MN 28 is indeed very "explicitly clear" like you said, Herman. The Buddha is not a reductionist. He used the khandhas as meditation objects in order to discern the following truths: 1. The five khandhas define the being -- the meditator who contemplates the khandhas. 2. These five khandhas form the basis for clinging by the being due to ignorance. 3. Any desire and clinging for the khandhas is the origin(samudaya) for dukkha. 4. Any abandoning of such desire and clinging is the cessation(nirodha) of dukkha. By repeatedly insisting to see just nama and rupas, Sarah misses the essence of MN 28. Tep === #90745 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? .. Stop it, Sarah ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Herman & Sarah) - In a message dated 9/27/2008 9:31:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Herman and Sarah, - I think you have caught 'the snake' by its head, Herman. Just put it away in a cage so it won't come out to bite us no more. .................... > S: Yes, 'person' is a common designation given to 'congeries' of > namas and rupas. There is no denying of this. > > The realities are the namas and rupas, the various khandhas only. Herman: No, stop it , Sarah. It won't do. MN28: "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being ... The perception of what has thus come into being ... The fabrications of what has thus come into being ... The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates. Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.' And even to this extent, friends, the monk has accomplished a great deal." Herman: Clearly, very clearly, explicitly clearly, clearly enough so no commentator can muddy it, there is being prior to khandas. ============= T: Sarah's reduction of the five khandhas into namas & rupas is the same as saying that all matters in the universe are nothing but molecules and atoms: therefore, there are no cars, no buildings, no cities, no beings; only molecules and atoms are seen. That is not wrong, but it misses the reality of daily life. MN 28 is indeed very "explicitly clear" like you said, Herman. The Buddha is not a reductionist. He used the khandhas as meditation objects in order to discern the following truths: 1. The five khandhas define the being -- the meditator who contemplates the khandhas. 2. These five khandhas form the basis for clinging by the being due to ignorance. 3. Any desire and clinging for the khandhas is the origin(samudaya) for dukkha. 4. Any abandoning of such desire and clinging is the cessation(nirodha) of dukkha. By repeatedly insisting to see just nama and rupas, Sarah misses the essence of MN 28. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't get that, Tep. The sutta says: "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being ... The perception of what has thus come into being ... The fabrications of what has thus come into being ... The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate." This speaks of a gathering of namas and rupas. That is an aggregation or collection of dhammas. What else? --------------------------------------------- Tep ======================== With metta, Howard #90746 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:47 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a hantun1 Dear Tep, > Tep: Please change "they make any effort to dig or try" to "they make NO effort to dig or try". Now it makes sense! Han: The error has been corrected. I always have only good words and praise for Sarah. ------------------------------ > Tep: Thank you for taking my advice! Sarah has the energy and perseverance because she has "understanding now" through satipatthana. Did you forget that? Han: No, I do not forget that. ------------------------------ > Tep: By the way, what does that mean: etadagga ? Han: In Anguttara Nikaya, Ekakanipaata Pali, the Buddha proclaimed his outstanding disciples who are formost in their specific fields. For example, Etadagga.m bhikkhave mama saavakaana.m bhikkhuuna.m mahaapa~n~naana.m yadida.m saariputto. Bhikkhus, out of my disciples, Sàriputta is foremost for great wisdom. Here, etadagga is translated as foremost. Yours truly, Han #90747 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration truth_aerator Hello Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > --- On Fri, 26/9/08, Alex wrote: > > >In AN10.6 the Buddha says that: > > >"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in > this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite â€" the resolution of >all > fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' It's in this way that a > monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would > neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water > with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the > infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness. .. the dimension of nothingness. .. the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception. .. this world... nor of the > next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be > percipient." > http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an10/an10. 006.than. >html > > >What is this attainment of concentration? > .... > S: Fortunately, B.Bodhi gives this note to the passage in his AN >anthology. "Numerical Discourses of the Buddha": > > "The word "percipient" (sa~n~nii) rules out the identification of >this state with the cessation of perception and feeling >(sa~n~naavedayita-nirodha). AA [S: the Tiika to the >sutta] identifies this concentration with the concentration of >fruition attainment (or arahantship): 'If he applies his mind to the >peaceful (aspect of Nibbaana), he may, while seated, continue with >that thought 'peaceful' even for a full day. And so with the other >(aspects of Nibbaana). All this refers to the concentration >of fruition attainment (phala-samaapatti-samaadi)." > > Hope this helps. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= Thank you very much for this reply. Is there any relationship between this fruitition of Arhatship and Nibbana? If so, what is the relationship? Thank you, Best wishes, Alex #90748 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Herman & Tep, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: > > S: Yes, 'person' is a common designation given > to 'congeries' of > > namas and rupas. There is no denying of this. > > > > The realities are the namas and rupas, the various > khandhas only. ... Herman: > No, stop it , Sarah. It won't do. > > MN28: > > "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered > under the form clinging-aggregate. > <...> > Clearly, very clearly, explicitly clearly, clearly enough > so no > commentator can muddy it, there is being prior to khandas. ... S: Are you referring to the 'being' in "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate." as indicating a being, a person "prior to khandhas"? If so, please consider the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation for a little more clarity: "The material form in what has thus come to be [tathaabhuuta]is included in the material form aggregate affected by clinging."* The lines follow this: "But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding [conscious] engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness." So, however hard I look, I can't find any being or person 'prior', 'during' or 'post' the khandhas. [* translator note: "This section is set forth to show the Four Noble Truths by way of the sense doors. 'What has thus come to be' (tathaabhuuta) is the entire complex of factors arisen by way of eye-consciousness. By analysing this complex into the five aggregates, Ven Saariputta shows that any occasion of sense experience is comprised within the truth of suffering."] Metta, Sarah =========== #90749 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex & all, > > May I try your good quiz? > > --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: > >Lets discuss vinnana & namarupa. > > >1) Why isn't vinnana included into nama? > .... > S: In the context of D.O. nama refers to the (vipaka) cetasikas >which accompany vinnana (patisandhi citta and subsequent vipaka >cittas conditioned by past kamma). > ... If nama is vipaka, then constituents of nama such as volition, is vipaka as well?! 2nd) Vinnana in DO is defined as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind consciousness. It is defined as 6 consciousness, not 1 relinking consciousness. Thank you for replying, Best wishes, #90750 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: A:> Is there any relationship between this fruitition of Arhatship and Nibbana? If so, what is the relationship? ... S: Yes, nibbana is the object of the cittas in fruition attainment (phala-samaapatti), just as it was the object of the magga and phala cittas at the time of attainment. Phala samaapatti, repeated phala cittas, is attainable by all ariyans whose enlightenment was subsequent to mundane jhana. [See more in 'U.P.' under 'Fruition Attainment (phala-samaapatti)', perhaps.] Metta, Sarah ======== #90751 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) nilovg Dear Alex and Howard, Op 26-sep-2008, om 22:41 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Why isn't vinnana included into nama? > > 2) Can there be eye(&other) consciousness separate from namarupa? > > 3) Does namarupa here refer to internal only, or external world as > well? -------- N: I quote from the Visuddhimagga. We have to see these terms in the context of the D.O. < Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. --------- N: Here naama refers to the cetasikas that can accompany vi~n~naa.na. The Tiika explains that vi~n~naa.na also is naama, but in not mixing the conditioning dhammas and conditioned dhammas he speaks here of naama as the three khandhas which are facing an object. We read in the ‘Dispeller of Delusion’, Classification of the Structure of Conditions, 777 (p. 207) that a question is asked whether consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) is not mentality (naama). The answer is that it is also naama.The text states: In the context of the Dependent Origination: with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality', mentality or naama is here the khandhas of feeling, of sa~n~naa and of formations. These khandhas include all cetasikas. > Does this help? Nina. #90752 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) nilovg Hi Alex, Op 27-sep-2008, om 16:06 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > If nama is vipaka, then constituents of nama such as volition, is > vipaka as well?! --------- N Yes, volition accompanies each citta. When it accompanies vipaakacitta it is also vipaaka. ------- > 2nd) Vinnana in DO is defined as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind > consciousness. It is defined as 6 consciousness, not 1 relinking > consciousness. -------- N: It is rebirth-consciousness as well as vipaakacitta arising during a lifespan. Nina. #90753 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) sarahprocter... Dear Alex & all, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: > >1) Why isn't vinnana included into nama? > .... > S: