#91400 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:23 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott scottduncan2 Dear Phil, All, Thanks again for the chat, Phil. I dug it. Regarding: P: "....your comment that Buddhism in the West has evolved more to be a kind of pop-psychology, if I recall correctly, and that you clearly reject the 'using self to get rid of self' kind of thing..." Scott: True, this makes no sense to me. P: "...I professed my belief in the 'using self to get rid of self' kind of thing and said that it seems to me that the Buddha also taught in ways that are inexplicable except by surmising that he too saw benefit in encouraging moral behaviour by conventional considerations of person's seeking benefits. The example I gave was the sutta in which the Buddha said that married couples who live with their virtue in perfect tune can be together again after death in the Deva realm. We agreed that this is difficult to explain, and you said that perhaps we can surmise that in Deva realm there are more advanced degrees of understanding by which we can be together in ways that we can't understand from our current point of view..." Scott: This latter speculation of mine, as Suan would say, 'belongs to the category of attanomati.' I do happen to speculate that, depending on the Deva-realm in question, there would likely be a certain level of development found in the various types of consciousness and mental factors which could include a capacity to have knowledge of past existence and past iterations as beings in other realms. None of my speculations are important though. This does allow me to go off on a tangent (and out on a limb as usual because I don't know - I'll come back to the point regarding 'atta view involved in a subtle [way] even when one is studying Abhidhamma and professes that there are only nama and rupa, only dhammas at work' in another post.) I'd appreciate correction since I'm wondering about the meaning of the sutta as well. Can we agree that the Buddha was not suggesting that any sort of transmigration of soul, or literal re-birth of a 'person' or 'being' would occur dependent on virtuous living such that 'husband and wife' would literally 'be in one another's sight'? It is clear that the use of conventional speech is the mode of teaching in the suttas. The reading of the suttas, and the understanding, depends on view - right or wrong; and right view is a function of pa~n~naa. I'll assume that this is a statement which takes into account the listener and his or her level of developed understanding. Any development conducive to being condition for birth in a higher realm would have to, by necessity, be development of actual dhammas and this does not occur simply by thinking about it. Considering the message with conceptual right view, we know that beings are not meant - the same 'being' wouldn't arise in a subsequent rebirth. The question is, does wrong view lead to the development of kusala - can one think of beings in order to forward one's aims in relation to the development of kusala? We know, for example, that an unenlightened jhaana master could find rebirth in a higher realm simply due to the development of jhaana-citta, but this really doesn't lead out of samsaara. We also know that, with 'beings' as object, the development of mettaa or karuna can proceed. Can it do so if one literally believes that 'beings' exist and that one's own wish to extend mettaa or karuna to 'beings' causes it to be so? The sutta is the Pa.thamasamajiiviisutta.m, in the A"nguttara Nikaaya, Book of Fours. I'd be interested in the Commentary. From Bh. Bhodi's translation: "...Then the Blessed One spoke thus: 'If, householders, both wife and husband wish to be in one another's sight so long as this life lasts and in the future life as well, they should have the same faith, the same virtue, the same generosity, the same wisdom; then they will be in one another's sight so long as this life lasts and in the future life as well.' "'Aaka"nkheyyu.m ce, gahapatayo, ubho jaanipatayo di.t.the ceva dhamme a~n~nama~n~na.m passitu.m abhisamparaaya~nca a~n~nama~n~na.m passitu.m ubhova assu samasaddhaa samasiilaa samacaagaa samapa~n~naa, te di.t.the ceva dhamme a~n~nama~n~na.m passanti abhisamparaaya~nca a~n~nama~n~na.m passantii'"ti." "When both are faithful and bountiful, Self-restrained, of righteous living, They come together as husband and wife, Full of love for each other. "'Ubho saddhaa vada~n~nuu ca, sa~n~nataa dhammajiivino; Te honti jaanipatayo, a~n~nama~n~na.m piya.mvadaa." "Many blessings come their way, They dwell together in happiness, Their enemies are left dejected, When both are equal in virtue. "'Atthaasa.m pacuraa honti, phaasuka.m upajaayati; Amittaa dummanaa honti, ubhinna.m samasiilina.m." "Having lived by Dhamma in this world, The same in virtue and observance, They rejoice after death in the deva-world, Enjoying abundant happiness." "'Idha dhamma.m caritvaana, samasiilabbataa ubho; Nandino devalokasmi.m, modanti kaamakaamino'"ti. pa~ncama.m;" Scott: Examining the proposition 'that the Buddha also taught in ways that are inexplicable except by surmising that he too saw benefit in encouraging moral behaviour by conventional considerations of person's seeking benefits,' and using the sutta as an example, it would have to be shown, it seems to me, that the Buddha intends to temporarily suspend the notion of sakkaaya di.t.thi in his discourse. I would suggest that this is an untenable notion a) because there is no permanent entity capable of surviving death and, b) because it would suggest a certain duplicity on the part of a Buddha. I would have to show that the sutta uses words which, when considered properly, point to a situation consistent with the way things are according to the Dhamma, which is not conventional. Consider the following: samasaddhaa samasiilaa samacaagaa samapa~n~naa. These are the dhammas in question, the development of which, I'm thinking, serves as condition for the type of rebirth described - saddha, siilaa, caagaa, pa~n~naa. And I think the prefix 'sama' refers to 'equal'. These are the dhammas which are operative. If a couple were to simply think they wanted to be together, and tried really hard to live an equally wholesome life, this alone wouldn't lead to the situation the Buddha seems to be describing. How could one know, just by thinking, whether there was 'equal' development or which dhammas were being developed? The only way that the conventionally expressed scenario of a husband and wife being in 'one another's sight' in a future life can be understood is from the perspective that a certain development leads to a given birth. If the development is 'equal', then too the destination. How would this recognition of 'each other' occur? What would be recognised since it wouldn't be a 'who'? We see that the phrase 'righteous living' is from the Paa.li 'sa~n~nataa dhammajiivino.' Sa~n~nataa is the past participle of sa~njaanaati, which is, according to the PTS PED: "Sa~njaanaati...1. to recognize, perceive, know, to be aware of..." Scott: 'Jaanaati' is "...(1) Intrs. to know, to have or gain knowledge, to be experienced, to be aware, to find out...2. Trs. to know recognize, be familiar with (usually c. acc., but also with gen.: J i.337; ii.243), to have knowledge of, experience, find; to infer, conclude, distinguish, state, define...3. With double acc.: to recognize as, to see in, take for, identify as, etc..." Wouldn't it be the case that this refers to the knowing which is a function of pa~n~naa? Pa~n~naa would perform its function in this case. And the knowing would relate to the dhammas being developed. The attanomati I would express here would be that, in order to know that a particular being one encounters in a given realm was known as so-and-so in a previous existence, this would have to be a function of pa~n~naa as well. The getting to the realm in question would have to be a function of the true development of true kusala. Can desire to be together forever ever condition this sort of development? I'd say not. Well, this has gone on long enough and is quite disorganised. I'd be interested in considering any Commentarial material from the Manorathapuuranii. Sincerely, Scott. #91401 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:50 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott philofillet Hi Scott > Well, this has gone on long enough and is quite disorganised. I'd be > interested in considering any Commentarial material from the > Manorathapuuranii. Wow, interesting. Thanks for going into this sutta in such detail. It's one that I've long clung to in various clingy ways. I have printed it out and we'll see if I follow up. At some point I'll put up the SN sutta on the acrobats that we discussed for more detailed analysis re the commentaries. But you know, based on a commentary for the AN sutta on the daily recollections on ageing, illness, death etc by which those recollections are apparently reduced ridiculously to the paramattha (i.e it is said that it is the citta that is "ageing, getting ill and dying") I suspect there are some commentaries that will have to be given a back seat to more mundane readings. But the neat thing is I don't feel any need to convince you of this.... metta, phil #91402 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patimokkha Correction sarahprocter... Dear Ven Sir, I always find it interesting to consider the reasons for the particular Patimokkha rules that seem 'out-dated'. --- On Sun, 12/10/08, reverendaggacitto wrote: >The rule concerning bathing only once every two weeks is actually in "The Alcoholic Drink Chapter" and the exceptions are five not two... 1.The last month and a half of the hot season. 2.The first month of the rains. 3.A time of work. 4.A time of going on a journey. 5.A time of wind or rain. .... S: I can add a little more detail, first of all on the rule itself from the PTS Paatimokkha, under 'suddhapaacittiyaa', 'suraapanavaggo (section on drinking liquor)' as you said: "The rule about bathing "If any bhikkhu should bathe at intervals of less than half a month, other than on the proper occasion, there is an offence entailing expiation. Herein, this is the proper occasion: the remaining month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the rainy season, thus these two and a half months are the occasion of hot weather; [the other occasions are] an occasion of fever, an occasion of sickness, an occasion of work, an occasion of going on a journey, an occasion of wind and rain. This is the proper occasion here." In the Vinaya, Suttavibha"nga, (Book of Discipline, book 2, under "Expiation (Paacittiya) LVII, transl by I.B.Horner) it refers to an account of monks who bathed until late in the lake, even when the king was waiting to bathe his head. In other words, there was no moderation and the Buddha rebuked them, indicating that bathing (for monks) was not for pleasure. So the rule was laid down. Then there were monks who scrupulously followed the rule, even in hot weather, whiles sick, making repairs, going on a journey etc. They were of course coered in sweat, so the exceptions were made. The same happened with dusty winds and rain. Thank you for helping me to consider this rule further. Metta, Sarah ======== #91403 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Threes (7-12) Part 1. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: Three kinds of unwholesome motivation (sankappa): through sensuality, enmity, cruelty. (Tayo akusalasa”nkappaa: kaamasa”nkappo, byaapaadasa”nkappo,vihi.msaasa”nkappo.) --------- Three kinds of wholesome motivation: through renunciation, non- enmity, non-cruelty. (Tayo kusalasa”nkappaa: nekkhammasa”nkappo, abyaapaadasa”nkappo, avihi.msaasa'nkappo.) ------------ The Co. explains that there is no difference in meaning of vitakka (thinking) and sa”nkappa, but only for teaching purposes these different terms are used. N: Vitakka cetasika hits or touches the object and assists the citta in this way so that citta can experience the object. It is different from thinking in conventional sense. All kaamaavacaara cittas, except the sense-cognitions, are accompanied by vitakka. Thus, even the sense-door adverting consciousness that merely adverts to a sense object is accompanied by vitakka. As a factor of the eightfold Path the term sammaa-sa”nkappa is used. Together with sammaa-di.t.thi it is the wisdom of the eightfold Path. Sammaa-sa”nkappa touches the naama or ruupa that appears, so that sammaa-di.t.thi can know it as it is. ---------- Co: Kaamasa"nkappaadayo vuttanayeneva veditabbaa. Desanaamattameva heta.m. Atthato pana kaamavitakkaadiina~nca kaamasa"nkappaadiina~nca naanaakara.na.m natthi. -------- Sutta: Three kinds of unwholesome perception: of sensuality, of enmity, of cruelty. (Tisso akusalasa~n~naa: kaamasa~n~naa, byaapaadasa~n~naa, vihi.msaasa~n~naa.) -------- Three kinds of wholesome perception: of renunciation, of non-enmity, of non-cruelty. (Tisso kusalasa~n~naa: nekkhammasa~n~naa, abyaapaadasa~n~naa, avihi.msaasa~n~naa.) ------ N: Sa~n~naa connected with kaama, sensuousness, is kaamasa~n~naa. It is the same in the case of illwill, vyaapada, and cruelty, vihimsaa. These sa~n~naas are accompanied by the thought of sensuousness, illwill and cruelty. Their way of arising should be seen by this classification. It is the same for their opposites, nekkhamma-sa~n~naa, abyaapaada- sa~n~naa and avihi.msaa-sa~n~naa. The Co. states that it should be known that they are dhammas of the sense-sphere, kaamaavacara. N: Sa~n~naa is emphasized here. It is sa~n~naa that marks and remembers the object that is experienced. Atta-sa~n~naa, wrong remembrance of self is akusala. Because of atta-sa~n~naa we believe that we perceive persons who exist. We cling to a 'whole" of impressions instead of being aware and understanding one reality at a time as it appears through one of the six doorways. Akusala sa~n~naa arises more often than kusala sa~n~naa, such as sa~n~naa with renunciation, nekkhamma sa~n~naa. When we study realities and begin to understand them as mere naama elements and ruupa elements, there is a degree of renunciation. Renunciation can be accumulated little by little. ---------- Co: Kaamapa.tisa.myuttaa sa~n~naa kaamasa~n~naa. Byaapaadapa.tisa.myuttaa sa~n~naa byaapaadasa~n~naa. Vihi.msaapa.tisa.myuttaa sa~n~naa vihi.msaasa~n~naa. Taasampi kaamavitakkaadiina.m viya uppajjanaakaaro veditabbo. Ta.msampayuttaayeva hi etaa. Nekkhammasa~n~naadayopi nekkhammavitakkaadisampayuttaayeva. Tasmaa taasampi tatheva kaamaavacaraadibhaavo veditabbo. ----------- Nina. #91404 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:30 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott philofillet Hi again > P: "...I professed my belief in the 'using self to get rid of self' > kind of thing Thinking about this, should be made clear that this sort of thing is not referring to some modern pop-Buddhist teacher's theory, or strategy, but just something that I think is inevitable. The atta view is there whether we like it, prominently involved in things or more subtly lurking, and we have to work our way through it. I think the lotus growing through the mud of the world is applicable here. We can't just pluck right view out of thin air, it has to be gradually developed by better coming to understand our wrong view, the "deluded framework" of the way we see the world. It sometimes seems to me that some people want to pluck ariyan right view out of thin air! To have that lotus bloom emerge unscathed from the swamp of views. We gotta roll around in there for a good while first :) metta, phil >and said that it seems to me that the Buddha also taught > in ways that are inexplicable except by surmising that he too saw > benefit in encouraging moral behaviour by conventional considerations > of person's seeking benefits. #91405 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:32 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard, I noticed that you wrote two posts and I appreciate your efforts, trying to formulate your thoughts as well as you could. Op 12-okt-2008, om 14:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: And collections, well grounded in paramattha dhammas as they may be, > are not paramattha dhammas, but are mere mental creations, mental > constructs/concoctions, and there is a serious danger in reifying > them. > > 2) If matters are completely left according to the above, however, > what > is missed are patterns of interconnection among paramattha dhammas > that are > essential for our understanding of them and for their proper > description, and > this gap creates the serious danger of furthering the view of > reality as > consisting of a discrete plurality of separate, self-existent > particle-entities, > a view which can be combated by the (admittedly inadequate) view of > aggregations. ------ N: I know that you always emphasize the above. When considering the conditions for each of the cittas, cetasikas and rupas there is no danger of reifying. Take seeing, it is dependent on visible object and eyebase, so, how could one view it as an independent actor? It is ahetuka vipaakacitta and this classification is very useful. Its characteristic is different from thinking of a 'whole', a person. You asked in your other post, which citta, cetasika and rupa is what we call a person? Each rupa of the body from head to toe, arises and falls away and is replaced. Each citta falls away and is succeeded by a next citta (contiguity-condition). Sarah mentioned that Kh Sujin spoke about: where is Lodewijk in a future life? We can say: neither the same nor another. The being in the next life is different, but it is conditioned by this being here, all the accumulations of kusala and akusala go on to the next life. This truth can be applied to this moment and the next moment, it is momentary death and rebirth. ------ > > H: Reality is beyond both of these conceptual positions. Reality is a > wordless and thought-less one which can be known by "seeing" but > slips out of our > grasp as soon as we begin thinking (in any manner). ------ N: First we have to think of reality in the correct way. Pariyatti leads to pa.tipatti and this to pativedha, the direct realization of the truth. Nina. #91406 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- On Wed, 8/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: >T: My request is whether you actually see detail of the 24 derived rupas in the Vibhanga. I have no trouble finding them in the Vism, but I neither find the 24 rupas in the Vibhanga nor in the Dhammasangani of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. No need to give me the 200 pages in Kline's translation; just give me the location such as section number in the original Abhidhamma book (1 or 2) so I can read it myself. .... S: The whole section on rupas in the Dhammasangani is (in the Kline transl: "II Division Concerning Corporeality (Ruupa Ka.n.da)"). It is the second division or book, following "Cittuppaada Ka.n.da". It has a long, detailed Maatikaa (list of different expositions of rupas). You'd have to 'pick out' the derived rupas. For example: "599. (iv) What is the Corporeality