In the context of D.O. nama refers to the (vipaka) cetasikas >which accompany vinnana (patisandhi citta and subsequent vipaka >cittas conditioned by past kamma). > ... A:> If nama is vipaka, then constituents of nama such as volition, is vipaka as well?! .... S: In the context of D.O, nama includes all cetasikas accompanying the various vipaka cittas. As cetana (volition) is a 'universal' cetasika, it accompanies every vipaka citta. It isn't to be confused with the cetana, the abhisankhara, which makes up the sankhara link (i.e kamma). .... A:> 2nd) Vinnana in DO is defined as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind consciousness. It is defined as 6 consciousness, not 1 relinking consciousness. ... S: It is the rebirth consciousness and subsequent sense-consciousnesses (and other vipaka cittas). It depends on the context what is mentioned. Mahaanidaana Sutta & commentaries(Bodhi transl,BPS): "....If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?" Cy: "If, after having entered, it were not to occur by way of rebirth-linking." Sub Cy."it is said....in order to show separately that consciousness, at its first arising, is the distinctive condition for mentality-materiality. Though the rebirth-linking of the embryo is spoken of as if it descends into the mother's womb from outside, the phrase actually denotes the first arising of the aggregates there in accordance with conditions." Cy: "If there were no rebirth-linking consciousness, would the remaining bare mentality-materiality occur in the mother's womb, "taking shape" by developing through the various embryonic stages?" Sub Cy: " The remaining bare mentality-materiality": the remaining mentality-materiality only, without consciousness." Thanks to you too, Alex. That's it from me for now. Metta, Sarah ============= #90754 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Reductionist Fallacy truth_aerator Dear Tep, Sarah, Herman and all, >--- Tep" wrote: > > T: Sarah's reduction of the five khandhas into namas & rupas is the > same as saying that all matters in the universe are nothing but > molecules and atoms: therefore, there are no cars, no buildings, no > cities, no beings; only molecules and atoms are seen. That is not > wrong, but it misses the reality of daily life. > > MN 28 is indeed very "explicitly clear" like you said, Herman. The > Buddha is not a reductionist. He used the khandhas as meditation > objects in order to discern the following truths: > 1. The five khandhas define the being -- the meditator who > contemplates the khandhas. > 2. These five khandhas form the basis for clinging by the being due >to > ignorance. > 3. Any desire and clinging for the khandhas is the origin(samudaya) > for dukkha. > 4. Any abandoning of such desire and clinging is the > cessation(nirodha) of dukkha. > > By repeatedly insisting to see just nama and rupas, Sarah misses >the essence of MN 28. > > > Tep > === I very much agree with you. Buddha focuses a lot, and in fact teaches, suffering and its cessation. What may appear as philosophical reductionist statements are geared toward showing that no thing is worthy to cling as "I, me, mine". There should be full dispassion toward anything as it is inconstant, has lots of drawbacks, and isn't under anyone's full control. To Sarah: The typical reductionism is flawed IMHO on logical and emperic grounds as well. Some say that since a "whole is made up of parts", the whole is merely an assemblage of parts and doesn't exist. But very often the whole has functions and properties that are not found in the parts. Does this mean that parts do not exist, for this very reason? Lets take water (H2O) for example. A typical later Buddhist philosopher may say: "Hydrogen isn't water, Oxygen isn't water. There is no water in any of the parts. Thus there is no water". To which a reply may go like this. Water has certain properties which neither Hydrogen nor Oxygen has. Does that mean that Hydrogen & Oxygen (the parts of the whole) do not exist? Nagasena's argument against chariot can be refuted this way as well. None of the parts by themselves can do the function of the chariot. Does this mean that they don't exist? When you take chariot apart and ask an unsuspecting victim if any of these parts is chariot, you are pulling philosophical hood over the victim's head. You are not making a valid comparison. In most (if not all case) A part can never equal a whole. This doesn't rule out the existence of a "whole". Regarding beloved TREES. While it is true that a philosopher may say: "A tree is just a feeling of Hardness, temperature, visual form, a concept and so on. - thus a tree doesn't exist." But the tree has certain functions and so on which are not found in "hardness, temperature, cohesion, color, taste, weight, visual form, nutritive essence, concept, etc etc." . In other words, a whole has functions that is separate from, or not directly found in induvidial parts. !!!! Best wishes, #90755 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? .. Stop it, Sarah ... dhammanusarin Hello Howard (Herman, Sarah), - I appreciate your sutta discussion initiative. >Tep: MN 28 is indeed very "explicitly clear" like you said, Herman. The Buddha is not a reductionist. He used the khandhas as meditation objects in order to discern the following truths: 1. The five khandhas define the being -- the meditator who contemplates the khandhas. 2. These five khandhas form the basis for clinging by the being due to ignorance. 3. Any desire and clinging for the khandhas is the origin(samudaya) for dukkha. 4. Any abandoning of such desire and clinging is the cessation(nirodha) of dukkha. >By repeatedly insisting to see just nama and rupas, Sarah misses the essence of MN 28. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't get that, Tep. The sutta says: "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being ... The perception of what has thus come into being ... The fabrications of what has thus come into being ... The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate." This speaks of a gathering of namas and rupas. That is an aggregation or collection of dhammas. What else? --------------------------------------------- T: The same can be said about the gathering of atoms and molecules into aggregates called gold, coins, cars, humans, etc. Yes, it is an aggregation or collection of 'things'. Nothing is wrong with that view, except that model misapplication leads to missing the essence of the problem at hand. MN 28 does not just talk about "aggregation" for the sake of aggregation definition; its purpose or "essence" is dukkha smudhaya and dukkha nirodha with the khandhas as the "model" or meditation objects. The namas-and-rupas perspective is useful in another class of problems. Tep === #90756 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See egberdina Dear colette, 2008/9/27 colette : > Good Morning All, > >> ---------------------------------------------- > colette: darn, now you've done it! You've gone and raised that most > ugly of issues called THE HEIRARCHY and it's companion THE VALUE > STRUCTURE. > I sooooo much relate to what you write. I do really love it, probably only because it's where I am at. But I'm going to be naughty here, I want to know what is at the end of the colette book. Not the expiry of colette, but the summation of colette. And that is a leading statement, perhaps there is no summation. Is there a right way to be colette, colette? Cheers , colette Herman #90757 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:54 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 4a dhammanusarin Dear Han, - I am glad to learn a Pali word and its usage to day. > Tep: By the way, what does that mean: etadagga ? Han: In Anguttara Nikaya, Ekakanipaata Pali, the Buddha proclaimed his outstanding disciples who are formost in their specific fields. For example, Etadagga.m bhikkhave mama saavakaana.m bhikkhuuna.m mahaapa~n~naana.m yadida.m saariputto. Bhikkhus, out of my disciples, Sàriputta is foremost for great wisdom. Here, etadagga is translated as foremost. ---------------- T: Foremost among the DSG members is indeed Sarah . Thank you, Han. Tep === #90758 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:16 am Subject: Re: Reductionist Fallacy dhammanusarin Hello Alex (Sarah, Howard), - Thank you for the reply that is as clear as a blue sky. >A: I very much agree with you. Buddha focuses a lot, and in fact teaches, suffering and its cessation. What may appear as philosophical reductionist statements are geared toward showing that no thing is worthy to cling as "I, me, mine". There should be full dispassion toward anything as it is inconstant, has lots of drawbacks, and isn't under anyone's full control. T: Dispassion is the critical Dhamma; beyond that there is no return to passion in the khandhas. > Alex: To Sarah: >The typical reductionism is flawed IMHO on logical and emperic grounds as well. > Some say that since a "whole is made up of parts", the whole is merely an assemblage of parts and doesn't exist. But very often the whole has functions and properties that are not found in the parts. Does this mean that parts do not exist, for this very reason? ... ... In other words, a whole has functions that is separate from, or not directly found in induvidial parts. !!!! ..................... I agree with you. Well said, Alex. Regards, Tep === #90759 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reductionist Fallacy upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Alex) - In a message dated 9/27/2008 11:17:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hello Alex (Sarah, Howard), - Thank you for the reply that is as clear as a blue sky. >A: I very much agree with you. Buddha focuses a lot, and in fact teaches, suffering and its cessation. What may appear as philosophical reductionist statements are geared toward showing that no thing is worthy to cling as "I, me, mine". There should be full dispassion toward anything as it is inconstant, has lots of drawbacks, and isn't under anyone's full control. T: Dispassion is the critical Dhamma; beyond that there is no return to passion in the khandhas. > Alex: To Sarah: >The typical reductionism is flawed IMHO on logical and emperic grounds as well. > Some say that since a "whole is made up of parts", the whole is merely an assemblage of parts and doesn't exist. But very often the whole has functions and properties that are not found in the parts. Does this mean that parts do not exist, for this very reason? ... ... In other words, a whole has functions that is separate from, or not directly found in induvidial parts. !!!! ..................... I agree with you. Well said, Alex. ---------------------------------------- Howard: And just in case anyone might think otherwise, I concur! The whole is a (fuzzy) assemblage of parts, entirely dependent on those parts and their preconditions, but functioning in a manner and exhibiting features shared by none of the parts. So, the whole, qua aggregation, does indeed exist. It also, however, lacks self in an even stronger manner than paramattha dhammas lack self. ---------------------------------------- Regards, Tep ====================== With metta, Howard #90760 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: Me: "No, I assert that naama and ruupa are *separate* realities, not 'independent of one another'. I would suggest that the characteristic of eye-consciousness is always, theoretically, cognizing visible object, but that the experience of visible object does not occur until the confluence of visible object, eye-consciousness, and eye-sense...I don't think that 'objectless seeing' is possible. This might be called 'thinking', for all I know - or day-dreaming. The seen is ruupa; 'seeing', specifically, is cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na, which technically refers to two vipaaka cittas which arise in the citta-viithi following on from when visible object (ruupa) disturbs the bhavanga flow and impinges on the eye-sense (ruupa as well) which, in total, can also be described as 'seeing' (taken as a process). And I thought your prose was convoluted...Herman, I'm sorry I was unclear. The quip about your convoluted prose was a poke at my own paragraph - see above. Have you ever seen such a convoluted thing? Your prose has nothing on mine when it comes to convoluted. Were you angry or has the tone of the discussion shifted this quickly?" Scott: Just wondering, Herman, whether the discussion has ended, and if so, why? No need to reply really, just curious... Sincerely, Scott. #90761 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Reductionist Fallacy dhammanusarin Hello Howard (Alex, Sarah), - You wrote in agreement with Alex : >Howard: The whole is a (fuzzy) assemblage of parts, entirely dependent on those parts and their preconditions, but functioning in a manner and exhibiting features shared by none of the parts. So, the whole, qua aggregation, does indeed exist. It also, however, lacks self in an even stronger manner than paramattha dhammas lack self. ---------------------------------------- T: I kinda like your logical deduction of not-self in "the whole" by starting from the smallest (irreducible) components at the paramattha- dhamma level : this should be called the 'bottom-up approach'. The opposite, the 'top-down approach', which starts with not-self in the "fuzzy" assemblage of the khandhas is not as convincing, I think. Tep === #90762 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:33 am Subject: Re: Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration truth_aerator Hi Sarah, >---, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: > A: Is there any relationship between this fruitition of Arhatship >and Nibbana? If so, what is the relationship? > ... > S: Yes, nibbana is the object of the cittas in fruition attainment >(phala-samaapatti), just as it was the object of the magga and >phala cittas at the time of attainment. How can Nibbana be an object of the citta if Nibbana isn't an "object"? >Phala samaapatti, repeated phala cittas, is attainable by all >ariyans whose enlightenment was subsequent to mundane jhana. > > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== You mean consequent, not subsequent. Right? ========================= Knowledge of the ending of the effluents, as it has come to be, occurs to one who is concentrated, I tell you, and not to one who is not concentrated. So concentration is the path, monks. Non- concentration is no path at all. — AN 6.64 ======== Jhana IS the path to awakening - MN36 Removal of Asavas depends on Jhana - AN9.36 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html Best wishes, #90763 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:38 am Subject: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma dhammanusarin Dear Howard, Alex, Sarah, Nina, - The important term "form" (rupa) is a component of both the aggregate (rupakkhandha) and the nama-rupa link of the Paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination or Dependent Co-arising). Confusion arises when some DSG members keep talking about forms as "colors", "sounds", "hardness", etc., without trying to explain first what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. >Sarah (#90501): ... the hardness/softness we take for the body is just the same as the hardness/softness anywhere. We call it 'head- hair', 'cushion', 'tree' or 'computer', but actually, what is experienced is just hardness/softness regardless. Some softness we cling to as being part of our body, but actually the different realities, including such rupas, are all disintegrating as soon as they've arisen and there's no body, no tree, no computer, no atta in any of them. >Nina(#90473) : What we take for "my body" are only different physical phenomena, rúpas, which arise and fall away all the time. We do not feel "our body" through touch; it is only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure that can be experienced through touch; different elements that arise and fall away. T: The above two quotes are typical of the paramattha-based definitions that are not in good agreement with many suttas. Let me give a number of sutta quotes below to prove my point. It is a kusala cetana to point out the difficulty(confusion) that I for one have experienced as an outsider (or a visitor to DSG, if you will). "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. ... "Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate." [SN 22.48] "And why is it called 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form. [SN 22.79] Sariputta: "And what, friends, is form as a clinging-aggregate? The four great existents and the form derived from them. And what are the four great existents? They are the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property. "And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Whatever internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained: This is called the internal earth property... "And what is the liquid property? The liquid property may be either internal or external. What is the internal liquid property? Whatever internal, belonging to oneself, is liquid, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is liquid, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal liquid property... "And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Whatever internal, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, & sustained: that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, & consumed with fever; and that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, & savored gets properly digested, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is fire, fiery, & sustained: This is called the internal fire property... "And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Whatever internal, belonging to oneself, is wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-&-out breathing, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property..." [MN 28] ........................ T: Carefully read the above three sutta quotes yourself, and you'll know why I complain about the "confusion" above. Sincerely, Tep === #90764 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:28 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Nina, >--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex and Howard, > > Op 26-sep-2008, om 22:41 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > Why isn't vinnana included into nama? > > > > 2) Can there be eye(&other) consciousness separate from namarupa? > > > > 3) Does namarupa here refer to internal only, or external world >as > > well? > -------- > N: I quote from the Visuddhimagga. We have to see these terms in >the > context of the D.O. > > < Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here > 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, >feeling, perception, and formations, I politely disagree. In the suttas, nama was defined containing 5 things. "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality- materiality. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html Thank you very much for your reply, though. Best wishes, #90765 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:58 pm Subject: Re: Original Buddhism pt1 - Jhana. Commentary Vs the Buddha truth_aerator Hello Herman, Howard and all >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 9/27/2008 2:32:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Hi Howard, TG, Alex, > > 2008/9/27 : > > Hi, TG - > > > >You are correct in what you say in the following. It is >almost >as if there were two (or more) Buddhisms! > ============================= 2 Buddhisms: A) Commentarial. Lets see this one of the most loved commentarial additions: "Spk: Why is this said? For the purpose of showing the arising of knowledge thus even without concentration. This is meant: "Susima, the path and fruit are not the issue of concentration (samadhinissanda), nor the advantage brought about by concentration (samadhi-anisamsa), nor the outcome of concentration (samadhinipphatti). They are the issue of insight (vipassana), the advantage brought about by insight, the outcome of insight. Therefore, whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana. Spk-pt: 'Even without concentration' (vina pi samadhim): even without previously established (concentration) that has acquired the characteristic of serenity (samatha-lakkhanappattam); this is said referring to one who takes the vehicle of insight (vipassanayanika)..." Lets see what the Buddha has stated : "Knowledge of the ending of the effluents, as it has come to be, occurs to one who is concentrated, I tell you, and not to one who is not concentrated. So concentration is the path, monks. Non- concentration is no path at all." — AN 6.64 The Blessed One said: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html Jhana Is Right Concentration - SN 45.8 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html Jhana IS the path to awakening - MN36 Jhana leads to 4 fruits: From Stream to Arhatship. (DN29) "110. Better it is to live one day virtuous and meditative than to live a hundred years immoral and uncontrolled. 111. Better it is to live one day wise and meditative than to live a hundred years foolish and uncontrolled. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.08.budd.html Important note: The Importance of Jhana is stressed in all 5 Books (4Nikayas + KN). Are we to trust one sutta (Susima) where only Aruppas & Abhinnas denied? Or constantly recurring pro Jhana teachings in all 5 books? In Susima, the question on Jhana wasn't even raised. Perhaps due to the fact that being an Arahant without developed Jhana is like having a honeymoon without a bride or a marriage ceremony without the bride/groom. >Yours is an interesting idea. I wonder if there is any >hermeneutical evidence (stylistic, lexical, historical, or >whatever) that supports it. > > With metta, > Howard I'll talk about this in part 2. Best wishes, #90766 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:14 pm Subject: Re: Original Buddhism pt2. Scholarly opinions. truth_aerator Hi Howard, Herman and all, > >Yours is an interesting idea. I wonder if there is any > >hermeneutical evidence (stylistic, lexical, historical, or > >whatever) that supports it. > > > > With metta, > > Howard The earliest phase of scriptures, recognized by nearly all scholars (the main exception is Dr Gregory Schopen), is based on a comparison of the Pali Canon with the Chinese Agamas and other surviving portions of other early canons. Some scholars consider that this rough common core of the scriptures of the different schools gives a substantially correct picture of the original teachings of the Buddha. This core is identified as the four main nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka (the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya), together with the main body of monastic rules[17], the Vinaya Pitaka. Scholars have also claimed that there is a core within this core, referring to some poems and phrases which seem to be the oldest parts of the Sutta Pitaka.