which is the Sense-base of Eye-consciousness? " 'The eye' means the Corporeality of Eye-sensitivity which is dependent on the four Primary Elements. This eye-sensitivity forms part of the body, is not visible, and arises with impingement.' It gives more detail, then goes on to the other sense-bases, followed by visible object, "Dependent on the four primary elements, there is the corporeality which is visible......etc". Later we come to the other kinds of derived rupas, such as masculinity, femininity etc. When we come to the Vibhanga, in the first chapter, it just refers to the four primary and derived rupas as included in rupa khandha, so it is understood. In the 'Analysis of Elements', it refers to eye-element as "deriving from the four great essentials" and so on for the other senses. There are other references too, but you won't find a neat list as you do in the commentaries. Metta, Sarah ======= #91407 From: "www.atulasiriwardane.com" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta asiri57 > > Han: I honestly do not know, Tep. As far as I am concerned, whether the true Dhamma will disappear or not, I have my own personal views of anattaa. When someone abuses me I will say there is “no-Hanâ€? so that I will not have anger towards the abuser. When I am meditating, there is definitely “yes-Hanâ€? who is meditating. If I am following a wrong Path by having that kind of consideration, so be it! Atula> I use it the other way around. When I act with others I use "Yes-Atula..." that I am reponsible for those deeds of mine. When I meditate I try to feel the truth that I am just a part of this universal flow. Not only meditating even while I feel strong sensations, pains etc. #91409 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cittas nilovg Dear Azita, Op 12-okt-2008, om 11:00 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Was wondering how sati could arise with patisandhi citta when that > citta is vipaka - so asked TA Sujin. > here is what I understood her to say. If patisandhi citta is kusala > vipaka and it is in the case of human existence, then sati arises. ------- N: Sati arises with each sobhana citta, citta accompanied by sobhana hetus. Thus also with sobhana vipaakacitta, which is the result of kusala kamma with alobha and adosa, and with amoha as well, though not always. Sati that arises with vipaaka is not the active kind, it is mere result, it is like the reflection in a looking glass. ------ > A: TA > explained how santirana citta performs the function of patisandhi > citta. > Santirana citta in a process of cittas - sense door process - has more > cetasikas arising with it than the actual sense door citta -panca > dvara > vajjhana citta. It is a vipaka citta in the sense door process , > and in this > function it is ahetuka - no roots - but when it performs function of > patisandhi citta iin human plane and higher it is sahetuka vipaka > citta > [accompanied by wholesome roots such as alobha, adosa, amoha and sati > because it is kusala]. ------ N: When santiirana performs the function of patisandhi citta in a human plane, it is the result of a weak kusala kamma, it is not sobhana, but ahetuka. Thus, no sati is accompanying this citta. One is handicapped from birth. ------- > A: Santirana and not sampaticchana [ which is also ahetuka vipaka > citta ] performs the function of patisandhi citta because it is the > 2nd one in > the process to arise at heart base and therefore stronger/more > established. > > I know this is not new for you Nina, bec of Abhidhamma in Daily Life > among other things, however it seems to be soo good for understanding > when we go back to the Abhidhamma and see that all these functions are > beyond any control. Aids understanding of anatta, would you agree? ------ N: Your phrase about not sampaticchana was new to me. We see how anatta rebirth-consciousness and all cittas are. Nobody asked for this or that type of rebirth-consciousness. Nina. #91410 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/13/2008 8:28:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: When we say that 'yes, there are only namas and rupas, BUT it's wrong to say there is no person at all, because it ignores inter-relatedness, relational-reality and so on', to me it suggests a strong clinging to atta. --------------------------------------------- Howard: What you observe is what is in your mind stream, Sarah, not mine. It makes no sense to deny collections of interrelated dhammas. Think for a moment about all the collections, many quite abstract, that the Buddha admitted to and talked of - for example the five heaps (or khandhas), the Ariyasangha, the Bhikkhu Sangha, the Tipitaka, and so on and so forth. Aggregations of dhammas are not dhammas, they are not individuals, but they also are not nothing at all. Patterns of behavior, for example, exist and require our observation, for they often require being changed. The Buddha didn't ignore this. Putting on blinders isn't a technique of Dhamma practice. Dhammas don't exist in isolation and are not properly understandable in isolation. Their emptiness in fact lies in their interdependence. Viewing them in isolation is a sure way to fragment seamless reality into a dust bowl. --------------------------------------------- That's fine, there's clinging to atta until it's finally eradicated at the stage of sotapatti-magga. It's very deep-rooted and the Dhamma is very subtle. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Nice, though, that you are almost beyond clinging to self, Sarah! ;-) ======================== With metta, Howard #91411 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:26 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Regarding: P: "At some point I'll put up the SN sutta on the acrobats that we discussed for more detailed analysis re the commentaries..." Scott: I'll get it in below, since I enjoy the study: SN 47:19(9) Sedakasutta.m "...'That's the method there,' the Blessed One said. 'It's just as the apprentice Medakathaalikaa said to the teacher. 'I will protect myself,' bhikkhus: thus should the establishment of mindfulness be practised. 'I will protect others,' bhikkhus: thus should the establishment of mindfulness be practised. Protecting oneself, bhikkhus, one protects others; protecting others, one protects oneself." "'So tattha ~naayo''ti bhagavaa etadavoca, 'yathaa medakathaalikaa antevaasii aacariya.m avoca. Attaana.m, bhikkhave, rakkhissaamiiti satipa.t.thaana.m sevitabba.m; para.m rakkhissaamiiti satipa.t.thaana.m sevitabba.m. Attaana.m, bhikkhave, rakkhanto para.m rakkhati, para.m rakkhanto attaana.m rakkhati'." "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation [of the four establishments of mindfulness]. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself on protects others." "'Katha~nca , bhikkhave, attaana.m rakkhanto para.m rakkhati? Aasevanaaya, bhaavanaaya, bahuliikammena â€" eva.m kho, bhikkhave, attaana.m rakkhanto para.m rakkhati." Note 169. "Spk: The bhikkhu who gives up frivolous activity and pursues, develops, and cultivates his basic meditation subject day and night attains arahatship. Then, when others see him and gain confidence in him, they become destined for heaven. This one protects others by protecting himself." "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, lovingkindness, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself." Note 170. "...Spk: The bhikkhu develops the jhaanas based on the brahmavihaara, then uses jhaana as a basis for insight and attains arahatship. This one protects himself by protecting others." "Katha~nca, bhikkhave, para.m rakkhanto attaana.m rakkhati? Khantiyaa, avihi.msaaya, mettacittataaya, anudayataaya â€" eva.m kho, bhikkhave, para.m rakkhanto attaana.m rakkhati." "'I will protect myself,' bhikkhus: thus should the establishment of mindfulness be practised. 'I will protect others,' bhikkhus: thus should the establishment of mindfulness be practised. Protecting oneself, bhikkhus, one protects others; protecting others, bhikkhus, one protects oneself." "Attaana.m, bhikkhave, rakkhissaamiiti satipa.t.thaana.m sevitabba.m; para.m rakkhissaamiiti satipa.t.thana.m sevitabba.m. Attaana.m, bhikkhave, rakkhanto para.m rakkhati, para.m rakkhanto attaana.m rakkhatii' ti." P: "...But you know, based on a commentary for the AN sutta on the daily recollections on ageing, illness, death etc by which those recollections are apparently reduced ridiculously to the paramattha (i.e it is said that it is the citta that is 'ageing, getting ill and dying') I suspect there are some commentaries that will have to be given a back seat to more mundane readings. But the neat thing is I don't feel any need to convince you of this..." Scott: No, I don't need any convincing. I appreciate the experience of reading the commentarial take on things. I like how it is often so jarring and how it is in stark contradistinction to the precious views I wind up creating. To me it allows a beautiful contemplation of how the conventional is not the way things are - even if I don't happen to understand the commentarial position. Like you, I often skip it because trying to force understanding doesn't work. Either I get it or I don't. Not getting it doesn't mean I reject it, however. And, to put it in again, I think that 'mundane' readings are a function of lack of understanding, not that there are two ways of understanding things. That being said, the above commentaries take such a narrow position on the sutta that they rather bore one to death. Sincerely, Scott. #91412 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:33 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path abhidhammika Dear Jon, Sarah, Nina, Scott D, Mike N, Tep, Howard, Alex, Paul, Herman How are you? Jon wrote: "While my sentence is being considered, would you mind providing some textual reference (with translation) to this term "attanomati", as it's new to me, apart from earlier usage by yourself." Suan replied: The term `attanomati' appears in Pali commentaries (A.t.thakathaa) and subcommentaries (.Tikaa). I have chosen a Pali passage from Visuddhimaggo, which is most accessible to you and most readers as it is available in English translations, one edition by Pe Maung Tin and the other by Ñaa.namoli Bhikkhu. The passage can be found in the Chapter 3 on Taking Up Kamma.t.thaana. The location is Section 42, Commentary on Giver of Kamma.t.thaana. The actual wording in this passage is attanomatiko (one who speaks attanomati). Visuddhimaggamahaa.tiikaa, when commenting on this section, uses the term `attanomati' in its object case. Here is the Pali passage as requested. Kamma.t.thaanadaayakava.n.nanaa Section 42. Tasmaa sace khii.naasavam labhati, iccetam kusalam, no ce labhati, anaagaamisakadaagaamisotaapannajhaanalaabhiiputhujjanatipi.takadharad vipi.takadhara-ekapi.takadharesu purimassa purimassa santike. ekapi.takadharepi asati yassa ekasangiitipi a.t.thakathaaya saddhim pagu.naa, ayañca lajjii hoti, tassa santike gahetabbam. evaruupo hi tantidharo vamsaanurakkhako pave.niipaalako aacariyo aacariyamatikova hoti, na attanomatiko hoti. teneva poraa.nakattheraa "lajjii rakkhissati lajjii rakkhissatii"ti tikkhattum aahamsu. Let me know whether or not you or Sarah or Nina or Scott found the translation of the above Pali passage. Now, Jon, your turn to clarify the term `dhammas' in your following statement. "The path is developed by the gradual accrual of the understanding of dhammas, and this is not something that occurs by virtue of the "doing" of specific things." What do you mean by `dhammas'? Proper and fair `prosecution' could take place only when the defendant's usage of the terms were understood as intended. :-) Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #91413 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, It's well past my bed-time, but I'd like to respond to your message and at the same time apologise for any comments of mine which came across too strongly. --- On Mon, 13/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: --------- --------- --------- ------ Howard: What you observe is what is in your mind stream, Sarah, not mine. It makes no sense to deny collections of interrelated dhammas. Think for a moment about all the collections, many quite abstract, that the Buddha admitted to and talked of - for example the five heaps (or khandhas),the Ariyasangha, the Bhikkhu Sangha, the Tipitaka, and so on and so forth. Aggregations of dhammas are not dhammas, they are not individuals, but they also are not nothing at all. .... S: As I understand, the khandhas refer to all the different kinds of dhammas included. For example, each rupa is different and distinct, whether it be past, future, present, internal, external, gross, subtle etc, yet each one is rupa khandha. I think 'aggregation' or even 'aggregate' is mis-leading in that there are only ever dhammas. With regard to 'Ariyasangha' and 'Bhikkhu Sangha', again, these are conventional terms or concepts which are used to point to cittas, cetasikas and rupas only. The Tipitaka is another concept. All these concepts can be used with right or wrong understanding. As you rightly indicate, it depends on what is 'observed' at the time, for each 'mind stream'. ..... H:> Patterns of behavior, for example, exist and require our observation, for they often require being changed. The Buddha didn't ignore this. .... S: When we're observing 'patterns of behaviour', it's only ever thinking, surely? There's no such reality. .... H;. Putting on blinders isn't a technique of Dhamma practice. Dhammas don't exist in isolation and are not properly understandable in isolation. ... s: No, dhammas don't exist in isolation. No one has ever suggested anything like this. As I was just discussing with Rinze and then Tep, different dhammas depend on other dhammas in many complex ways. Still, it is only by understanding the characteristic of *a reality* that they can ever be understood. At any moment, only one object (either a reality or a concept) can ever be experienced. If it's a 'pattern', it's a concept. .... H:> Their emptiness in fact lies in their interdependence. Viewing them in isolation is a sure way to fragment seamless reality into a dust bowl. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ S:> Their emptiness refers to such dhammas being empty of atta. Yes, they are interdependent, arising from conditions, never in *isolation*. However, such dhammas can be known, one at a time with distinct characteristics. Actually, I'd go further and say that namas and rupas have to be known with their distinct characteristics before there can be any understanding of their conditioned nature. ..... >Howard: Nice, though, that you are almost beyond clinging to self, Sarah! ;-) ============ ========= === S: Ouch! Apologies for the bad-wording on my part which led to this little bit of sarcasm:-)). Please just ignore these comments if we're going round in circles on this, Howard. There may be a certain amount of semantic confusion as I had thought we were on the same page when it came to 'just the seen' and so on being understood. Metta, Sarah ========== #91417 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was it inevitable aeons ago that Alex would write this? truth_aerator Hi Jon, and all, >--- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > If there is no-control, then how is it different from > predetermination > > or "fatalism"? After all, there is no-control of whatever is >going to > happen :) > > Thanks for clarifying what you see as the connection between "no- > control" and "fatalism". I hope I can explain. > > To my understanding, "no-control" is in essence a reference to the > anattaness of dhammas. I think the expression used in the texts is > that dhammas are "not subject to mastery". What exactly does it mean "not subject to mastery." Does this imply that there *is* limitied control of some aspects of impermanent process by an impermanent process called 'volition' ? > "Fatalism" on a different scale altogether. It refers I believe to > the occurring of events in relation to a given individual. What about fatalism which says "what is going to happen will happen, yet there isn't 'anyone' in absolute sense." In other words "what we call a person, life and the world is merely a play of impersonal elements without any selves or souls". Best wishes, #91418 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Howard, In a message dated 10/13/2008 9:56:52 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: s: No, dhammas don't exist in isolation. No one has ever suggested anything like this. As I was just discussing with Rinze and then Tep, different dhammas depend on other dhammas in many complex ways. Still, it is only by understanding the characteristic of *a reality* that they can ever be understood. At any moment, only one object (either a reality or a concept) can ever be experienced. If it's a 'pattern', it's a concept. .... H:> Their emptiness in fact lies in their interdependence. Viewing them in isolation is a sure way to fragment seamless reality into a dust bowl. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ S:> Their emptiness refers to such dhammas being empty of atta. .......................................................... TG: Nonsense. (In the sense you mean it.) It is the aggregates and elements "themselves" that are described by the Buddha as empty, hollow, insubstantial, void, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. What you are trying to say (I think) is that "Dhammas don't construct a self and are not associated with a self." By this approach, you are trying to preserve the "independent own characteristic reality" of "dhammas." Dhammas are your God. (Crutch) Howard is right in that "emptiness"/no-self is the fact of the matter due to conditionality...DO “However one might ponder it -- (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) And carefully investigate it, It appears but hollow and void When one views it carefully. Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.â€? (The Buddha . . . circa 500 BC. . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 953) So the Buddha's careful investigation results in seeing the Aggregates as hollow and void, with no substance to be found. Your investigation results in seeing the Aggregates as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." What an AMAZING disparity!!! In my mind, these are TWO opposing religions at work. As Howard beautifully said... The perspective that I sense on the part of some, though not all, of the admirers of Khun Sujin is that paramattha dhammas are entities: true, separable existents with essence that arise and are then annihilated. To me, this is an odd amalgam of substantialism and annihilationism, and not a middle way. What seems strange to me is... that it appears from an observer that you are intentionally trying to hide your true position with tactical semantics. As if you are trying to take cover in the Suttas as much as possible...but the essential aspects of your beliefs are well outside them. The "subtle thing" to me isn't the Abhidhamma you practice, but the way it is obscured in this fashion. But since the way I receive your intentions strike me totally differently then what I expect your intentions really are, I'll just let it ride. ;-) .............................................................................. . Yes, they are interdependent, arising from conditions, never in *isolation*. However, such dhammas can be known, one at a time with distinct characteristics. Actually, I'd go further and say that namas and rupas have to be known with their distinct characteristics before there can be any understanding of their conditioned nature. ................................................................... TG: The viewpoint that thinks "Dhammas" have their own characteristics is a view that fails before it even begins. The purpose of the Buddha teachings regarding phenomena, is to detach and let go of phenomena. Falsely elevating phenomena into "ultimate realities" isn't the teaching, and is,in fact, the anti-teaching. What you continually pound and pound and pound is simply not found in the Suttas. Oh yes, a tortured interpretation may make you believe it is in there. But seriously, if your method was so critical, the Buddha couldn't have figured it out and just said it clearly??? The Buddha couldn't come up with "ultimate realities"? The Buddha couldn't come up with "own characteristics"? Something is seriously flawed. TG OUT #91419 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/13/2008 11:56:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, It's well past my bed-time, but I'd like to respond to your message and at the same time apologise for any comments of mine which came across too strongly. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thank you. :-) I do think that psychoanalysis of others, especially online analysis, is best avoided, and that we best stick with addressing issues, not people. In any case, I happily accept your apology. No doubt I have gotten personal in some posts to some members, and for this I apologize as well. ------------------------------------------------- --- On Mon, 13/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: --------- --------- --------- ------ Howard: What you observe is what is in your mind stream, Sarah, not mine. It makes no sense to deny collections of interrelated dhammas. Think for a moment about all the collections, many quite abstract, that the Buddha admitted to and talked of - for example the five heaps (or khandhas),the Ariyasangha, the Bhikkhu Sangha, the Tipitaka, and so on and so forth. Aggregations of dhammas are not dhammas, they are not individuals, but they also are not nothing at all. .... S: As I understand, the khandhas refer to all the different kinds of dhammas included. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The word 'khandha' means heap. So, it is a collection. But, of course, there is nothing more to a collection than its members and the interconnections among them. ------------------------------------------------- For example, each rupa is different and distinct, whether it be past, future, present, internal, external, gross, subtle etc, yet each one is rupa khandha. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, Sarah. That is a confusing misuse of language that often occurs on DSG. Each rupa is not at all a khandha - it is an individual, not a heap. The collection of all rupas is a khandha, but not any single rupa. -------------------------------------------------- I think 'aggregation' or even 'aggregate' is mis-leading in that there are only ever dhammas. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha frequently spoke of aggregates, five of them. And by 'aggregate' he meant exactly that. ----------------------------------------------- With regard to 'Ariyasangha' and 'Bhikkhu Sangha', again, these are conventional terms or concepts which are used to point to cittas, cetasikas and rupas only. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Collections of collections of dhammas. ---------------------------------------------- The Tipitaka is another concept. All these concepts can be used with right or wrong understanding. As you rightly indicate, it depends on what is 'observed' at the time, for each 'mind stream'. ..... H:> Patterns of behavior, for example, exist and require our observation, for they often require being changed. The Buddha didn't ignore this. .... S: When we're observing 'patterns of behaviour', it's only ever thinking, surely? There's no such reality. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Patterns of behavior are relational matters, they are quite real, and we ignore them at our peril. ----------------------------------------------- .... H;. Putting on blinders isn't a technique of Dhamma practice. Dhammas don't exist in isolation and are not properly understandable in isolation. ... s: No, dhammas don't exist in isolation. No one has ever suggested anything like this. As I was just discussing with Rinze and then Tep, different dhammas depend on other dhammas in many complex ways. Still, it is only by understanding the characteristic of *a reality* that they can ever be understood. At any moment, only one object (either a reality or a concept) can ever be experienced. If it's a 'pattern', it's a concept. .... H:> Their emptiness in fact lies in their interdependence. Viewing them in isolation is a sure way to fragment seamless reality into a dust bowl. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ S:> Their emptiness refers to such dhammas being empty of atta. Yes, they are interdependent, arising from conditions, never in *isolation*. However, such dhammas can be known, one at a time with distinct characteristics. Actually, I'd go further and say that namas and rupas have to be known with their distinct characteristics before there can be any understanding of their conditioned nature. ..... >Howard: Nice, though, that you are almost beyond clinging to self, Sarah! ;-) ============ ========= === S: Ouch! Apologies for the bad-wording on my part which led to this little bit of sarcasm:-)). -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Knowing that my reply was sarcastic, I actually softened it a bit from what first came to mind! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------------- Please just ignore these comments if we're going round in circles on this, Howard. There may be a certain amount of semantic confusion as I had thought we were on the same page when it came to 'just the seen' and so on being understood. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: To some extent, this likely is just semantics. And I do think we may be at least on adjoining pages when it comes to 'just the seen'. In that regard, I've just recently started reading a book entitled BUDDISM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK: FINDING FREEDOM BEYOND BELIEFS. It is authored by a Steve Hagen, who I presumed was just a Zen layman, but who I now realize is a long-time Zen priest. The book is praised by Charlotte Joko Beck, and I heartily agree with her assessment. I think it's a great book. (Not Theravadin, of course, and thus not everyone's cup of tea.) -------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ================================ With metta, Howard #91420 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dependent origination .. "No you, no person", she said. TGrand458@... Hi Ken H, All In a message dated 10/13/2008 1:37:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: That's right, all paramattha dhammas are not self: they possess the anatta characteristic. People are just concepts. Concepts lack sabhava: they don't possess real characteristics. .................................................. TG: The idea that something "possesses the anatta characteristic" is truly amazing to me. I'm sorry, I have no way to bridge communication to an idea like that. Let's get something straight... What are referred to as "people" are compositions of various phenomenal momentums. People ARE what you'd consider "Dhammas." The "CONCEPT" of "people" is a concept. 'Concepts' are mental constructions that deal with memory and imagination. I know you'll probably prefer to keep up your old views and believe in a -- "non-existing existence" of something. Another mind-boggling strange idea in my estimation. Good luck with that stuff. :-/ TG OUT #91421 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/13/2008 12:14:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: I very much agree with what you write here and believe that you have laid it out in a very technically precise manner. In my crude manner, I would also like to add that the practice of compassion is impossible if you believe that people don't exist. As we each experience suffering, we recognize that everyone else also experiences that same suffering and we fell compelled to alleviate that suffering of others. This is very important to Buddhist practice as it leads to unselfish qualities and mind states. But, if you believe that, in actuality, I don't exist and you don't exist, the possiblity for compassion is impossible. In that sense, any mention of compassion is just lipservice and not real or genuine. ============================= I also believe that for one who believes that persons are fictions, experiencing metta, karuna, and mudita requires blanking out that belief. Lovingkindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy are *only* with regard to beings, and pretending otherwise is an act of self-delusion. The empty nature of beings, however, is a separate issue. With metta, Howard #91422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:27 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2008, om 16:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It makes no sense to deny collections of interrelated dhammas. > Think for > a moment about all the collections, many quite abstract, that the > Buddha > admitted to and talked of - for example the five heaps (or > khandhas), the > Ariyasangha, the Bhikkhu Sangha, the Tipitaka, and so on and so > forth. Aggregations > of dhammas are not dhammas, they are not individuals, but they also > are not > nothing at all. -------- N: I just typed in Sri Lanka Revisited a passage that may be of interest to you, about the fact that the conventional truth is not denied at all: < Khun Sujin reminded us time and again that the development of satipaììhåna should be very natural. The sotåpanna sees things as they are, but this does not mean that he cannot live his daily life. He does not avoid the world of conventional truth, but he has no wrong view, he does not take the unreal for reality. The sotåpanna sees visible object and after the seeing there can be thinking of the concept “person”, but he has no misunderstanding about the seeing and the thinking of concepts. He knows that there is no person there, only nåmas and rúpas which are impermanent and non-self, but this does not mean that there cannot be thinking of a person; thinking is conditioned. When thinking arises, he knows that it is a reality that thinks, no self who thinks. > Jus a remark about aggregations, do you mean khandhas? But the five khandhas is a grouping of paramattha dhammas, they are just citta, cetasika and rupa. rúpakkhandha (rúpas) vedanåkkhandha (feelings) saññåkkhandha (remembrance or perception) sankhårakkhandha (formations or activities) viññånakkhandha (cittas) For teaching purposes they are grouped like that. ------- Nina. #91423 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:50 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Thanks for the further thinking: P: "Thinking about this, should be made clear that this sort of thing is not referring to some modern pop-Buddhist teacher's theory, or strategy, but just something that I think is inevitable. The atta view is there whether we like it, prominently involved in things or more subtly lurking, and we have to work our way through it. I think the lotus growing through the mud of the world is applicable here. We can't just pluck right view out of thin air, it has to be gradually developed by better coming to understand our wrong view, the 'deluded framework' of the way we see the world. It sometimes seems to me that some people want to pluck ariyan right view out of thin air! To have that lotus bloom emerge unscathed from the swamp of views. We gotta roll around in there for a good while first." Scott: While atta view is 'inevitable' (as in present) and if we know intellectually that there is such a thing as 'atta view,' and that we have it, then we know intellectually that things are other than they seem. Is this not the beginning of wisdom? Is this not the beginning of the gradual development of right view? Armed with this beginning knowledge, and considering it (rather than putting it on some conceptual back-burner) is understanding wrong view, little-by-little. How is considering this tender idea akin to 'plucking right view out of thin air'? I'm afraid I just don't buy the wrong-headed notion that there is 'ariyan right view' that is being 'plucked out of thin air' when one considers the world from the conceptual vantage point that 'atta view' is wrong view. This is a prominent view oft espoused. Right view is always at the beginning. Rather than collapse and think wrongly out of conceptual wrong view, why not rise to the occasion and think rightly out of conceptual right view? ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #91424 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:50 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,306 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 306. (b) The meaning of ignorance as condition for formations is profound since it is difficult to understand what mode and on what occasion46 ignorance is a condition for the several formations.... The meaning of birth as a condition for ageing-and-death is similarly profound. That is why this Wheel of Becoming is profound in law. This is the profundity of 'law' here. For 'law' is a name for cause, according as it is said, 'Knowledge about cause is discrimination of law' (Vbh. 293). -------------------------- Note 46. Avatthaa--'occasion': not in P.T.S. Dict. ************************ 306. yasmaa pana yenaakaarena yadavatthaa ca avijjaa tesa.m tesa.m sa"nkhaaraana.m paccayo hoti, tassa duravabodhaniiyato avijjaaya sa"nkhaaraana.m paccaya.t.tho gambhiiro. tathaa sa"nkhaaraana.m...pe0... jaatiyaa jaraamara.nassa paccaya.t.tho gambhiiro, tasmaa ida.m bhavacakka.m dhammagambhiiranti ayamettha dhammagambhiirataa. hetuno hi dhammoti naama.m. yathaaha -- ``hetumhi ~naa.na.m dhammapa.tisambhidaa''ti (vibha0 720). #91425 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:35 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Dhamma friends, In the PTS version, Anguttara-nikaya III 237.14-19 (AN 5.194), it has a list of just four angas: sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, abbhutadhamma (i.e. angas nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8). Is it possible this list is an abbreviation of the entire set? (i.e. '(1) sutta, (2) geyya, (3) veyyakarana, ... (9) Vedalla, (8) abbhuta-dhamma'). How do other Pali versions record or comment on the words of the text (Anguttara-nikaya III 237.14-19 = AN 5.194) about the list of just four angas? Thank you. Thomas Law --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Op 2-okt-2008, om 9:20 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > > ...Atthasaalinii, Introductory Discourse (PTS transl.) > > > > "Which are the 'nine parts'? The entire Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na, > > Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhuta, Vedalla. > -------- > N: I read the sutta Approach (Ang. Book of the Fours, XIX, 186) and > found a footnote: sutta, geyya etc. is inserted by compilers later > on. But the Buddha spoke this sutta, so why should we doubt this. > Now, on Paliyahoo is a discussion about this point, but as to > history, I do not know any answer. > Someone asked whether from the beginning of the teaching, there could > be the nine angas. > There is a similar case with Ang. Nikaya and other books where we > find: the Ones, the Twos, etc. At the rehearsal it could be that this > order was taken for the sake of recitation. It is not said that the > Buddha spoke them all in this order. > But such questions distract from the essence of the teachings, as you > showed with the sutta Approach. > NIna. > #91426 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:38 pm Subject: Vap Fullmoon Poya Day: The Kathina Ceremony. bhikkhu0 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Vap Poya day is the full-moon of October. This holy day celebrates the end of the Bhikkhu's three months rains retreat and marks the Kathina month of robes , where lay people donate a set of robes to the Sangha. This also celebrates the day that Buddha began to teach the Abhidhamma! More about the Kathina Ceremony: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Kathina_Ceremony.htm On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accept to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards NibbÄ?na: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or Uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! The True Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Can quite advantageously be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be light, swift and sweet. Never give up !! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html For the 2008 Calendar of Uposatha Observance Days: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/various/Poya.Uposatha.Observance_days.2008.