[18] Another body of scholars consider that the question has not been settled one way or another. [19] This last group includes those scholars who claim it is impossible to ever know the teachings of the Buddha, an attitude which has been criticized by Warder to be one of 'extreme caution'. [20] Later elaborations on the original teachings After the Sangha split into the various early Buddhist schools and the Mahayana, various new doctrines, scriptures and practices arose, composed and developed by monks, concerning issues deemed important at the time.[45] During the time of Pre-sectarian Buddhism, these later elaborations on the teachings had not yet come into existence, and were not part of the established teaching and practice of Buddhism. In later times, the arguments between the various schools were based in these newly introduced teachings, practices and beliefs, and monks sought to validate these newly introduced teachings and concepts by referring to the older texts (Sutta-pitaka and Vinaya-pitaka). Most often, the various new Abhidhamma and Mahayana teachings were bases for arguments between sects. Newly composed scriptures Some scholars state that unintentional literalism was a major force for change in the early doctrinal history of Buddhism. This means that texts were interpreted paying too much attention to the precise words used and not enough to the speaker's intention, the spirit of the text. Some later doctrinal developments in the early Buddhist schools show scholastic literalism, which is a tendency to take the words and phrases of earlier texts (maybe the Buddha's own words) in such a way as to read in distinctions which it was never intended to make.[46] The following (later) Buddhist scriptures were not existent, or in a very early (insignificant) stage of development: Traditionally, it is believed (in Theravadin culture) that the Abhidhamma was taught by Buddha to his late mother who was living in Tusita heaven. However, this is rejected by scholars, who believe that only small parts of the Abhidhamma literature may have been existent in a very early form.[59] Some schools of Buddhism had important disagreements on subjects of Abhidhamma, while having a largely similar Sutta-pitaka and Vinaya-pitaka. The arguments and conflicts between them were thus often on matters of philosophical Abhidhammic origin, not on matters concerning the actual words and teachings of Buddha. One impetus for composing new scriptures like the Adhidhammas of the various schools, according to some scholars, was that Buddha left no clear statement about the ontological status of the world - about what really exists.[60] Subsequently, later Buddhists have themselves defined what exists and what not (in the Abhidhammic scriptures), leading to disagreements. Parts of the Khuddaka Nikaya Oliver Abeynayake has the following to say on the dating of the various books in the Khuddaka Nikaya: `The Khuddaka Nikaya can easily be divided into two strata, one being early and the other late. The texts Sutta Nipata, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, Therigatha (Theragatha), Udana, and Jataka tales belong to the early stratum. The texts Khuddakapatha, Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu, Niddesa, Patisambhida, Apadana, Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka can be categorized in the later stratum.'[61] Parivara The Parivara, the last book of the Vinaya Pitaka, is a later addition to the Vinaya Pitaka[63]. Other later writings all literature of the Mahayana (the Mahayana Sutras).[64] all commentarial works (atthakatha) of Theravada and other early Buddhist schools. Newly introduced concepts Some Buddhist concepts that were not existent in the time of pre- sectarian Buddhism are: the concept of 'building paramis' or paramitas. The ten paramis are described in Theravadin texts of late origin,[65][66] while the (Mahayana) paramitas are found in the Mahayana Sutras such as the Dasabhumika Sutra and the Surangama Sutra, also of late origin. the concept of the Bodhisattva vows, which is only found in the Mahayana Sutras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism Best wishes, #90767 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? truth_aerator "Some texts, however, have been identified by scholars as being earlier than others; for example, in the Sutta Nipata, which is a branch of the Khuddhaka Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka in the Tipitaka, there are two small collections of suttas, the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga, which some scholars regard as being considerably earlier in composition than the bulk of the canon, and as revealing an earlier form of the religion.[2] They are regarded as earlier because of elements of language and composition, their inclusion in very early commentaries, and also because they seem to express versions of certain Buddhist beliefs that are different from, and perhaps prior to, their later codified versions.[3] The Khaggavisânasutta (Rhinoceros Sutra), also in the Sutta Nipâta, similarly seems to reveal an earlier mode of Buddhist monasticism, which emphasized individual wandering monastics, more in keeping with the Indian sannyâsin tradition. Speaking generally, the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga tend more strongly to emphasize the negative sides of asceticism (i.e., asceticism as a process of negating desire), and show a strong concern with regulating everyday bodily activities and sexual desires. They also place considerable emphasis on the rejection of all views, and are reluctant to put forward positions of their own regarding basic metaphysical issues. The Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga also differ in their articulation of Buddhist meditation practices, leaning heavily on what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little evidence of vipassana at all, despite the important role played by the balance of these two elements in later Buddhism. This seems to be connected to the rejection of views, for if there is no correct view to gain insight into, meditation would be conceived simply as the practice of cultivating a mental state devoid of views. Thus the ultimate meditative object expressed in these texts, "akincanna", "Not-any-thing-ness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atthakavagga_and_Parayanavagga I believe very much that there is a grain of truth here. As I've learned, the 2 vaggas are not only mentioned in the suttas by name and have canonical commentaries on them, but are also written in a very cryptic and different style then the rest of the suttas. As I am aware of (from the pali experts) there are at least 3 strata of language in Tripitaka a) Pali of Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga - written in very archaic manner. b) Pali of 4 main Nikayas c) Pali of Abhidhamma & Commentaries. I am not sure if I can believe that on some occasions the Buddha spoke in Archaic way, in some in 2nd way, and on other occasion in a 3rd manner. If we have 3 sets of english text (from shakesperian time, from late 19th century, and 21st century) don't you think we will notice a difference? Of course. Heck, English of early 20th century is different from current English and it doesn't even take a native speaker of English to find this out. The same could be the case with Sutta Pitaka. I strongly recommend to read 4. Atthaka Vagga — The Octet Chapter http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html#vagga-4 5. Parayanavagga — The Chapter on the Way to the Far Shore http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html#vagga-5 I'll stop for now. Best wishes, #90768 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex & all, > > --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: > > > >1) Why isn't vinnana included into nama? > > .... > > S: In the context of D.O. nama refers to the (vipaka) cetasikas > >which accompany vinnana (patisandhi citta and subsequent vipaka > >cittas conditioned by past kamma). > > ... > > A: If nama is vipaka, then constituents of nama such as volition, >is vipaka as well?! > .... > S: In the context of D.O, nama includes all cetasikas accompanying >the various vipaka cittas. As cetana (volition) is a 'universal' >cetasika, it accompanies every vipaka citta. > .... So what you are saying basically is that cetana is vipaka citta. According to this, it is a vipaka cetana that is responcible for murder, it is vipaka cetana that is responcible for holyness. This is terrible! The Buddha has seriously rebuked this fatalism. > A:> 2nd) Vinnana in DO is defined as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, >mind > consciousness. It is defined as 6 consciousness, not 1 relinking > consciousness. > ... > S: It is the rebirth consciousness and subsequent sense- >consciousnesses (and other vipaka cittas). It depends on the context >what is mentioned. > > Mahaanidaana Sutta & commentaries(Bodhi transl,BPS): > > "....If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, >would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?" > The Mahanidana sutta talks about interlife state between rebirths as vinnana cannot "descend", and vinnana link in DO is 6 sense consciousness - not a singular patisandhi citta. Best wishes, #90769 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "So what you are saying basically is that cetana is vipaka citta..." Scott: Cetanaa - a cetasika - arises with each citta (including vipaaka citta) and performs a function. Dhammasa"nga.nii (pp.7-8) describes it as: "The volition, purpose, purposefulness, which is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection..." Scott: With cetanaa supplying the flavour of 'purpose' to each moment of consciounsess, the wheel keeps going around. Without this particular mental factor, there would be no purposiveness. Sincerely, Scott. #90770 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? egberdina Hi Alex and Howard and KenH and all, Sorry to be posting on top of what you have written, but I just wanted to make sure it was noticed :-) Thank you very much for writing what you did, Alex. What you wrote below is the exact evidence I wanted to bring to Howard's attention. I would also like to point to the immeasurable difference between dhutanga and patimokkha. Monks ain't monks, KenH :-) A bloke who needs to be told not to quible about what sort of rug or bowl he has, and not to have sex with animals, isn't exactly going to benefit from adhering in verbatim fashion to what his teacher tells him. Cheers Herman 2008/9/28 Alex : > "Some texts, however, have been identified by scholars as being > earlier than others; for example, in the Sutta Nipata, which is a > branch of the Khuddhaka Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka in the Tipitaka, > there are two small collections of suttas, the Atthakavagga and the > Parayanavagga, which some scholars regard as being considerably > earlier in composition than the bulk of the canon, and as revealing > an earlier form of the religion.[2] They are regarded as earlier > because of elements of language and composition, their inclusion in > very early commentaries, and also because they seem to express > versions of certain Buddhist beliefs that are different from, and > perhaps prior to, their later codified versions.[3] The > Khaggavisânasutta (Rhinoceros Sutra), also in the Sutta Nipâta, > similarly seems to reveal an earlier mode of Buddhist monasticism, > which emphasized individual wandering monastics, more in keeping with > the Indian sannyâsin tradition. > > Speaking generally, the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga tend more > strongly to emphasize the negative sides of asceticism (i.e., > asceticism as a process of negating desire), and show a strong > concern with regulating everyday bodily activities and sexual > desires. They also place considerable emphasis on the rejection of > all views, and are reluctant to put forward positions of their own > regarding basic metaphysical issues. > > The Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga also differ in their > articulation of Buddhist meditation practices, leaning heavily on > what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little > evidence of vipassana at all, despite the important role played by > the balance of these two elements in later Buddhism. This seems to be > connected to the rejection of views, for if there is no correct view > to gain insight into, meditation would be conceived simply as the > practice of cultivating a mental state devoid of views. > > Thus the ultimate meditative object expressed in these > texts, "akincanna", "Not-any-thing-ness" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atthakavagga_and_Parayanavagga > > > I believe very much that there is a grain of truth here. As I've > learned, the 2 vaggas are not only mentioned in the suttas by name > and have canonical commentaries on them, but are also written in a > very cryptic and different style then the rest of the suttas. > > As I am aware of (from the pali experts) there are at least 3 strata > of language in Tripitaka > > a) Pali of Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga - written in very > archaic manner. > > b) Pali of 4 main Nikayas > > c) Pali of Abhidhamma & Commentaries. > > I am not sure if I can believe that on some occasions the Buddha > spoke in Archaic way, in some in 2nd way, and on other occasion in a > 3rd manner. If we have 3 sets of english text (from shakesperian > time, from late 19th century, and 21st century) don't you think we > will notice a difference? Of course. Heck, English of early 20th > century is different from current English and it doesn't even take a > native speaker of English to find this out. > > The same could be the case with Sutta Pitaka. > > I strongly recommend to read > > 4. Atthaka Vagga — The Octet Chapter > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html#vagga-4 > > 5. Parayanavagga — The Chapter on the Way to the Far Shore > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html#vagga-5 > > > I'll stop for now. > > Best wishes, > #90771 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Scott, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "So what you are saying basically is that cetana is vipaka >citta..." > > Scott: Cetanaa - a cetasika - arises with each citta (including > vipaaka citta) and performs a function. Dhammasa"nga.nii (pp.7-8) > describes it as: > > "The volition, purpose, purposefulness, which is born of contact >with > the appropriate element of representative intellection..." > > Scott: With cetanaa supplying the flavour of 'purpose' to each >moment > of consciounsess, the wheel keeps going around. Without this > particular mental factor, there would be no purposiveness. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Please in one word clarify: Is cetana vipaka citta or not? Yes or no? The Buddha has said that cetana, isn't result of previous Kamma. If intention (cetana) was an effect of kamma rather than a willful choice, then one would be a murderer, a rapist, a thief (and experience appropriate feelings) due to past action and not any choice at all. In other words, pure determinism ala Jains I am not going to argue this point more. Best wishes, #90772 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:07 pm Subject: Ultimate language, ultimate vs conventional truth is refuted by the Buddha. truth_aerator For me the case is settled now. In MN139 the Buddha has said that "one should not over ride the normal usage." regarding words and language. "He [alex: Arahant] words things by means of what is said in the world but without grasping at it." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.074.than.html "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html#t-10 In the sutta pitaka there is no such thing as "conventional vs ultimate" language. The above quotes show that Buddha uses common language to express himself with the only difference of not clinging to what is said. He clearly forbade to give words different meanings from what they mean to ordinary folks. In other words, Buddha taught the truth not truth and "conventional" truth. Best wishes, #90773 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm Subject: typo correction truth_aerator >--- dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > In the sutta pitaka there is no such thing as "conventional vs > ultimate" language. The above quotes show that Buddha uses common > language to express himself with the only difference of not clinging > to what is said. He clearly forbade to give words different meanings > from what they mean to ordinary folks. In other words, Buddha taught > the truth not truth and "conventional" truth. > The last sentance should read: In other words, Buddha taught The Truth. He didn't teach Ultimate truth vs "conventional" truth. In fact it seems that he praised "conventional, common" expressions, rather than uncommon usages of words. #90774 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...Is cetana vipaka citta or not? Yes or no?" Scott: Well, I'll try again, Alex. Cetanaa is not 'citta', it is actually cetasika - a mental factor - which arises conascent with citta. So technically, no, cetanaa is not 'vipaaka citta' since it is not 'citta', but it does arise with vipaaka citta, and every other citta. Sincerely, Scott. #90775 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Sarah) - In a message dated 9/27/2008 7:40:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: So what you are saying basically is that cetana is vipaka citta. According to this, it is a vipaka cetana that is responcible for murder, it is vipaka cetana that is responcible for holyness. This is terrible! The Buddha has seriously rebuked this fatalism. =============================== Suppose you willingly think about something, and that thinking leads to desire, and that desire leads to the willing and carrying out of an action. Was not that last willing itself a feature of a state of consciousness that is vipaka? Is willing uncaused, unconditioned? With metta, Howard #90776 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:27 pm Subject: Jesus was Buddhist! bhikkhu0 A Friend asked: Question: How does Buddhists regard Jesus? Answer: Personally I think Jesus had learned a lot of late Buddhism during the 19 years he was (lost) wandering around in Asia: Jesus, then called Issa, was a pupil of the Buddha: For quite solid & sound documentation see http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm Jesus approaching Ladakh as a youth Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90777 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:17 pm Subject: What has to be Understood? bhikkhu0 Friends: What has to be Understood? The Blessed Buddha once insisted: The nature of Ageing, & death has to be Understood. The Cause of Ageing, & death has to be Understood. The End of Ageing, & death has to be Understood. The Way to End Ageing, & death has to be Understood. The nature of Birth has to be Understood. The Cause of Birth has to be Understood. The End of Birth has to be Understood. The Way to End Birth has to be Understood. The nature of Clinging has to be Understood. The Cause of Clinging has to be Understood. The End of Clinging has to be Understood. The Way to End Clinging has to be Understood. The nature of Craving has to be Understood. The Cause of Craving has to be Understood. The End of Craving has to be Understood. The Way to End Craving has to be Understood. The nature of Feeling has to be Understood. The Cause of Feeling has to be Understood. The End of Feeling has to be Understood. The Way to End Feeling has to be Understood. The nature of Contact has to be Understood. The Cause of Contact has to be Understood. The End of Contact has to be Understood. The Way to End Contact has to be Understood. The nature of the 6 Senses has to be Understood. The Cause of the 6 Senses has to be Understood. The End of the 6 Senses has to be Understood. The Way to End the 6 Senses has to be Understood. The nature of Name-&-Form has to be Understood. The Cause of Name-&-Form has to be Understood. The End of Name-&-Form has to be Understood. The Way to End Name-&-Form has to be Understood. The nature of Consciousness has to be Understood. The Cause of Consciousness has to be Understood. The End of Consciousness has to be Understood. The Way to End Consciousness has to be Understood. The nature of Mental Construction has to be Understood. The Cause of Mental Construction has to be Understood. The End of Mental Construction has to be Understood. The Way to End Mental Construction has to be Understood. The nature of Ignorance has to be Understood. The Cause of Ignorance has to be Understood. The End of Ignorance has to be Understood. The Way to End Ignorance has to be Understood. These have to be Understood... Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya II 16 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90778 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/27/2008 9:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: The Buddha has said that cetana, isn't result of previous Kamma. ============================== I believe that what the Buddha said was that what we experience now is not solely due to prior kamma. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #90779 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See ksheri3 Good Morning Herman, So, Totalitarianism is where you're leading to? <...