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #91427 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, (Nina & all), --- On Tue, 14/10/08, thomaslaw03 wrote: >In the PTS version, Anguttara-nikaya III 237.14-19 (AN 5.194), it has a list of just four angas: sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, abbhutadhamma (i.e. angas nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8). Is it possible this list is an abbreviation of the entire set? (i.e. '(1) sutta, (2) geyya, (3) veyyakarana, ... (9) Vedalla, (8) abbhuta-dhamma' ). ... S: Yes, I believe it's just an abbreviation. Earlier in the same Book of 5s, the 9 angas have already been given in V, 73 (Bodhi transl): "It is said, Lord: One who lives by the Dhamma! One who lives by the Dhamma!' In what way, Lord, is a monk one who lives by the Dhamma?" "Here, monk, a monk masters the Dhamma - the discourses, mixed prose, expositions, verses, inspired utterances, brief sayings, birth stories, marvellous accounts, and miscellanies." As B.Bodhi's note says "This set of nine items was used to classify the Buddha's teachings at an early period but was later superseded by the classification into Pi.takas and Nikaayas." .... T:> How do other Pali versions record or comment on the words of the text (Anguttara-nikaya III 237.14-19 = AN 5.194) about the list of just four angas? ... S: I don't know, but as Jim's note which I quoted indicated, the 9 angas are given many times in AN, other suttas and other texts. Sometimes these are abbreviated to 3 or 4. Isn't like with the khandhas, for example? Sometimes 5 are discussed, sometimes just one. Sometimes primary rupas and derived rupas are mentioned, sometimes just primary rupas. Sometimes the entire Dependent Origination is given, sometimes part of it - sometimes forward, sometimes backward. Doesn't it just depend on the circumstances and the listeners at the time? I don't see any significance in it. With regard to your questions about different Pali versions, I know very little but have chatted to B.Bodhi and other translators who've told me how they look at several Pali texts, though don't always have all to hand. In this way, if there is a typo or error in one, they can check for uniformity in the others. Masefield's and Norman's translations always have lots of notes about other editions, so I'm sure they do this too. Of course the most important thing for a translator is a good understanding of all the teachings and familiarity with the commentaries too, I'd humbly suggest. May I ask about your interest in this particular area? Metta, Sarah ============= #91428 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:25 pm Subject: Re: cittas gazita2002 Hello Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Azita, > Op 12-okt-2008, om 11:00 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: ....snip.... > > A: TA > > explained how santirana citta performs the function of patisandhi > > citta. > > Santirana citta in a process of cittas - sense door process - has more > > cetasikas arising with it than the actual sense door citta -panca > > dvara > > vajjhana citta. It is a vipaka citta in the sense door process , > > and in this > > function it is ahetuka - no roots - but when it performs function of > > patisandhi citta iin human plane and higher it is sahetuka vipaka > > citta > > [accompanied by wholesome roots such as alobha, adosa, amoha and sati > > because it is kusala]. > ------ > N: When santiirana performs the function of patisandhi citta in a > human plane, it is the result of a weak kusala kamma, it is not > sobhana, but ahetuka. Thus, no sati is accompanying this citta. One > is handicapped from birth. AZita: this doesnt sound quite right to me Nina; i'm wondering if it should read : when santiirana ......... human plane as a result of a weak kusala kamma etc.....? Because birth in human realm can have patisandhi citta with 3 roots - as surely was the case for the Buddha in his last existence. > > A: Santirana and not sampaticchana [ which is also ahetuka vipaka > > citta ] performs the function of patisandhi citta because it is the > > 2nd one in > > the process to arise at heart base and therefore stronger/more > > established. > > > > I know this is not new for you Nina, bec of Abhidhamma in Daily Life > > among other things, however it seems to be soo good for understanding > > when we go back to the Abhidhamma and see that all these functions are > > beyond any control. Aids understanding of anatta, would you agree? > ------ > N: Your phrase about not sampaticchana was new to me. We see how > anatta rebirth-consciousness and all cittas are. Nobody asked for > this or that type of rebirth-consciousness. > Nina. Azita: this was also new to me. TA. told us this. I guess it is like during the javana process - the first citta is weak, it is the ones following that are stronger and the cause of vipaka. MOre important tho. is your comment about nobody asking for this or that kind of rebirth citta - who knows where "we" go after cuti citta. MOre important than that even, is that cittas are arisng and falling away right now and who asks for this or that citta to arise?? was not the Buddha the most amazing being ever - to have discovered all this by himself - AND to go ahead and teach to the various beings who could understand, Patience, courage and good cheer, for aeons... azita #91429 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:09 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: While atta view is 'inevitable' (as in present) and if we know > intellectually that there is such a thing as 'atta view,' and that we > have it, then we know intellectually that things are other than they > seem. Is this not the beginning of wisdom? Ph: Yes, that sounds right. Is this not the beginning > of the gradual development of right view? Armed with this beginning > knowledge, and considering it (rather than putting it on some > conceptual back-burner) is understanding wrong view, little-by- little. > > How is considering this tender idea akin to 'plucking right view out > of thin air'? Ph: I don't know Scott. I was playing with that lotus growing through the mud of the world image, and just came up with plucking that blossom of right view out of thin air thing. It's not appropriate, really, because there is always stress on examining/studying dhammas in daily life, which is certainly living through the mud of the world. The thing I don't understand and don't really need to understand now is this notion that if there is an idea of a person doing something, it must a form of wrong view that is harmful enough to be deemed contrary to the right path, to elicit somber warnings of "one will go the wrong way" and so on that you hear in the recorded talks and in posts from certain people I am thinking of. And the notion that self involved in so-called "formal meditation" derails the whole process because there are people doing activities. This idea that sakkaya ditthi involved, for example, for beginning meditators is somehow destructive of the mundane path is I guess what I meant by plucking right view out of thin air. I'm modest in my expecations in meditation because of my lifestyle, but still object to the grounds by which others are discouraged here. Not that it matters, of course - so called "formal meditation" will hardly ground to a stop because of this small and entirely isolated pod of protestors! I'm afraid I just don't buy the wrong-headed notion > that there is 'ariyan right view' that is being 'plucked out of thin > air' when one considers the world from the conceptual vantage point > that 'atta view' is wrong view. This is a prominent view oft > espoused. Right view is always at the beginning. I think conceptual right view is at the beginning, ahetuka ditthi and the other two that have to do with not believing in results of deeds etc. Let me look them up. Akiriyaa dithhi and naathika-diithi. This does not include sakkaya-ditthi, does it? > > Rather than collapse and think wrongly out of conceptual wrong view, > why not rise to the occasion and think rightly out of conceptual right > view? ;-) Ph: (BTW, not that it really matters, but I regretted saying that we need to "roll around" in the mud of atta-view. That was poor wording since it suggests a surrender of some kind, rolling in nasty stuff, which maybe prompted your use of "collapse" above. I guess I should have said we need to slog our way through the mud. Just to be clear I'm not advocating reveling in gross forms of wrong view.) Again, maybe I'm confused but I feel pretty well grounded on conceptual right view, because I take it to be related to the three forms of ditthi above, ahetuka ditthi and the other two. I do have moments of doubt about whether the whole Dhamma thing is not just another fake, a beautifully sublime fake, but yes, there are moments of doubt. THAT is when I wrestle with a wrong view that concerns me, not when I have notions of people doing things to try to be better etc. Want to get by those as well, but when a fellow has moments of doubting whether there is kamma and vipaka, really, sakkaya ditthi becomes something that one might eliminate in the long run, but is not on the top of the list. But, you know, getting back into Abhidhamma is bound to help, I think. Oh, I found an interesting thing when rereading Abhidhamma in Daily Life today. Come to think of it, I think I'll post it separetely. Thanks Scott. Read the post on the husband and wife, very interesting, but won't get back to it, nor to the acrobats, for a few days at least. I will drop this branch of our discussion now. It's in the bound to go round and round and round category, isn't it? Last word to you, if you'd like to add anything to what I wrote above. metta, phil #91430 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:18 am Subject: Not enough doubt around here. philofillet Hi all I found this when re-reading Abhidhamma in Daily Life: "There will be doubt about the world of paramattha dhammas until panna (wisdom) clearly knows the characteristics of nama and rupa as they appear through the six doors." Safe to say that "panna that clearly knows the characteristics of nama and rupa as they appear through the six doors" is a rare citta. So why is there so little doubt about paramattha dhammas? Some people trumpet the truth of nama and rupa with so much confidence you'd think they are politicians selling the stuff! (Ken, to be honest, my friend, I'm looking at you.) There are hardly any expressions of doubt about "the world of paramattha dhammas" from students of AS. On the other hand, you have people like Howard and TG who wrestle with various confusing theories about what dhammas are that have all of us who aren't wearing our Star Trek "teacher" helmets straining at full Warp capacity to understand. But they are dealing with doubt, they are refusing to just take deep theories as taught. The passage above made me appreciate what they are up to. And it made me feel better about my own doubt about paramattha dhammas. There should be more doubt, I think, when discussing deep Dhamma, on all sides... metta, phil #91431 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cittas nilovg Dear Azita, Op 14-okt-2008, om 7:25 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > N: When santiirana performs the function of patisandhi citta in a > > human plane, it is the result of a weak kusala kamma, it is not > > sobhana, but ahetuka. Thus, no sati is accompanying this citta. One > > is handicapped from birth. > > AZita: this doesnt sound quite right to me Nina; i'm wondering if it > should read : when santiirana ......... human plane as a result of a > weak kusala kamma etc.....? > Because birth in human realm can have patisandhi citta with 3 roots - > as surely was the case for the Buddha in his last existence. ------- N: I see no problem here. Perhaps I did not understand your question. Santiirana citta is always asobhana, no sobhana roots, and it can perform the function of rebirth which is the result of weak kusala kamma. See Survey, p. 216: Birth in the human plane which is a happy rebirth can be with a patisandhicitta that is rootless, or accompanied by two roots or three roots. See my ADL, Ch 11, there are ninteen types of pa.tisandhicitta in all. ------ Nina. #91432 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 3, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, Recollection of the Buddha (Buddhanusati) is one of the meditation subjects of samatha. When we reflect on the Buddha’s virtues there can be moments of calm, but there are bound to be akusala cittas as well since akusala cittas arise time and again throughout our life. When we look at a Buddha statue there is likely to be clinging. We like seeing, we like visible object and we like thinking of what we have seen. The fact that it is a Buddha statue we look at cannot prevent us from clinging. We should not be discouraged by the akusala cittas which arise. If we think with aversion of our clinging there is akusala citta. At the moment of right understanding that knows akusala as akusala, there is kusala citta. Different cittas are arising and falling away all the time and therefore it is difficult to know them precisely. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that there is bhåvanå, merely because we sit in front of a Buddha statue and we recite some texts. When we pay respect to the Buddha there is an opportunity for kusala síla through body and speech. When we ponder over his virtues there can be moments of calm. Contemplation of the Buddha’s virtues is difficult for those who have not attained enlightenment. Can one really know what enlightenment means if one has not attained it onself? However, when we have reflected upon the teachings and when we apply them in daily life, the Buddha’s wisdom, compassion and purity begin to have more meaning to us. Then there may be conditions for calm when we contemplate his virtues. The “Earth Kasina” (Visuddhimagga IV, 21) is another meditation subject. Not everybody who looks at a disk of clay can become calm, there must be right understanding of this subject. What is the purpose of it? To lessen clinging to sense objects. Earth, Water, Fire and Wind represent the “Four Great Elements” which form up all physical phenomena. Is there not Earth (solidity), Water (fluidity), Fire (heat) and Wind (motion or oscillation) in all physical phenomena? Is there not solidity in our body and in all the things around us? Khun Sujin said: “Everything around us is just earth in different shapes and forms. We are attached to it, we fight for it, but it is just earth.” Thus, if we see that all the things around us and also our body is just earth it can condition moments of detachment, of calm. We see that the meditation subject itself is no guarantee for calm, that it all depends on right understanding. ****** Nina #91433 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:39 am Subject: Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, We are so used to being attached to what appears through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense and the mind-door, we take it for self, for mine, for my property. In reality everything which appears does so only at the moment when citta in a process, víthi-citta, arises. The dhammas which are vipåka are the results of kamma. We may have a house, many possessions, cloths and ornaments which are all very beautiful and attractive, but in reality there are only vipåkacittas, results of past kammas, which arise and experience such objects through the senses. Citta arises and experiences an object just for one moment and then it falls away; it is gone forever, it cannot last at all. Nobody knows which kamma will produce which result in the future. The reason is that we all have performed in the past both kusala kamma and akusala kamma. When there are the right conditions for kamma to produce result, vipåkacitta arises and experiences an object through one of the six doors. When we learn about the truth of impermanence and ponder over it, we can be urged to persevere with awareness of the characteristics of dhammas which appear. If sati can be aware of the characteristics of dhammas and paññå investigates them, over and over again, they can be realized as they are: as not self, as only nåma and rúpa appearing one at a time through the six doors. ******* Nina. #91434 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:59 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... jonoabb Hi Tep > In my experience kusala does NOT arise without controlled action > (through desire, will or intent) to restraint the sensing faculties > (from akusalas) along with effort to generate desire, endeavor, > activate persistence, uphold and exert my intent for the arising of > kusalas that have not yet arisen. ALSO maintaining, increasing, > developing, and culminating of the already-arisen kusalas still > require desire, endeavor, persistence, upholding and exertion of my > intent. No intention, no action. No kusala action; zero gain of > kusala. It seems to me that if this were the case there'd be no spontaneous kusala, no politeness without first thinking about being polite, no finding yourself thinking about a point of dhamma without having intended to do so, etc. Another implication would seem to be no kusala by children and of course animals. Have I understood what you're saying correctly? As far as the texts are concerned, I don't think there's anything that says that kusala cannot arise without there first being the conventional kind of preparatory effort or striving that I mentioned. How do you see it? Jon #91435 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:01 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path jonoabb Hi Suan Thanks for the Pali passage with the reference to "attanomati". My thanks also to Sarah for tracking down the translation, which is as follows: "For a teacher such as this, who knows the texts, guards the heritage, and protects the tradition, will follow the teachers' opinion rather than his own [S: *na attanomatiko hoti*]." However, this passage (which I agree with) doesn't support the comments you made to me in your earlier post, namely: "When we made categorical statements based on our own personal opinions or conclusions, we should also declare that those statements were of such nature. "Such a disclaimer would help us to distinguish between the Buddha's teachings and non-Buddhist teachings. "Our own personal opinions should not be made to appear as though representing the Buddha's teachings or Buddhist teachings." I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. So now I have some questions for you, regarding those comments. My questions are: Are you sure about your above statement, which is very categorical and final-sounding? Where did you get that idea or that teaching from? Or is it your own personal conviction (attanomati)? If that idea was not your own personal conviction, it would help if you could name the source and cite the relevant statements from that source. Looking forward to seeing your answers ;-)) Jon #91436 From: shyamtagade@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 am Subject: UPOSATHA DAY shyamtagade Dear dhamma brothers and sisters, Namo Buddhaya! 1. Today is a day of UPOSATHA observance. My best wishes to all those who are practising Uposatha Atthasila today. 2. Let us strive diligently to practise the eight precepts strictly and to live like arhants during the period of uposatha. 