> I only raised the issue of Totalitarianism because you were interested in a "summation" or is it a synopsis, or is it a preface, or, when applying D.O., is it nothing more than a doorway and/or threshhold? Could it be THE EVENT HORIZON? You'd have to study "black holes" to get the joke on that one. Does anybody know what it feels like to be "spaghettified"? It's like an excruder that makes sausage. You also ask about an "END" which means that I've got more work to do finding a begining. Doesn't the begining hold clues as to the ending? <...> I'm just getting warmed up so how can there be an end? <...> > Not the expiry of > colette, but the summation of colette. colette: rephrasing that sentence causes me to ask if I can say that what you imply is THE CAPITULATION OF COLETTE? Back in the mid-1980s some people did recognize some of my abilities and they refered to them as: "a master of many tongues" Deep Purple for those too slow to catch on. -------------------------- EXACTLY, it is possible that there is no summation of colette, BUT what is this stuff about being a right and a wrong way to be "colette"? I never had a clue that there was a right and a wrong way to be colette? I am who and what I am, no? How can I be anything other? Is there an "other" thing which I can be? thank you for the conceptions. Always a delight to speak with you but I don't have any Piwo or Spirits, I don't even have a joint to call my own. But that doesn't mean that I'm not gonna miss enjoying this day. <....> toodles, colette <....> #90780 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas, was: E-card from Bangkok nilovg Dear Tep, Op 26-sep-2008, om 22:24 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > T: So I see that the term 'paramattha' here has the meaning "absolute" > and "highest good". What about the 'paramattha dhamma' that is > defined by rupa, citta, cetasika, and nibbana? Is it specifically > defined the same in any of the 7 Abbhidhamma books ? That is what I > have been curious to find out. ---------- N: I understand what you mean, you want to know whether this word is coined by the Buddha himself or by arahats. A word is important because it represents reality. On the other hand, we should penetrate the deep meaning of each term. It points to characteristics of realities. Before I answer your question I want to go more into this point. Citta, cetasika and rupa are classified as conditioned paramattha dhammas, I do not speak now of nibbana. They have characteristics and these can be directly known when they appear. In this way we shall know the difference between ultimate truth and conventional truth. We shall come to know the truth of anatta. We do not have to call them paramattha dhamma, we can also call them dhamma or dhaatu, element. Dhaatu has not trace of a person, it has no owner. The classification of rupa, citta, cetasika, and nibbana as paramattha dhammas we do not find as such in the Tipitaka, but the equivalent dhaatu is used very often, in the suttas and the abhidhamma. If we do not cling to words and terms but keep in mind the true characteristics they represent, perhaps your question may be redundant. Characteristics of rupa, citta, cetasika can be known directly and in this way we shall know them as a mere dhamma, a mere dhaatu. Different from ideas of person or thing we cling to all the time. To me this is what really matters. ------- You were wondering about the Vis. text 303: stumbling. We are like a blind person, not knowing the particular and general characteristics of dhammas. This again points to the practice: directly knowing them through sati and pa~n~naa. So long as the true characteristics are not known we stumble and fall, that is, falling from this life and then arising in a next life. Death is seen as falling. We are subject to death and rebirth until we have reached nibbaana, the deathless. ------- Nina. #90781 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Re: Reductionist Fallacy kenhowardau Hi Tep, Alex and Howard, --------------- Tep: > > I agree with you. Well said, Alex. --------------- There's an alarm bell if ever I heard one! :-) ---------------------------------------- Howard: > And just in case anyone might think otherwise, I concur! The whole is a (fuzzy) assemblage of parts, entirely dependent on those parts and their preconditions, but functioning in a manner and exhibiting features shared by none of the parts. So, the whole, qua aggregation, does indeed exist. ---------------------------------------- No, the whole does indeed *not* exist! It is just a concept - a conventional designation. When, for example, the five khandhas are correctly assembled (arise together) the conventional designation 'living being' is used. -------------------------- H: > It also, however, lacks self in an even stronger manner than paramattha dhammas lack self. -------------------------- Anatta is a characteristic of realities. Because they are anatta, conditioned realities are nothing more than fleeting mental and physical phenomena. Because it is anatta, the unconditioned reality is nothing more than the cessation of conditioned realities. There is no self anywhere in realities! It would be silly, however, to attribute anatta to a concept. It would be silly to refer to a man, tree or train (etc) as being nothing more than a fleeting (billionth of a second) phenomenon - or as being nothing more than the cessation of phenomena. Ken H #90782 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Colette, =========== C: I was led to believe that most of the people on this list/forum are your students. So what, it's nothing more than a side point. S: Yes. But it is still better to clear this up than to just let it go on that way. Besides I was beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable, since A. Sujin happens to be the cause for the little understanding that I have and this is just a fraction of what she herself understands. So I wouldn’t want anyone to read my posts and have the wrong impression about A. Sujin. =========== C: So essentially, what you're saying about discrimination is that it results after an act, kind of like judging an gymnasts performance, no? Is discrimination resultant from the pleasurable taste of sugar or the non-pleasureable, sour, taste of salt? S: According to the Abhidhamma, sense door experiences which are resultants, these are followed by experiences which are ‘impulsions’. These latter include those experiences which are unwholesome and rooted in ignorance, craving and aversion or wholesome and rooted in wisdom, non-attachment and non-hatred. These can be said to be ‘cause’, though often are not strong enough to bring about any ‘resultants’ in the future, they however do accumulate as tendency. So when I’m talking about ‘discriminating’, which I take to be an aspect of wisdom, I am referring to an instance of such impulsions which when arisen understands any reality, be this a rupa or nama, and this be cause, result or neither. Normally, I would use simply understanding and not discrimination, the latter seems to have a meaning in conventional use which involves much thinking and comparing. I used it in my post to Herman, because I wanted to bring out this idea of distinguishing concept from reality. Hope this explains better what I said earlier. Metta, Sukin #90783 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Hi Herman, ========= > Herman: > I think you have dived straight into your pet theory here, without so > much as looking out the window to see what is really happening. :-) > You stipulate a fundamental dualism here between knowing and not > knowing , without saying why that is your basis. > > Suk: Yes, I realize that I come in with some preconceived concepts, but > I consider these to be a given otherwise the discussion may never > proceed. I explained some of this to Tep and Rinze in the post I just > wrote. And it is not that they won't be discussed, of course I intend to > do just that in the course of our discussions down the road. But I don't > think it necessary as precondition to starting the discussion. One might > even ask why needs to have these things defined first. Why not just go > along? > > Regarding it being 'pet theory' and how much so, I hope this too will > come to light as we proceed. ;-) > =========== > Herman: > Why not start with what is obvious, and add or delete as is needed by > the reality that we are trying to understand. What would be wrong with > starting instead in the following way, which seems to me far more intuitive? > > There is the reality of experiences. > > Suk: :-) It crossed my mind. But this can be misleading and even this > will be questioned by some, I would think. ……………… H: You know, Sukin, I don't buy all your stories about poor concentration and Ritalin and the like :-). You are clearly able to keep many distinct ideas apart and together at the same time. Sukin: Maybe I am creative and this compensates for the poor concentration. But I tell you Ritalin sure makes a big difference! ;-) Have you tried one? Besides I do take a looong time with my posts!! =========== H: And what you are referring to here is pivotal, I think. I do not remember that any of your dsg friends have been helpful in the past regarding this point. Sukin: Maybe it is because they know enough not to stray out of course like I do. I in my keenness to convince others am likely to end up indulging in philosophical speculations, and this, my dsg friends know better to avoid. ;-) =========== H: You're on your own. If you are able to make a distinction between illusion and reality, using only what is real, you can make some converts here :-) What is illusion? What does it mean to be misleading? Sukin: I’ll donate some money to the church when that day arrives. :-)) I’ll go ahead and try in spite of my pessimism, mostly on seeing my own limitation, that is. But allow me to elaborate on some background. When I brought up to compare reality from ‘illusion’ I had in mind the understanding of the average person who has begun to see this difference and therefore is motivated to find out further about it. However, what the real answer are namely, what constitutes reality and what illusion, he still has no clue. So even though on one hand it is no tabula rasa that I’m referring to, on the other hand I do not expect of the particular audience, to know of the reality / concept distinction. After all, this latter comes only after the Dhamma has been heard and understood to some extent. This is one thing. Second, for the initiated, i.e. to the Dhamma, I make the distinction also between ‘concept’ and ‘illusion’. Here I refer to taking certain concepts for real, and this is in fact about ignorance and wrong view. So there is a distinction to be made also between ‘concept and reality’ and between ‘concept and illusion’. The particular distinction I need to talk with you about first is that of concept and reality. And what you are asking me is about how this can be known in experience, since you believe that concepts don’t have characteristics to be known directly? Yes panna knows characteristics and this is quite different from how the consciousness which it arises with, knows an object. I refer you to the comparison made between perception, consciousness and wisdom with the child, average adult and money lender on seeing gold coins. Consciousness knows clearly the object and perception simply marks the same. However when ignorance is the root the object is obscured, and in contrast when wisdom is the root, a characteristic is revealed. So taking into account this difference in function between consciousness and wisdom, I think that you can appreciate the fact of the latter doing more than just ‘experience’. When I drew your attention to the fact of wisdom knowing ‘thinking’ following sense door experience, I was in fact pointing to understanding of the distinction between reality and concept. In other words knowing the reality of thinking, wisdom understands also that the concepts which are its object, for what it is, perhaps not unlike knowing a conventional object standing in the light and its shadow? Anyway I believe that this particular distinction is the first of what is in fact “true”, every other distinction we’ve ever made i.e. between one experiences from another, is in the realm of concepts and most likely informed by ignorance. What I mean by ‘misleading’ is that which is ‘informed by wrong view’. Thinking can be accompanied by ignorance, with craving, conceit, aversion etc. or it can be with wrong view. Other kinds of akusala thinking do not make any statement about the reality / non-reality of that which is experienced. Wrong view does this. A Sotapanna still has ignorance and the other akusala, but he does not have any wrong view. Therefore even though there are many instances when wisdom doesn’t arise and there is ignorance instead, he however is not misled during those times into taking what is not real for real. Put it another way, ignorance simply hides the truth, but taking what is not real for real is the function of wrong view. This has probably conditioned more questions than given answers. But I doubt that I will be able to do any better. ;-) Metta, Sukin #90784 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Tep, You wrote at the end: =========== >Suk: And if you still want me to define those terms above, let me know. But I am also hoping not only to being questioned, but also to hearing anything you might suggest as alternative. T: I only questioned the terms you had introduced. Since you know them better, the responsibility to explain is yours. S: That is fair. But I need to give more information and perhaps you will then think about this differently. As I just wrote to Herman, I do not have in mind to begin from scratch. And since this is in fact between me and you, I take it that you already use some of these terms as per your own understanding, and if not the same exact words used, at least some other with same / similar meaning. It may be that we understand them differently, and I do believe that it is important to determine this; however I expect that these will come to light as we proceed in our discussion. Besides, I don’t intend to write as if I’m putting forward new ideas and I don’t wish to discuss anything as one does philosophy. I would like us both to relate any ideas expressed with experience, such that we then not get lost in speculation. This is already very hard for me to do, since I do have the tendency to be drawn into and attached to thinking. More importantly, it is so easy to be involved in our own thoughts and forgetting that without the Dhamma, we would be completely lost. This I would like to keep always in mind and don’t wish to behave as though I have the ability to arrive at the Truth on my own. In fact I would like you to help me here by reminding me from time to time about this. So Tep, do I still need to provide definitions for all those terms or only for some? Or can we continue with a different response from you now? Metta, Sukin #90785 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Sun, 28/9/08, Alex wrote: >>> A: Is there any relationship between this fruitition of Arhatship >and Nibbana? If so, what is the relationship? > ... >> S: Yes, nibbana is the object of the cittas in fruition attainment >(phala-samaapatti) , just as it was the object of the magga and >phala cittas at the time of attainment. A:> How can Nibbana be an object of the citta if Nibbana isn't an "object"? .... S: Nibbana can only ever be experienced by being the object of cittas. At the moment of enlightenment, it is the object of the lokuttara cittas. ... >>Phala samaapatti, repeated phala cittas, is attainable by all >ariyans whose enlightenment was subsequent to mundane jhana. ... A:> You mean consequent, not subsequent. Right? ... S: Neither really! 'Subsequent' is too ambiguous. I should have stuck with the 'book' term and said 'by all ariyans whose enlightenment has jhana *as basis*. Remember the 4 possibilities as given in the Yuganadha Sutta discussed at length. Jon summarised them in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/7821 This is the third one of relevance to the above: >J: 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha [This is the instance of insight being 'based on' jhana. The insight arises after emerging from jhana, and takes the jhana moments as its object. This is the 'yoked/conjoined' instance.].< No need to agree or re-quote all your suttas about jhanas:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #90786 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Sun, 28/9/08, Alex wrote: >> S: In the context of D.O, nama includes all cetasikas accompanying >the various vipaka cittas. As cetana (volition) is a 'universal' >cetasika, it accompanies every vipaka citta. > .... A:> So what you are saying basically is that cetana is vipaka citta. According to this, it is a vipaka cetana that is responcible for murder, it is vipaka cetana that is responcible for holyness. .... S: Sometimes I wonder if you read what I say:-) I didn't say anything like this. What I wrote was: >S: In the context of D.O, nama includes all cetasikas accompanying the various vipaka cittas. As cetana (volition) is a 'universal' cetasika, it accompanies every vipaka citta. It isn't to be confused with the cetana, the abhisankhara, which makes up the sankhara link (i.e kamma).< ... S: Anyway, I think Scott has explained. Cetana arises with every citta at every moment. I need to cut this short because Phil is on skype next door with Jon and I'm half-listening to Jon's side:-). Hopefully we'll get a good report from Phil. I just had a lovely short chat with him in the middle of this post - he's very lively and upbeat to talk to with lots of the good humour that comes through in his messages. Metta, Sarah ============ #90787 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:17 am Subject: Re: Ultimate language, ultimate vs conventional truth is refuted by the Buddha. dhammanusarin Dear Alex (and all), - Your comment below reminded me of "ultimate meaning" (paramattha) in Ptsm, XXI,8. 'What is great understanding? It embraces the great meanings, thus it is great understanding. It embraces the great ideas(dhammas) ... the great ultimate meaning, nibbana, thus it is great understanding.'. .................. "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html#t-10 Alex: In the sutta pitaka there is no such thing as "conventional vs ultimate" language. The above quotes show that Buddha uses common language to express himself with the only difference of not clinging to what is said. He clearly forbade to give words different meanings from what they mean to ordinary folks. In other words, Buddha taught the truth not truth and "conventional" truth. .................... T: There are truths (sacca) that the Buddha taught to the disciples. These truths are fully understood by the Arahants (see SN 22.106 Pari~n~neyya Sutta. 'Katamo ca bhikkhave, pari~n~naataavii puggalo: Arahaatissa vacaniiyam.'And who, bhikkhus, is the person that has fully understood? It should be said: the arahant...). Tep === #90788 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, upasaka@... wrote about deep sleep: S:>>By anantara paccaya (continuity condition), there is never a break in cittas experiencing objects. Check your 'Guide to Conditional Relations'! ============ ========= ========= [S: I meant 'proximity condition' in translation of anantara paccaya - referring to the way that cittas continuously arise, each one conditioning the next.] .... H:> My reply, "No objects, no experiencing, and no (internal) time flow" does not contradict no gap in consciousness. Within the given mind stream there has been no gap in consciousness - the consciousness preceding the falling into dreamless sleep is followed immediately by the subsequent dreaming or waking consciousness, though there may be a jump in content. You are envisioning the situation from the perspective of another mind stream, which is inappropriate. ... S: So you suggest there are no cittas arising at all in deep sleep and that the citta before the dreamless sleep is followed by the one following it, however long afterwards. Do you have any support for this belief? Metta, Sarah =========== #90789 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas re: Nibbana experienced in this life through concentration sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, A mistake below - --- On Sat, 27/9/08, sarah abbott wrote: S: Fortunately, B.Bodhi gives this note to the passage in his AN anthology. "Numerical Discourses of the Buddha": "The word "percipient" (sa~n~nii) rules out the identification of this state with the cessation of perception and feeling (sa~n~naavedayita- nirodha). AA [S: the Tiika to the sutta] identifies this concentration with the concentration of fruition attainment (or arahantship)... ... S: this should have said: AA [S: the Commentary to the sutta]. Metta, Sarah ======== #90790 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:35 am Subject: Skype chat with Phil jonoabb Hi All I've just had a very pleasant chat with Phil. It was pretty much a 'getting to know you' session, but we did touch on a number of dhamma topics including latent tendencies and the benefits of an understanding of the teachings in one's life. Phil obviously has a lot of passion for the teachings, and I think he could easily have talked for a lot longer, but I had to excuse myself because of a tight schedule today (and a busy day work-wise tomorrow). I can see that there is going to be no shortage of material for our future chats! Already looking forward to the next occasion. Happy to chat with any other members who have Skype. Just email me off-list to arrange a time. Jon #90791 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:37 am Subject: Re: paramattha dhammas per se are not defined in the Tipitaka ! dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Alex, Herman, Han, Sarah, Sukin), - Your explanation below about the meaning of a simile in the Vism is excellent. Thank you very much, especially for pointing to the importance of practicing 'direct knowing' through sati and pa~n~naa. >N: You were wondering about the Vis. text 303: stumbling. We are like a blind person, not knowing the particular and general characteristics of dhammas. This again points to the practice: directly knowing them through sati and pa~n~naa. So long as the true characteristics are not known we stumble and fall, that is, falling from this life and then arising in a next life. Death is seen as falling. We are subject to death and rebirth until we have reached nibbaana, the deathless. ------- T: Now let me comment on your reply to the following question : > >T: So I see that the term 'paramattha' here has the meaning > >"absolute" and "highest good". > > What about the 'paramattha dhamma' that is > >defined by rupa, citta, cetasika, and nibbana? Is it specifically > >defined the same in any of the 7 Abbhidhamma books ? That is what I > >have been curious to find out. ---------- >N: The classification of rupa, citta, cetasika, and nibbana as paramattha dhammas we do not find as such in the Tipitaka, but the equivalent dhaatu is used very often, in the suttas and the abhidhamma. T: I truly appreciate and admire a straightforward reply to a straightforward question. Thank you many times. Tep === #90792 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:56 am Subject: Re: Reductionist Fallacy .. Kenh's Samsara .. dhammanusarin Dear KenH (Connie), - Your email below should be addressing to Howard first. :-) You wrote: Hi Tep, Alex and Howard, --------------- Tep: > > I agree with you. Well said, Alex. --------------- There's an alarm bell if ever I heard one! :-) ---------------------------------------- Howard: > And just in case anyone might think otherwise, I concur! The whole is a (fuzzy) assemblage of parts, entirely dependent on those parts and their preconditions, but functioning in a manner and exhibiting features shared by none of the parts. So, the whole, qua aggregation, does indeed exist. ---------------------------------------- No, the whole does indeed *not* exist! It is just a concept - a conventional designation. When, for example, the five khandhas are correctly assembled (arise together) the conventional designation 'living being' is used. -------------------------- H: > It also, however, lacks self in an even stronger manner than paramattha dhammas lack self. -------------------------- Anatta is a characteristic of realities. Because they are anatta, conditioned realities are nothing more than fleeting mental and physical phenomena. Because it is anatta, the unconditioned reality is nothing more than the cessation of conditioned realities. There is no self anywhere in realities! It would be silly, however, to attribute anatta to a concept. It would be silly to refer to a man, tree or train (etc) as being nothing more than a fleeting (billionth of a second) phenomenon - or as being nothing more than the cessation of phenomena. ======================= T: Alex's and my alarm bells are very helpful; without them warning you, your wrong views may continue to grow and grow. The "billionth of a second" paramattha-dhamma idea is not supported by the Tipitaka, Ken. Tep === #90793 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Threes (1-6) nichiconn Dear Friends, CSCD Tika.m 305. < And just in case anyone might think otherwise, I concur! The whole is a (fuzzy) assemblage of parts, entirely dependent on those parts and their preconditions, but functioning in a manner and exhibiting features shared by none of the parts. So, the whole, qua aggregation, does indeed exist. ---------------------------------------- No, the whole does indeed *not* exist! It is just a concept - a conventional designation. When, for example, the five khandhas are correctly assembled (arise together) the conventional designation 'living being' is used. ============================== Ken, do any of the "realities" underlying your body, the rupas, eat, drink, breathe, circulate blood, clot blood, produce now skin when the old has been cut, and so on? These global functions occur only because the rupas act (or arise and cease) in concert, following specific patterns. That interaction is not just concept - it is reality. This interaction is a wonder, and it sustains your life in this fortunate human birth. With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #90795 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:45 am Subject: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, As I just mentioned to Phil, it is with really great joy that we've finally been able to upload the latest set of edited recordings of discussions with A.Sujin and friends (inc. Nina & Lodewijk). I would encourage/ask everyone (even those who disagree with what A.Sujin and some of us say most the time) to listen to at least the first track or two (only 20 mins segments)and to give your comments. To find it, go to: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ (this is not the DSG list homepage) Scroll down past the lists of DSG archive numbers until you get to the 'edited recordings'. The new set is at the top of the list of recordings: "Kaeng Krajaan (Thailand), January 2007 (Ajarn Sujin's 80th birthday)" Click on the first number 1, adjust your volume and away you go. Have a pen handy to jot down any notes or disagreements to share:-). We'll appreciate your feedback. These sets of edited recordings are a great 'labour of love' for us! Metta Sarah (& Jon) =============== #90796 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/28/2008 8:19:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, upasaka@... wrote about deep sleep: S:>>By anantara paccaya (continuity condition), there is never a break in cittas experiencing objects. Check your 'Guide to Conditional Relations'! ============ ========= ========= [S: I meant 'proximity condition' in translation of anantara paccaya - referring to the way that cittas continuously arise, each one conditioning the next.] .... H:> My reply, "No objects, no experiencing, and no (internal) time flow" does not contradict no gap in consciousness. Within the given mind stream there has been no gap in consciousness - the consciousness preceding the falling into dreamless sleep is followed immediately by the subsequent dreaming or waking consciousness, though there may be a jump in content. You are envisioning the situation from the perspective of another mind stream, which is inappropriate. ... S: So you suggest there are no cittas arising at all in deep sleep and that the citta before the dreamless sleep is followed by the one following it, however long afterwards. Do you have any support for this belief? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, experience. In deepest sleep and deepest surgical anaesthesia, no time passes. Do you have any non-commentarial support for bhavanga cittas, and also for their need? The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary concoction, not taught by the Buddha. As I see it, this notion was developed to account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being continuity without soul. As for whether bhavanga cittas *might* exist, well, anything not logically contradictory *might* exist. There are billions of proposals for unobserved phenomena that folks could come up with. There's no limit to the imagination! ----------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #90797 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:02 am Subject: Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. dhammanusarin Dear partner Sukin, - I believe in your sincere intention. But I like the idea of exchanging some relevant thoughts first (warming up, so to speak) before getting involved with the discussion. >Suk: And since this is in fact between me and you, I take it that you already use some of these terms as per your own understanding, and if not the same exact words used, at least some other with same / similar meaning. It may be that we understand them differently, and I do believe that it is important to determine this; however I expect that these will come to light as we proceed in our discussion. T: On the surface, the idea of learning/understanding the important terms underlying the "nature of reality" while discussing it, is logical and restriction free, hence the discussion should be more efficient. But after thinking a little further, recalling the important fact that there have been many discussions before us here and elsewhere for so many years on reality and ultimate truth versus conventional truth. Sadly, so far no agreement has been reached and the discussants still do not understand each other. [Some recent examples: Is Sarah real? Are trees real? What does 'real' mean?] Some members already left the group in disgust; some still hang on after several years (because of inertia?), yet they have not been convinced by the DSG Abhidhammikas' arguments. So, if we don't do it right, we'd better not do it. ................................. >Suk: So Tep, do I still need to provide definitions for all those terms or only for some? Or can we continue with a different response from you now? T: It is up to you, dear Sukin. Do you want to repeat the past mistakes? Or do you want to start our discussion with the "new beginning" that is based on non-confusing, agreed upon terminology? I believe in the latter. Sincerely, Tep === #90798 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 nilovg Dear Sarah and Jon, anumodana for your great labour of love. I am looking forward to copy and listen. Nina. Op 28-sep-2008, om 15:45 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > We'll appreciate your feedback. These sets of edited recordings are > a great 'labour of love' for us! #90799 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Being aware only of "Ultimate Realities"? No meditating on concepts? jonoabb Hi Alex > Is there any sutta where the Buddha has recommended developing > samatha only Anapanasati? > Anapanasati is one of the 30 or so 'kammatthana' (literally 'fields') for the development of samatha. So whenever there is reference to samatha, it includes anapanasati. In some references the various kammatthana (including anapanasati) are set out. Not all kammatthana can support jhana, but among those that do there is no special quality in anapanasati as regards the attainment of jhana. That is to say, the jhana consciousness that has in and out breathing as object is the same citta as the jhana consciousness that has any other kammatthana as object. Likewise the jhana consciousness of the person who is a follower of the Buddha is the same citta as the jhana consciousness of the person who is not. > In fact can one following the MN118 > instructions ever develop Samatha Anapanasati only? No way. > Anapanasati when properly followed, develops 4 sattipatthanas, 7 > awakening factors, and lots of other things, not to mention Arhatship. To my reading, MN 118 is not a 'how to' manual for would-be jhana attainers; as I see it, it describes how the person who is already skilled in both samatha/jhana with breath as object *and* vipassana may attain enlightenment with that jhana consciousness as basis. So there is still a need to know what samatha is, and what vipassana is, and how they differ. Would you agree that vipassana is the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas, while samatha is the development of tranquillity or calm? Jon