3. When we are well established in virtue (sila), it helps us to practise concentration (samadhi) and to develop understanding (panna). With metta, Shyam Tagade, IAS. #91437 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path jonoabb Hi Suan A comment first on your closing remark: > Proper and fair `prosecution' could take place only when the > defendant's usage of the terms were understood as intended. :-) Well if you don't know how the term was used, how can you be so sure there's something to be prosecuted? It seems to me you've brought a charge that you now realise can't be proved without getting my further input ;-)) However, in the interests of discussion of the teachings, I'll answer the question (on condition that the answer not be used in evidence against me): > Now, Jon, your turn to clarify the term `dhammas' in your following > statement. > > "The path is developed by the gradual accrual of the understanding > of dhammas, and this is not something that occurs by virtue of > the "doing" of specific things." > > What do you mean by `dhammas'? By "dhammas" I mean citta, cetasika and rupa, or the khandhas, or the ayatanas, or the dhatus. Hoping this is answer meets the stringent Suan criteria of being sufficiently explicit but not too categorical ;-)) Jon #91438 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was it inevitable aeons ago that Alex would write this? jonoabb Hi Alex > What exactly does it mean "not subject to mastery." Does this imply > that there *is* limitied control of some aspects of impermanent > process by an impermanent process called 'volition' ? The only dhammas we can really speak of are those arising at the present moment. These, having arisen already, are not subject to control of any kind. Of course, the dhammas that are to arise in the future may have presently arising dhammas as one of their conditions (one among many). For example, kusala arising now can be a condition for kusala to arise in the future. But I wouldn't call that control. > > "Fatalism" on a different scale altogether. It refers I believe to > > the occurring of events in relation to a given individual. > > What about fatalism which says "what is going to happen will happen, > yet there isn't 'anyone' in absolute sense." In other words "what we > call a person, life and the world is merely a play of impersonal > elements without any selves or souls". It's difficult to discuss hypothetical statements like this (i.e., that are not the views of either of us). However, I can make a comment or two. The statement "what we call a person, life and the world is merely a play of impersonal elements without any selves or souls" seems fairly unobjectionable to me. Are you suggesting it is not in accordance with the teachings? The statement, "what is going to happen will happen" is one of those statements that could be read either way, so you'd really need to know the context. The statement "there isn't 'anyone' in absolute sense" would be in the same category, as I see it. But I don't see anything fatalistic in the idea that in the absolute sense there isn't "anyone". Do you? Jon #91439 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Thanks for the reply: Ph: "...The thing I don't understand and don't really need to understand now is this notion that if there is an , it must a form of wrong view that is harmful enough to be deemed contrary to the right path, to elicit somber warnings of 'one will go the wrong way' and so on that you hear in the recorded talks and in posts from certain people I am thinking of..." Scott: I think one *does* need to understand such a notion 'now.' If a Buddha sees things as they are, and then teaches this in various ways, I take it that there is a way that things are as they are. A wrong notion of the way things are can lead nowhere. The 'idea of a person doing something' does not conform to the way a Buddha sees things - only a concrete reading of vohaara-desanaa would lead one to believe this. It's enough for me to know that there is micchaa-magga. Since di.t.thi is first, di.t.thi is condition for subsequent action - right or wrong. Ph: "...And the notion that self involved in so-called 'formal meditation' derails the whole process because there are people doing activities. This idea that sakkaya ditthi involved, for example, for beginning meditators is somehow destructive of the mundane path is I guess what I meant by plucking right view out of thin air. I'm modest in my expectations in meditation because of my lifestyle, but still object to the grounds by which others are discouraged here..." Scott: I'm not sure what you mean by 'mundane path' in relation to 'meditation,' but no need to clarify. Jhaana occurs due to conditions, like everything else, as far as I understand it. I have no doubt regarding the reality of jhaana. I have no doubt either that jhaana doesn't just arise under any conditions. Even upacaara-samaadhi is said to require specific conditions to arise, let alone true absorption. Given the possibility of micchaa-samadhi, I'll steer clear. It takes strong sati and pa~n~naa to know the jhaana factors when they arise. Without this, in my opinion, there is no kusala bhaavaana. Who knows what is being developed? I don't think that the pursuit of jhaana is practical for lay people. Listening to 'meditators' is like listening to supporters of some sports team or participants in some sort of athletic endeavour. It's all 'go, team, go' and 'keep it up' and 'practise like your hair's on fire' and all that. 'Meditators' seem to be mistaking mundane but fancy experience for something meaningful and appear to be in a seemingly intense pursuit of the next fancy experience. They discuss the 'flavour' of the various levels of jhaana as if discussing fine wine. They discuss the movement between levels of jhaana as if discussing a dance routine. They speak as if they are totally in control of the whole process and seem to believe that the 'skill' is theirs to exercise. It is all about 'my meditation practise' and 'my meditation experience' and 'I'm a buddhist because I meditate' and 'she's not a buddhist because she doesn't meditate.' Its all about 'my attainment' and 'my skill.' Is this the result of 'meditation'? Is this detachment? If one sits to relax, that's one thing - it can be very relaxing, like yoga - but there ought to be no mistaking this for the development of kusala. No 'meditator' I've ever read on DSG has claimed to do anything but sit to relax, nor seemed to do anything but catalogue interesting experiences. If there are any jhaana masters left in the world we aren't hearing from them at DSG, that's for sure. And the point of cultivating jhaana is not for its own sake, that's for sure as well. Without liberating pa~n~naa, there would be nothing. This is not something to get caught up in, as far as I'm concerned. Ph: "...Again, maybe I'm confused but I feel pretty well grounded on conceptual right view...I do have moments of doubt about whether the whole Dhamma thing is not just another fake, a beautifully sublime fake, but yes, there are moments of doubt. THAT is when I wrestle with a wrong view that concerns me, not when I have notions of people doing things to try to be better etc. Want to get by those as well, but when a fellow has moments of doubting whether there is kamma and vipaka, really, sakkaya ditthi becomes something that one might eliminate in the long run, but is not on the top of the list. But, you know, getting back into Abhidhamma is bound to help, I think." Scott: The experience of doubt is related to the presence of unwise attention. Worry leads nowhere. Wouldn't the true test of being 'grounded in conceptual right view' be the nature of the dhammas such a view is condition for? Abhidhamma is not a 'practise' either. A consideration of dhammas takes place in the here-and-now without being controlled and is the purview of sati and pa~n~naa. A study of Abhidhamma can also be structured by whatever view underlies it. Rather than worry about a moment of doubt, perhaps such a moment can be known - can be an object of sati or pa~n~naa. In this way, there is nothing that needs to be 'done' because of such a moment. Talk to you later, Phil. Thanks for the 'last word.' Sincerely, Scott. #91440 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi TG, (& Howard0 --- On Tue, 14/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >What you are trying to say (I think) is that "Dhammas don't construct a self and are not associated with a self." By this approach, you are trying to preserve the "independent own characteristic reality" of "dhammas." .... S: Actually, no. It is dhammas that construct a self and are associated with self. In particular, it is the cittas accompanied by ditthi (wrong view), atta-sanna (perception of self), vitakka (thinking), lobha (attachment) and so on which 'construct'. No dhammas would mean no construction, no house-building. .... TG:> But seriously, if your method was so critical, the Buddha couldn't have figured it out and just said it clearly??? The Buddha couldn't come up with "ultimate realities"? The Buddha couldn't come up with "own characteristics" ? Something is seriously flawed. ... S: The Buddha taught about seeing, about visible object, about eye-sense, about contact, about all the various dhammas. You don't like the terms dhammas or realities, but dhammas, as in 'sabbe dhamma anatta', are what seeing is, what visible object is, what eye-sense is and so on. Seeing is not visible object. It has a different characteristic, a different set of conditions for its arising, a different function AND it can be known at this very moment. Metta, Sarah ====== #91441 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi James (& Howard), Nice to hear from you James and hope the new school's going well. --- On Tue, 14/10/08, buddhatrue wrote: --------- --------- ------ >James: ....In my crude manner, I would also like to add that the practice of compassion is impossible if you believe that people don't exist. As we each experience suffering, we recognize that everyone else also experiences that same suffering and we fell compelled to alleviate that suffering of others. This is very important to Buddhist practice as it leads to unselfish qualities and mind states. But, if you believe that, in actuality, I don't exist and you don't exist, the possiblity for compassion is impossible. In that sense, any mention of compassion is just lipservice and not real or genuine. .... S: We've been over this before, but I'd just like to point out that the Buddha had the greatest compassion of all and he is the one who taught us that all dhammas are anatta. I'd also like to say that I am one of the ones, as you well know, that believes, in actuality, there are no people. I still think about people as before. However, I also find that through understanding of the Buddha's teaching in this regard, compassion and kindness grow, not the contrary. This is because there is more understanding with regard to the various mental states and gradually less inclination to take such states for one's own. I know there seems to be a conflict when we say 'no person' but metta and compassion have person as object. However, at moments of metta and compassion, there is no wrong view of person at all. There is no idea that a person exists at such a moment. In the same way, the Buddha could think about and have compassion for everyone, but still have no illusion about there being anything other than namas and rupas in actuality. We don't need to go over this topic again - I know you don't wish to get drawn in, but you may wish to reflect on it (or not!). Metta (and not just lipservice either, James!!) Sarah ======== #91442 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was it inevitable aeons ago that this effects happens? truth_aerator Hi Jon, By Fatalism I mean that nothing can be changed. If Arhatship happens today or Aeons later is all due to unchangeble conditions. Best wishes, #91443 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Tue, 14/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S:It's well past my bed-time, but I'd like to respond to your message and at the same time apologise for any comments of mine which came across too strongly. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- >Howard: Thank you. :-) I do think that psychoanalysis of others, especially online analysis, is best avoided, and that we best stick with addressing issues, not people. In any case, I happily accept your apology. No doubt I have gotten personal in some posts to some members, and for this I apologize as well. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- - S: Thank you for your kind words re the apology, but I'd also like to briefly say that I was only discussing issues and not people. I apologised because my wording was rather srong and I could tell you'd taken offence or taken it personally. My point was that as soon as we say there are namas and rupas AND anything else at all in reality, the 'anything else' is imho, atta-view. Now, in fairness, you often say (and pretty strongly at times) that in your opinion whenever Nina, I or anyone else refers to cittas and cetasikas experiencing objects (as opposed to just 'the experiencing') that this is atta view. And then we have TG who sends me and others lengthy diatribes 1000 times stronger (j/k TG) suggesting that any mention of dhammas or realities shows our atta view. So, we all have our different understandings that we share as good friends. We're discussing the issues and I know that none of it is intended personally at all. I mean, TG and I still love each other:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #91444 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Han), --- On Mon, 13/10/08, Phil wrote: >>H: ... I have my own personal views of > anattaa. When someone abuses me I will say there is “no-Hanâ€?Eso > that I will not have anger towards the abuser. When I am meditating, > there is definitely “yes-Hanâ€?Ewho is meditating. If I am following > a wrong Path by having that kind of consideration, so be it! .... P:> This is just how I see it, Han. If you are on that wrong path, I am there with you. The Phil that is meditating is the observer who observes to some degree or other the way things come and go. Perhaps there will eventually be see through that observer, dissolving of it by wisdom. But if not it will still not have been a waste or harmful to have been better able to see things come and go thanks to that observer. .... S: Thank you for confirming this. Often when it is suggested that there is self in formal practice/meditating, there is a denial and we're told it's just like when we have discussions. With regard to the 'using self to get rid of self', I agree with you that there's bound to be plenty of self-view around. However, surely it's not the moments of self-view (akusala) which leads to right-view (kusala), but the wise attention in between the self-view and other akusala? Enjoying your follow-up discussions with Scott. Metta, Sarah ======= #91445 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta sarahprocter... Dear Atula, Welcome to DSG! --- On Mon, 13/10/08, www.atulasiriwardane.com wrote: Atula> I use it the other way around. When I act with others I use "Yes-Atula.. ." that I am reponsible for those deeds of mine. When I meditate I try to feel the truth that I am just a part of this universal flow. Not only meditating even while I feel strong sensations, pains etc. .... S: Interesting. Also, Han's and Phil's example of being abused reminds me of the story of the lay-disciple Atula in the Buddha's time and these Dhp verses which I quoted before with a summary of the background: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40069 >Verse 227: It is not new, O Atula! It has always been done from ancient times. They blame one who is silent, they blame one who speaks much, they blame one who speaks little. There is no one in this world who is not blamed. Verse 228: There never has been, there never will be, nor is there now, anyone who is always blamed or always praised. Verses 229 - 230: If the wise praise him day after day, knowing him to be truly faultless, wise and endowed with knowledgc and virtue, who would blame him, who is like a nikkha of pure gold? The devas praise him; he is praised even by the great Brahmas.< .... S: Always praise and blame:-) Are you named after this Atula? Would you care to introduce yourself and tell us where you live? Metta, Sarah p.s. Also, it's helpful if (new) members make it clear whom they are addressing and sign off with your name. For others, please remember to trim messages if you tend to forget:-) ========== #91446 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anupubbasikkhaa sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- On Mon, 13/10/08, han tun wrote: >Han: Although you do not have the problem with my quote, I take it that you disagree with the interpretation of the Burmese Sayadaw. I will not say anything against your views because I always respect the opinion of others, but I will follow the interpretation of the Burmese Sayadaw. .... S: I don't recall any disagreement with the interpretation you gave. I thought I just took it a little deeper, that was all. I'm also planning to come back to the Udana quote. Was there anything in what I wrote which you disagreed with? Metta, Sarah ======= #91447 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- On Mon, 13/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: T:> ... Because there are two holes in the proposed idea. >1) The Arahant Sariputta, whom you quoted, talked to another monk (or monks) who had Dhamma-vinaya, and the 'voice of another' clearly meant voice of an arahant or the Teacher. Can this idea for developing real-time, here & now, "right understanding of realities" be implemented by a householder who has no saddha in the Buddha and the Dhamma? How can they have saddha if there is no arahant around? Without unshakable saddha in the Buddha and His Teachings wise attention is starved of food (ahaara) for its support [AN 10.61 Avijja Sutta]. .... S: Saddha only becomes unshakable when right understanding has developed and enlightenment occurred (i.e at stage of sotapanna). There is no arahant around, but we have the Teachings, we have the Dhamma to be considered wisely. So we can read about, consider and discuss more on the various realities (as we've been doing in this thread) and this is the way that saddha will grow. Otherwise it will be what James would call 'fake-saddha', if there's no understanding of the Teachings at all. I remember we discussed the Avijja Sutta before in this regard. Was there anything else? .... T:> 2) In case of an unusual Buddhist who has unshakable saddha in the Buddha and the Dhamma, still that is not enough as food to support "right view" samma-ditthi or "right understanding of realities". And you know that there are 9 knowledges (~nana) before stream-entry, starting with namarupa pariccheda ~naana. The Vism suggests in chapter XVIII how to develop this first knowledge. So we have a long way to go before we can rest the issue. .... S: Again, I don't believe there can be unshakable saddha without the development of the path. I believe that all the references in the suttas to this kind of saddha are to the sotapanna. So the beginning is the understanding of namas and rupas now. .... T:> The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we have miles to go before we can sleep. ... S: Very poetic, Tep:-). Let me end with repeating some of the Buddha's 'poetry' which Rinze quoted the other day, as it's relevant to our head hairs and ignorant girl/woman discussion which I've enjoyed: R:>The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, -- perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." - The Root Sequence MN 01.< Metta, Sarah p.s. By the way, I was interested to hear your daughter will be in Afghanistan for a couple of months! Also, please share any comments from your discussion with Phil. Perhaps he'll have his Abhidhamma cap on:-). =========== #91448 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariy... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Tep) - In a message dated 10/14/2008 5:00:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Tep > In my experience kusala does NOT arise without controlled action > (through desire, will or intent) to restraint the sensing faculties > (from akusalas) along with effort to generate desire, endeavor, > activate persistence, uphold and exert my intent for the arising of > kusalas that have not yet arisen. ALSO maintaining, increasing, > developing, and culminating of the already-arisen kusalas still > require desire, endeavor, persistence, upholding and exertion of my > intent. No intention, no action. No kusala action; zero gain of > kusala. It seems to me that if this were the case there'd be no spontaneous kusala, no politeness without first thinking about being polite, no finding yourself thinking about a point of dhamma without having intended to do so, etc. Another implication would seem to be no kusala by children and of course animals. Have I understood what you're saying correctly? As far as the texts are concerned, I don't think there's anything that says that kusala cannot arise without there first being the conventional kind of preparatory effort or striving that I mentioned. How do you see it? Jon ================================ Jon, I think you are correct in part. We cannot "simply decide" to want to be kind nor to want to be polite etc. or to act at least partly free of self-serving motive, and immediately get that result. However, wanting to be "a better person" can lead us into willful activities of study, contemplation, ongoing mindfulness, guarding the senses, and clearing and calming the mind that will cultivate good habits and inclinations, so that the arising of wholesome mind states more and more becomes the norm. If we think in terms not of final goals resulting at once, directly from immediate will, but in terms of cultivation over time, the idea of kusala arising with will as a condition is quite natural. Our inclinations are modifiable by will, but not in a simplistic "I will it, so it happens" way, and not by willing alone. Spontaneous kusala is arises due to habit and inclination forged in a kiln with intentions as fuel and hammered out by right effort. With metta, Howard /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #91449 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ...Rode hard, tied up wet to a tree. sarahprocter... Hi Colette & all, (sorry for the delayed response) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, et al, > > I'm right with ya baby! Thinking is nama and that's all it is. ... S: Rock on, colette. You got it! ... C: >Tree > is an exterior label that was conditioned into the mind to identify > the visible object/color, etc. A blind person cannot see color, etc, > but that blind person can directly link the label "tree" to the > sensations it receives by other means. .... S: Yes, well said. It is thinking and perception that link "tree" to what has been seen and sensed, i.e visible object/colour, etc, just as you say. This kind of thinking and perception is conditioned, remembering all past labels. ... C: >Can a person that has sight, > vision, eye-consciousness, visualize what a blind person mentally > sees when they cognize the label for a tree? ... S: Actually, we all live in our own worlds of seeing, hearing and so on. We can only ever think about others and their worlds. ... C: >I'm right with ya baby! Concepts are not real, they are merely labels > to satisfy the Name & Form functions of Buddhist doctrine. Which came > first the Name given to the form or the Form which caused the name? > Where are those chickens? .... S: I don't think we've ever had so much agreement, Colette! Yes, concepts are not real, but I think you're confused by the translation of nama and rupa as "Name & Form". Nama as in nama and rupa refers to realities, not concepts or names. Eye-consciousness is nama, visible object is rupa. Here I'm referring to the realities, not the names or labels. Thanks again for your kind comments. Metta, Sarah > > Sarah: I don't think so. The thinking is naama, but the > concept 'tree' or concept about anything else is not real, so it's > not naama. #91450 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method (or lack of it) of Patipatti, anupubbasikkhaa sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Wed, 8/10/08, Alex wrote: > >A: "Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual > inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in >the > same way this discipline of Dhamma (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual > training (anupubbasikkhaa ), a gradual performance > (anupubbakiriyaa ) , a > gradual progression (anupubbapatipadaa ), with a penetration to >gnosis > only after a long stretch." â€"Udana, 5.5 > > >Please describe "gradual training", "gradual >performance" , "gradual > progression" ? > .... >S: From the commentary (Masefield transl.): > >"It is the three trainings [adhisiila, adhicitta, adhipa~n~naa] >that are included by means of 'progressive traingings', the thirteen >things constituting the limbs of asceticism [dhuta"ngadhammaa] by >means of 'progressive obligations' , ... A: Can you please describe these progressive trainings, 13 things constituting the limbs of ascetism by means of progressive obligations? ... S: The three trainings refer to the development of the path and the purification of sila, samadhi and panna at the stages of sotapanna, anagami and arahat. The 13 dhutangas (ascetic practices) are the observances for monks. Lots of detail given in Vism 11. .... A:> Sounds like step-by-step training to me. ... S: It depends whether there is any idea of anyone taking steps:-) ... > >S: whilst it is the seven contemplations, the eighteen great >vipassanaas, the thirty-eight classifications of objects(forming >meditation subjects)[40 kamma.t.thaanas minus kasinas of light >(aloka) and space (aakaasa)], and the thirty-seven things that are >constituents of enlightenment [4 satipatthanas, 4 padhaanas etc] >that are included by means of 'progressive practices'. A:>Great that you are talking about progressive practice. After all, you can't do 7 contemplations, 18 great vipassanans and so on at exactly the same time. You've got to do them step by step. ... S: I was merely giving the detail in the Udana commentary. I'm glad you like this commentary so much. Perhaps I can quote it more often to you:-)). No, *you* can't do any of them. When there are conditions for particular cittas to arise, they arise. That's all. If right understanding has been sufficiently developed, there are conditions for the vipassana nanas to occur. But no one can ever *do* them. .... >>S: 'There being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge' (na >aayataken' eva a~n~naapa.tivedho) : there not being, unlike the >hopping motion of the frog, that known as penetration of arahantship >without one's having, right from the very beginning, first worked >towards the fulfilment of morality and so on[siilapuuranaadii ni], >meaning rather that attainment of >arahantship comes only after one has successively fulfilled >morality, concentration and insight." .... A: Right. The path is gradual, a worldling can't just suddenly wake up as an Arahant. ... S: Right, we agree !!!!! there has to be the gradual development, the gradual training. Metta, Sarah ========= #91451 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Herman, I meant to add a brief comment on this (#90698): > > C: Nope! ;-) Close your eyes. Now what do you see? An expanse of brown or > > black. > > > Herman:> 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. ... S: Isn't this the work of sanna? Metta, Sarah ======= #91452 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/14/2008 9:13:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Tue, 14/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S:It's well past my bed-time, but I'd like to respond to your message and at the same time apologise for any comments of mine which came across too strongly. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- >Howard: Thank you. :-) I do think that psychoanalysis of others, especially online analysis, is best avoided, and that we best stick with addressing issues, not people. In any case, I happily accept your apology. No doubt I have gotten personal in some posts to some members, and for this I apologize as well. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- - S: Thank you for your kind words re the apology, but I'd also like to briefly say that I was only discussing issues and not people. I apologised because my wording was rather srong and I could tell you'd taken offence or taken it personally. My point was that as soon as we say there are namas and rupas AND anything else at all in reality, the 'anything else' is imho, atta-view. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: IMO, there IS nothing other than paramattha dhammas, but they interrelate and function in discernable groups/collections, acting in concert. Recognizing this is not atta-view, and it neither presumes nor imposes agency on the part of such collections. ---------------------------------------------------- Now, in fairness, you often say (and pretty strongly at times) that in your opinion whenever Nina, I or anyone else refers to cittas and cetasikas experiencing objects (as opposed to just 'the experiencing') that this is atta view. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Precisely because this terminology imposes agency and the idea of actors. When I say this, my intention isn't to claim that you, Nina, or others are enmeshed in sense-of-self , but to point out what I consider to be dangerous language usage, agency terminology that can turn the mind towards atta-view. I think I'm consistent in this matter. And if I'm not, well, I should be. --------------------------------------------------- And then we have TG who sends me and others lengthy diatribes 1000 times stronger (j/k TG) suggesting that any mention of dhammas or realities shows our atta view. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: But, hey, but who's comparing?! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ So, we all have our different understandings that we share as good friends. We're discussing the issues and I know that none of it is intended personally at all. I mean, TG and I still love each other:-). -------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) ------------------------------------------ Metta, Sarah ========================== With metta, Howard #91453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-okt-2008, om 15:12 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Sarah: For example, each rupa is different and distinct, whether it > be past, > future, present, internal, external, gross, subtle etc, yet each > one is rupa > khandha. > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- - > Howard: > No, Sarah. That is a confusing misuse of language that often occurs on > DSG. Each rupa is not at all a khandha - it is an individual, not a > heap. The > collection of all rupas is a khandha, but not any single rupa. ------ N: Howard, I think it important to discuss more on the five khandhas. I am thinking of the study of Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, about the khandhas, and I quote: Thus a khandha or group consists of conditioned dhammas that resemble each other. Another meaning of a whole: taking dhammas as a mass, assuming a self by failing to analyse them as different namas and rupas. We read in Vis. 213: < for there are those people who, while teachable, have fallen into assuming a self among the five aggregates owing to failure to analyze them;... ------- N: As to the expression, by non-analysis (abhedena), the Tiika states that this means: by not analysing the khandhas, beginning with ruupa, by taking them together as a mass (pi.n.da). As to the expression, assuming a self (attagaaha), the Tiika states that they have fallen into the flood of wrong view (di.t.thogha)by the assuming of a self as mentioned. ---------- Text Vis.: and the Blessed One is desirous of releasing them from the assumption by getting them to see how the [seeming] compactness of mass [in the five aggregates] is resolved; --------- N: The Tiika explains that seeing the resolution of the mass or whole (of the five khandhas) is done by distinguishing (vivecento) ruupa from aruupa (naama)....> Thus, we believe that a person exists by failing to see that what we call a person is nama and rupa, or five khandhas that arise and fall away. So long as we take nama and rupa together, we believe in a self. ------- Nina #91454 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:45 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path abhidhammika Dear Jon, Sarah, Nina, Scott D, Mike N, Tep, Howard, Alex, Paul, Herman How are you? Jon wrote in response to Visuddhimagga passage: "However, this passage (which I agree with) doesn't support the comments you made to me in your earlier post, namely: "When we made categorical statements based on our own personal opinions or conclusions, we should also declare that those statements were of such nature." Suan replied: I offered the Visuddhimagga passage in question because it contains the term `attanomatika'. I did that because you requested me to provide some textual reference to that term `attanomati'. Here is your original request. "While my sentence is being considered, would you mind providing some textual reference (with translation) to this term "attanomati", as it's new to me, apart from earlier usage by yourself." I did not offer the Visuddhimagga passage in support of my comments made on your claim: "there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path." In fact, I even wrote to you the following. "But, as the statement in question was your own personal opinion and not a Buddhist teaching, there was no need to involve examples from the Buddhist texts." Jon also wrote: So now I have some questions for you, regarding those comments. My questions are: (Are you sure about your above statement, which is very categorical and final-sounding? Where did you get that idea or that teaching from? Or is it your own personal conviction (attanomati)? If that idea was not your own personal conviction, it would help if you could name the source and cite the relevant statements from that source.) Looking forward to seeing your answers ;-)) Suan replied: Where are your questions, Jon? I did see my previous questions to you. Those questions were asked in the context of your statement below. "there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path." Jon, we have not dealt with your above statement yet. As you admitted in your reply post, you did not have the source for your statement. As you put it: "No particular source. It's a conclusion come to rather than something read or heard somewhere. ... Hoping this answers your questions." So I wrote: "The answer you gave belongs to the category of attanomati (personal opinion, personal conviction, or personal conclusion as you put it)." I was merely stating a fact, namely, that you presented your own personal opinion, not a Buddhist teaching. So, Jon, what are your questions and in what context? Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #91455 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/14/2008 11:04:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 14-okt-2008, om 15:12 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Sarah: For example, each rupa is different and distinct, whether it > be past, > future, present, internal, external, gross, subtle etc, yet each > one is rupa > khandha. > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- - > Howard: > No, Sarah. That is a confusing misuse of language that often occurs on > DSG. Each rupa is not at all a khandha - it is an individual, not a > heap. The > collection of all rupas is a khandha, but not any single rupa. ------ N: Howard, I think it important to discuss more on the five khandhas. I am thinking of the study of Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, about the khandhas, and I quote: Thus a khandha or group consists of conditioned dhammas that resemble each other. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, exactly so! -------------------------------------------------------- Another meaning of a whole: taking dhammas as a mass, assuming a self by failing to analyse them as different namas and rupas. We read in Vis. 213: < for there are those people who, while teachable, have fallen into assuming a self among the five aggregates owing to failure to analyze them;... ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is another issue entirely. ----------------------------------------------------- ------- N: As to the expression, by non-analysis (abhedena), the Tiika states that this means: by not analysing the khandhas, beginning with ruupa, by taking them together as a mass (pi.n.da). As to the expression, assuming a self (attagaaha), the Tiika states that they have fallen into the flood of wrong view (di.t.thogha)by the assuming of a self as mentioned. ---------- Text Vis.: and the Blessed One is desirous of releasing them from the assumption by getting them to see how the [seeming] compactness of mass [in the five aggregates] is resolved; --------- N: The Tiika explains that seeing the resolution of the mass or whole (of the five khandhas) is done by distinguishing (vivecento) ruupa from aruupa (naama)....> Thus, we believe that a person exists by failing to see that what we call a person is nama and rupa, or five khandhas that arise and fall away. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: A person is a dynamic collection of interrelated dhammas, of namas & rupas. That is exactly the case. That means that a person is not a single thing, not an individual, not an agent, but a mere collection of impersonal phenomena, all fleeting, conditioned, and without self. ---------------------------------------------- So long as we take nama and rupa together, we believe in a self. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you mean by that. The term 'self' has a specific meaning, namely a core, essence, inherent identity, or "soul" in anything. There is none to be found in anything, including the (distinguishable, BTW) namarupic flows we call "persons." The fact of not-self does not imply nothing at all. The opposite of substantialism is nihilism, but reality is neither of these, and the Dhamma asserts neither of these. We go for refuge to the Buddha, his Dhamma, and the (Aryia) Sangha, every one of which a collection of dhammas, with the first being a person and the last a group of persons, and every one empty of self, empty of own being, empty of individuality, and empty of agency. ---------------------------------------------- Nina ============================= With metta, Howard #91456 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Howard In a message dated 10/14/2008 8:25:35 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: And then we have TG who sends me and others lengthy diatribes 1000 times stronger (j/k TG) suggesting that any mention of dhammas or realities shows our atta view. .................................................. TG: Interesting discussion. Anyway, It is in the 'manner' that you discuss elements and aggregates that leads me and others to highly question whether you are injecting self-view into what you insist on calling -- "Ultimate Realities with THEIR OWN characteristics." The fault, IMO, is not ours for our suspicions; but a substantialist approach toward phenomena that sees it as "its own" thing. This to me indicates you have missed the heart of what Dependent Arising entails for phenomena. Oh, one more thing from this post Sarah... You and Howard discussed... S. My point was that as soon as we say there are namas and rupas AND anything else at all in reality, the 'anything else' is imho, atta-view. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: IMO, there IS nothing other than paramattha dhammas, but they interrelate and function in discernable groups/collections, acting in concert. Recognizing this is not atta-view, and it neither presumes nor imposes agency on the part of such collections. END Could the "anything else" be Nibbana? At any rate, self-view is tightly associated with grasping after the reality of phenomena...one way or another...it doesn't really matter much. If the mind is detached from phenomena, it is far less likely being tied up with self-view. I see you as massively tied up with "dhammas" so that is another reason for questioning a self-view. Self-view is not just something you can easily turn on and off. You can't just say, I believe in "dhammas" as ultimate realities, therefore I don't have self-view because I believe there is no person. That position alone has done ZERO to eliminate self view. Its just a work in progress...but perhaps a "work" leading in the wrong direction. Personally, I think "your" self-view is just "hiding" in those "dhammas." Let's make this a shorter than usual diatribe. Too late I guess. :-P LOL TG OUT #91457 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:11 am Subject: Twisted 'wisdom'? truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > ... > S: It depends whether there is any idea of anyone taking steps:-) > ... >No, *you* can't do any of them. When there are conditions for >particular cittas to arise, they arise. That's all. If right >understanding has been sufficiently developed, there are conditions >for the vipassana nanas to occur. But no one can ever *do* them. > .... According to that logic one shouldn't (and can't) restrain one's evil impulses because that would affirm self view?? What if, G-d forbid, someone were to get an impulse to commit a heineous crime? Should one do one's best at restraining? Somehow what you are saying seems to be relevant to the Arahant, but not us. Best wishes, #91458 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Twisted 'wisdom'? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/14/2008 12:11:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: According to that logic one shouldn't (and can't) restrain one's evil impulses because that would affirm self view?? What if, G-d forbid, someone were to get an impulse to commit a heineous crime? Should one do one's best at restraining? ========================== I noted with interest your writing "G-d." Do you have a Jewish background? With metta, Howard #91459 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. TGrand458@... Hi Sarah (and Howard) In a message dated 10/14/2008 6:40:03 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: The Buddha taught about seeing, about visible object, about eye-sense, about contact, about all the various dhammas. You don't like the terms dhammas or realities, but dhammas, as in 'sabbe dhamma anatta', are what seeing is, what visible object is, what eye-sense is and so on. Seeing is not visible object. It has a different characteristic, a different set of conditions for its arising, a different function AND it can be known at this very moment. Metta, Sarah .................................................................. TG: I don't like the term "dhammas" because I think you have contaminated the term. When you use it, it is impossible to disassociate it from meaning "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." Even above, you can't help yourself but put in "realities" as its translation. That is heavily ontologically "bent" toward a substantialist viewpoint. A substantialist viewpoint IMO is tantamount to a "self viewpoint." Seeing cannot be known without visible object. Seeing does not have a "different set of conditions." For "visible object" is part of "seeing's" "set of conditions. Seeing cannot have a separate characteristic, because visible object is part and parcel of "seeing's characteristic." Not fully different, not fully the same. But interacting and interrelated yes. Phenomena cannot be understood for what they are with this artificial separation. Nothing is "their own." "Their own" view is a flawed view. What is experienced are not individual things of "their own," but a conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha. So best to detach from phenomena, and not delight in the identifying of it. TG Diatribetically OUT #91460 From: "connie" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:22 am Subject: Vism.XVII,306 nichiconn Path of Purity, pp.703-4: And because from the difficulty to understand that mode and that period {avatthaa in yad-avatthaa} in which ignorance is cause of the various activities, the causal relation of ignorance to the activities is a profound matter; and the same with the profundity of the cause-relation of activities ... birth to old-age-and-death - therefore is this wheel of becoming profound in doctrine. Thus is herein the profundity in doctrine. For doctrine is a name for cause, as it is said: "Knowledge in respect of the cause is the analysis of doctrine." {Vibha"nga, p.293.} (#91424) #91461 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Twisted 'wisdom'? truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 10/14/2008 12:11:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > According to that logic one shouldn't (and can't) restrain one's >evil > impulses because that would affirm self view?? What if, G-d >forbid, > someone were to get an impulse to commit a heineous crime? Should >one > do one's best at restraining? > ========================== > I noted with interest your writing "G-d." Do you have a Jewish > background? > > With metta, > Howard I used to study a certain kind of Jewish Mysticism, Oy vey... Best wishes, #91462 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... visitorfromt... Hi Jon (TG, Alex), - This reply is a review of the Buddha's Teaching on samma vayama (right effort). MN 141: Sacca Vibhanga Sutta "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort." I just used the key words in the definition of "right effort" above in the following reply to you : >Tep: > In my experience kusala does NOT arise without controlled action > (through desire, will or intent) to restraint the sensing faculties > (from akusalas) along with effort to generate desire, endeavor, > activate persistence, uphold and exert my intent for the arising of > kusalas that have not yet arisen. ALSO maintaining, increasing, > developing, and culminating of the already-arisen kusalas still > require desire, endeavor, persistence, upholding and exertion of my > intent. No intention, no action. No kusala action; zero gain of > kusala. T: In short : a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent in all four cases: 1. for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen 2. for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen 3. for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen 4. for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. ................................ Jon: It seems to me that if this were the case there'd be no spontaneous kusala, no politeness without first thinking about being polite, no finding yourself thinking about a point of dhamma without having intended to do so, etc. Another implication would seem to be no kusala by children and of course animals. Have I understood what you're saying correctly? T: You say these 3 cases indicate "spontaneous kusala" that can arise without intention or thinking. First, let me ask a question: How did the Lord define 'kusala' ? According to the Buddha, kusala is to be developed and akusala is to be abandoned [AN 2.19: Kusala Sutta]. Siila, samadhi, pa~n~na are kusala. They are not spontaneous occurrences; they must be developed. Greed(lobha), aversion(dosa), delusion(moha) are akusala. We all have them, yet they are not spontaneous. They must be abandoned because they don't go away easily. You do not think about "a point of dhamma" without having listened to the Dhamma (or reading, discussing it) before. Once learned, the Dhamma becomes a part of perception or memory that is recollected when there is a condition (e.g. 'contact' via eye, ear, ..., mind) and mano-sa~n~na-cetana. With perception there is vitakka and vicara (thinking). No spontaneity. "What is the cause of unskillful resolves? Their cause, too, has been stated, and they are said to be perception-caused. Which perception? — for perception has many modes & permutations. Any sensuality- perception, ill will-perception or harmfulness-perception: That is the cause of unskillful resolves." "What is the cause of skillful resolves? Their cause, too, has been stated, and they are said to be perception-caused." [MN 78] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html Children and animals must be taught to be kind and obedient, otherwise they are not kind or obdient. Once they have developed the taught skill, such 'kusala' is retained in the memory (a part of perception). The trained perception of kusala will accordingly condition a thought (a recollection of the trained skill) to guide their future action to be kind and obedient. No spontaneity. Study MN 8 : Sallekha Sutta; The Discourse on Effacement for deeper understanding of kusala/akusala and how to develop kusala to perfection. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html ...................................... Jon: As far as the texts are concerned, I don't think there's anything that says that kusala cannot arise without there first being the conventional kind of preparatory effort or striving that I mentioned. How do you see it? T: Read the above elaboration I made; that is how I see it : "A monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent" in all four cases in order to prevent akusalas from arising, to abandon an arisen akusala, to condition kusalas that have not yet arisen, and to develop an arisen kusala further to perfection. Reveiew MN 8, MN 78 and MN 141. May you always study the Buddha's Teachings with yoniso-manasikara, Tep === #91463 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... truth_aerator Hi Jon, TG, Tep, Scott, KenH, Sarah and all, > "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Hi Jon (TG, Alex), - > > This reply is a review of the Buddha's Teaching on samma vayama >(right effort). > Tep you are correct. There are too many one sided Buddhist teachings being taught today. Some insist that Buddhism is all about non-doing, non-striving, etc and etc. However when you actually read sutta pitaka you *will* find a large number of suttas that *do* talk quite a bit about energy, effort, striving; and in such a strong language that it seems quite unlikely that it meant anything else. In fact I don't believe that it meant other than what it said regarding effort. Best wishes, #91464 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-okt-2008, om 17:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Another meaning of a whole: taking dhammas as a mass, assuming a > self by > failing to analyse them as different namas and rupas. > We read in Vis. 213: > < for there are those people who, while teachable, have fallen into > assuming a self among the > five aggregates owing to failure to analyze them;... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is another issue entirely. ------ N: I think that we do not see eye to eye as to the khandhas. I find this subject very important, and I think the khandhas should be seen as related to this moment. Question: we agree that the khandhas are past, present, future. They are arising and falling away, do you agree? Is seeing of this moment a khandha, and if so, which one? Nina. #91465 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. truth_aerator Hello Nina, Howard and all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > N: I think that we do not see eye to eye as to the khandhas. I find > this subject very important, and I think the khandhas should be seen > as related to this moment. Khandas must be seen related to the moment and the principle of their inconstancy, unsatisfactoriness and selfness must be seen and applied to past, present and the future. > Question: we agree that the khandhas are past, present, future. They > are arising and falling away, do you agree? Arising, persisting and ceasing. > Is seeing of this moment > a khandha, and if so, which one? > Nina. One of the nama groups or vinnana+sanna+vedana, khandas. IMHO Best wishes, #91466 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Twisted 'wisdom'? truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > ========================== > I noted with interest your writing "G-d." Do you have a Jewish > background? > > With metta, > Howard I studied a certain Jewish Tradition. It is quite interesting how many simularities there was with DSG in that particular interpretation of the tradition... The division of Ultimate Vs Conventional interpretation of the suttas seem to be similiar to PARDES system of comy. PaRDeS: peshat = simple, plain meaning Remez = deep meaning, hints Derez and Sod = hidden meaning. As you probably can guess, I took issues with the reinterpretation of classical texts in the "Ultimate" language (since that gave the Rav the ability to twist the teachings as he wanted). I also had disagreements about the historical issues of certain book, just like here. In that particular tradition, like here, there was this contempt for 'meditation'.... :( and emphasis on group study of certain very technical texts as verbous and pompous as Abh.... Heck there was also a sort of no-control teaching and almost, almost, anatta teaching.... Best wishes, #91467 From: han tun Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:23 pm Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa hantun1 Dear Sarah, > > Han: Although you do not have the problem with my quote, I take it that you disagree with the interpretation of the Burmese Sayadaw. I will not say anything against your views because I always respect the opinion of others, but I will follow the interpretation of the Burmese Sayadaw. > Sarah: I don't recall any disagreement with the interpretation you gave. I thought I just took it a little deeper, that was all. I'm also planning to come back to the Udana quote. Was there anything in what I wrote which you disagreed with? ---------- Han: To be honest, I did not know exactly whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with the interpretation of the Burmese Sayadaw. I thought you disagreed when I read the word “Howeverâ€? in the starting sentence of your comment [I don't have a problem with this. However, …] Now, I know that you were taking it a little deeper. I thank you very much for your clarification. No, I cannot point out exactly which I disagreed with. It was only that I could not follow your deep interpretation. I will study your comments again. I am happy that you are planning to come back to Udana quote. I look forward to it. Respectfully, Han #91468 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:47 pm Subject: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Hi All, - I have been studying the first jhana along with anapanasati for many years. The formula of the 1st jhana looks very simple: 'There is the case where a monk, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.' [DN 22] 'Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkam savicaaram viveka jampiitisukham pathamam jhaanam upsampajja viharati' But it has not been clear to me as to what the object of vitakka- vicaara is supposed to be. My guess is : it must be an object of meditation, for example in-and-out breath. But, do I perform 'vitakka and vicaara' on the breath regarding it being short & long, its beginning, middle, and ending? That sounds reasonable, yet there still is a nagging question: for what reason do the rapture & pleasure arise? It does not seem convincing to me that the knowing of short/long breath and its wholeness is enough to condition rapture & pleasure. But today I think I've found a more satisfying answer. The clue is in MN 78 : Samana-Mundika Sutta. Akusala vitakka ceases in the 1st jhana and the practice for cessation of akusala vitakka is the right effort (samma vayama). "And what are unskillful resolves? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will, on harmfulness. These are called unskillful resolves. What is the cause of unskillful resolves? Their cause, too, has been stated, and they are said to be perception-caused. Which perception? — for perception has many modes & permutations. Any sensuality- perception, ill will-perception or harmfulness-perception: That is the cause of unskillful resolves. "Now where do unskillful resolves cease without trace? Their cessation, too, has been stated: There is the case where a monk, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. This is where unskillful resolves cease without trace. "And what sort of practice is the practice leading to the cessation of unskillful resolves? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the...development & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. "This sort of practice is the practice leading to the cessation of unskillful resolves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html ....................... So the clue is : The practice for the 1st jhana is the same as the practice "leading to the cessation of unskillful resolves" i.e. the right effort : generate desire, endeavor, arouse persistence, uphold & exert our intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the...development & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. The practice of right effort, however, is for people who have succeeded in cessation of unskillful habits (three wrong conducts : bodily, verbally, mentally,). I think the cessation of both the three wrong conducts and unskillful resolves(akusala vitakkas) means 'purification of virtues' as seen in Stream-winners. A very important implication of this conclusion is : you cannot attain the 1st jhana if your purification of virtues is not yet at the Stream-entry level ! Do you agree with me, friends? Yours truly, Tep === #91469 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Twisted 'wisdom'? upasaka_howard LOL! In a message dated 10/14/2008 12:41:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I used to study a certain kind of Jewish Mysticism, Oy vey... ============================ With metta (a.k.a., chesed), Howard #91470 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/14/2008 2:51:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 14-okt-2008, om 17:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Another meaning of a whole: taking dhammas as a mass, assuming a > self by > failing to analyse them as different namas and rupas. > We read in Vis. 213: > < for there are those people who, while teachable, have fallen into > assuming a self among the > five aggregates owing to failure to analyze them;... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is another issue entirely. ------ N: I think that we do not see eye to eye as to the khandhas. I find this subject very important, and I think the khandhas should be seen as related to this moment. Question: we agree that the khandhas are past, present, future. They are arising and falling away, do you agree? Is seeing of this moment a khandha, and if so, which one? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, Nina. The namas and rupas arise and fall away, and in so doing, the collections of them change; i.e., the aggregates change. An aggregate is a collection of phenomena, and no single one of the phenomena is. You ask whether seeing of this moment is a khandha. No, of course it is not a khandha, for it is a single nama. A khandha is a collection of phenomena, whereas the seeing of this moment is a single phenomenon. Nina, 'khandha' means "collection", and it must be distinguished from a single member of that collection. You are mixing the categories of individual and collection for no reason. This is illogical and imprecise language usage, and pointless. ------------------------------------------------------ Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard #91471 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Twisted 'wisdom'? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/14/2008 5:21:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > ========================== > I noted with interest your writing "G-d." Do you have a Jewish > background? > > With metta, > Howard I studied a certain Jewish Tradition. It is quite interesting how many simularities there was with DSG in that particular interpretation of the tradition... The division of Ultimate Vs Conventional interpretation of the suttas seem to be similiar to PARDES system of comy. PaRDeS: peshat = simple, plain meaning Remez = deep meaning, hints Derez and Sod = hidden meaning. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, yes, similar. --------------------------------------------- As you probably can guess, I took issues with the reinterpretation of classical texts in the "Ultimate" language (since that gave the Rav the ability to twist the teachings as he wanted). I also had disagreements about the historical issues of certain book, just like here. In that particular tradition, like here, there was this contempt for 'meditation'.... :( and emphasis on group study of certain very technical texts as verbous and pompous as Abh.... -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'd be interested in knowing what the particular tradition was and what these texts are. If you wish to let me know, perhaps you could write me off list. -------------------------------------------- Heck there was also a sort of no-control teaching and almost, almost, anatta teaching.... --------------------------------------------- Howard: Interesting. ------------------------------------------- Best wishes, ========================= With metta, Howard #91472 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. visitorfromt... Dear Sarah (Phil, Rinze), - Today I reflect again on the following comment I made and am sorry for finding fault with you (mildly). > >Tep: ...Because there are two holes in the proposed idea. Please pardon me for the one hole, two or more holes. My argument in general isn't perfect either. >Tep: Without unshakable saddha in the Buddha and His Teachings wise attention is starved of food (ahaara) for its support [AN 10.61 Avijja Sutta]. >S: Saddha only becomes unshakable when right understanding has developed and enlightenment occurred (i.e at stage of sotapanna). >S: Again, I don't believe there can be unshakable saddha without the development of the path. I believe that all the references in the suttas to this kind of saddha are to the sotapanna. > I remember we discussed the Avijja Sutta before in this regard. Was there anything else? ..................... T: You're insisting that unshakable saddha only belongs to Stream- winner or a higher level of ariya-puggalas. It is relative. Yes, a sotapanna's saddha is solidly unshakable in comparison to puthujjanas. But what I talked about in the last post was to emphasize that saddha in AN 10.61 must be strong enough as the supporting condition for yoniso-manasikara and other "heavy-duty" dhammas on top of it. And I tell you, ignorance has its nutriment. It is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? The five hindrances... And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? The three forms of misconduct... And what is the nutriment for the three forms of misconduct? Lack of restraint of the senses... And what is the nutriment for lack of restraint of the senses? Lack of mindfulness & alertness... And what is the nutriment for lack of mindfulness & alertness? Inappropriate attention... And what is the nutriment for inappropriate attention? Lack of conviction... And what is the nutriment for lack of conviction? Not hearing the true Dhamma... And what is the nutriment for not hearing the true Dhamma? Associating with people who are not truly good.. [AN 10.61] ......................... >S: So the beginning is the understanding of namas and rupas now. T: I don't think so even a million years from now. ;-) >S: p.s. By the way, I was interested to hear your daughter will be in Afghanistan for a couple of months! Also, please share any comments from your discussion with Phil. Perhaps he'll have his Abhidhamma cap on:-). T: Thank you for the kind & polite interest. It isn't a great news to me that she has been ordered by the U.S. Air Force to perform the duty as a surgeon in that war zone. However, almost every other doctors have already been there. Fair deal. No complain. Phil has said that the discussion is not of interest to the DSG audience, and I agree. Tep === #91473 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James (& Howard), > > Nice to hear from you James and hope the new school's going well. James: It's going fine, thanks for asking. > > --- On Tue, 14/10/08, buddhatrue wrote: > --------- --------- ------ > .... > S: We've been over this before, but I'd just like to point out that the Buddha had the greatest compassion of all and he is the one who taught us that all dhammas are anatta. James: Yeah, but he never taught that people don't exist. I have yet to read a sutta where the Buddha states categorically that people don't exist. You really should provide a sutta if you are so sure of this. Aren't you even the slightest bit nervous that you are saying something which isn't true? You have such faith in Buddhaghosa? > > I'd also like to say that I am one of the ones, as you well know, that believes, in actuality, there are no people. I still think about people as before. However, I also find that through understanding of the Buddha's teaching in this regard, compassion and kindness grow, not the contrary. This is because there is more understanding with regard to the various mental states and gradually less inclination to take such states for one's own. James: The last sentence has nothing to do with the question of if people exist or not. I acknowledge that there are various mental states; I also acknowledge that these various mental states are mistakenly taken for a "self"- however, that has nothing to do with people existing or the feeling of compassion for supposedly non- existing people. > > I know there seems to be a conflict when we say 'no person' but metta and compassion have person as object. However, at moments of metta and compassion, there is no wrong view of person at all. There is no idea that a person exists at such a moment. James: When compassion has a person as object it is known that the person exists. \ In the same way, the Buddha could think about and have compassion for everyone, but still have no illusion about there being anything other than namas and rupas in actuality. James: If there are namas and rupas then there are people. What do you think people are composed of? Nothing? > > We don't need to go over this topic again - I know you don't wish to get drawn in, but you may wish to reflect on it (or not!). James: I just thought I would post on this one subject, because I think it needs to be gone over again and again. :-) > > Metta (and not just lipservice either, James!!) James: I know that your metta is sincere. The ironic thing Sarah is that you are a very compassionate person who recognizes the existence of people! You knew all of your students and individuals and cared about them as individuals. I have never seen an expression from you to support the idea that people don't exist. The only lipservice you give is to the notion that people don't exist when you don't really believe that or demonstrate that in daily life. > > Sarah > ======== > Metta, James #91474 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:50 pm Subject: Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta philofillet Hi Sarah and all (p.s to Scott) > S: Thank you for confirming this. Often when it is suggested that there is self in formal practice/meditating, there is a denial and we're told it's just like when we have discussions. Don't take this as any kind of confirmation of value, Sarah. I'm just ...er...mucking around. Actually, I was (stress on was, Tep is helping me to see the value of Ajahn Mon, who came before and was more of a purist) practicing in line with Ajahn Lee's style, popularized by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and there is, predicatbly, comfort with the idea of the observer. But I have heard it in other traditions, such as some Mahasi Sayadaw tradition teachers. I think it is inevitable that there is an observer at first, and yes, I'd agree that there is more "self?h involved in formal meditation than in discussion. Which doesn't make it less value, perhaps just more realistic about how deeply rooted sakkaya ditthi is.That observer is much more obvious than the one involved in discussion, who (sp to speak) is surely still there. But this is just my opinion and shouldn't be regarded as seriously as that of long time meditators who have studied with teachers and and know what they are talking about. > With regard to the 'using self to get rid of self', I agree with you that there's bound to be plenty of self-view around. However, surely it's not the moments of self-view (akusala) which leads to right-view (kusala), but the wise attention in between the self-view and other akusala? ?@Yes, that sounds right! metta, phil p.s I'm hoping to be away until Saturday, when I will continuing discussing the acrobat and the "in tune" suttas with Scott. Hi Scott, catch you then. #91475 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:37 pm Subject: Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta philofillet Hi Tep and all >(stress on was, Tep is > helping me to see the value of Ajahn Mun, who came before and was > more of a purist) Tep, sorry if I have put words into your mouth about Ajahn Mun or seem to have disparaged Ajahn Lee. That was not my intention, and I don't think that was what you wrote to me either. Yes, I will take this first little glitch as a good reminder to keep our discussion about meditation which was agreed to be offlist offlist! Thanks for your patience.... metta, phil #91476 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your reply. I have learnt some understanding of the text from you. You ask why my interest in this particular area. This is because I am very interested in both the formation of early Buddhist texts and the early Buddhist teachings (or the dhammas). About this, I will consider that the extant early Buddhist texts should be gradually developed in history from first and second councils. Regards, Thomas Law --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Thomas, (Nina & all), > > --- On Tue, 14/10/08, thomaslaw03 wrote: > >In the PTS version, Anguttara-nikaya III 237.14-19 (AN 5.194), it has > a list of just four angas: sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, abbhutadhamma > (i.e. angas nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8). > > Is it possible this list is an abbreviation of the entire set? > (i.e. '(1) sutta, (2) geyya, (3) veyyakarana, ... (9) Vedalla, (8) > abbhuta-dhamma' ). > ... > S: Yes, I believe it's just an abbreviation. Earlier in the same Book of 5s, the 9 angas have already been given in V, 73 (Bodhi transl): > > "It is said, Lord: One who lives by the Dhamma! One who lives by the Dhamma!' In what way, Lord, is a monk one who lives by the Dhamma?" > > "Here, monk, a monk masters the Dhamma - the discourses, mixed prose, expositions, verses, inspired utterances, brief sayings, birth stories, marvellous accounts, and miscellanies." > > As B.Bodhi's note says "This set of nine items was used to classify the Buddha's teachings at an early period but was later superseded by the classification into Pi.takas and Nikaayas." <....> #91477 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:48 pm Subject: All is Vanishing Transience! bhikkhu0 Friends: Not even as much as a Fingernail of Dust Lasts! At Savatthi. Seated to the side, a certain bhikkhu asked the Blessed One: Is there, Venerable Sir, any form, or any feeling, or any perception, or any construction, or any consciousness, that is permanent, stable, eternal, not a changing state, that will remain the same, just like eternity itself ? Then the Blessed One took up a tiny bit of soil on his fingernail and said to that bhikkhu: Bhikkhu, there is not even this much form, feeling, perception, construction, nor consciousness, that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, that will remain the same, just like eternity itself...!!! If there was this much form, feeling, perception, construction, or consciousness, that was permanent, stable, eternal, and not changing, this living of the Noble Life for the utterly complete elimination of all suffering, could not be made known... But because there is not even this much form, nor feeling, nor any perception, nor construction, nor consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the Noble Life for the complete elimination of all suffering can be made known... ... VANISHING Impermanent, Momentary; Are all phenomena existing. Whoever fully perceives this with Insight straightaway develops immunity to suffering. This is a way to freedom. Dhammapada 227 Experiencing the inevitable Break-Up of all Constructions! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya XXII (97); [III 147-9] 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 passing day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #91478 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta philofillet Hi again Sarah I wrote: > and yes, I'd > agree that there is more "self?h involved in formal meditation than > in discussion. Which doesn't make it less value, perhaps just more > realistic about how deeply rooted sakkaya ditthi is.That observer is > much more obvious than the one involved in discussion, who (sp to > speak) is surely still there. Surely stil there, and, in my opinion, subtly up to pannanic acrobatics (I?@love Howard's adjectives) as it leaps to, for example, have insight by distinguishing seeing from visible object and so on. So while I am admitting above that there is "self" involved in formal meditation for the beginner as far as I can see, that "self" is readily observable, and can perhaps or probably be broken down by wisdom, but the self that grasps for insight after or while listening to deep talks is a much slippier fish, and perhaps more harmful since almost invisible...or something like that! metta, phil #91479 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana lbidd2 Hi Tep, Tep: "A very important implication of this conclusion is : you cannot attain the 1st jhana if your purification of virtues is not yet at the Stream-entry level ! Do you agree with me, friends?" Larry: I disagree, but I don't have any textual back-up. It isn't necessary to experience nibbana before entering jhana. My own thought on jhana is that the "object" is tranquility. Cultivating a kasina or the breath is a way of entering tranquility. Noticing whether the breath is long or short is a way of letting go of extraneous thoughts and basically relaxing. But that relaxing takes an effort. Hence applied thought and sustained thought. Think of it as striking a bell and the bell resonating. It is how effort is applied to stay focused on the agenda. After awhile that effort is no longer necessary. One complication is that the breath sensations can also be an object of insight. You can't cultivate tranquility and insight at the same time, imo. You have to go one way or the other. However, insight leads to the experience of nibbana and nibbana is ultimately tranquility. So which ever way you go you end up at tranquility. Sorry, I don't have any thoughts on virtue. Larry #91480 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:35 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 3, no 7 nilovg Dear friends, The “Brahmavihåras” (Divine Abidings) which are mettå, karunå (compassion), muditå, altruistic joy) and upekkhå (equanimity) are among the meditation subjects of samatha, but they are qualities that should be developed in daily life. We often are in the company of other people or we are thinking of them. It is more valuable to think of others with kusala citta than with clinging or with aversion. When someone speaks unpleasant words to us we can think of him as a fellow- being who makes himself unhappy because of his defilements and then compassion can arise instead of anger. When we have more understanding of our own defilements as conditioned realities, we shall also see other people’s defilements as conditioned realities that do not belong to anyone. When we think of the benefit of those around us it will help us to be patient. We ourselves do not like to suffer, we want happiness, but it is the same with other people. People may let us down but don’t we let others down too, Bhante Dhammadhara remarked. He reminded us in a very direct way to develop mettå, saying: “What about the person sitting next to you? Are you really considerate of his welfare? Do you truly wish that he is happy and that he has no problems at home?” The “Visuddhimagga” (IX, 1,2) states about the development of mettå: “... To start with he should review the danger in hate and the advantage in patience. Why? Because hate has to be abandoned and patience attained in the development of this meditation subject and he cannot abandon unseen danger and attain unknown advantages....” We see that the Visuddhimagga emphasizes right understanding of the meditation subject. Attachment is the “near enemy” of mettå (Vis. IX, 98). Mettå is impartial love; it is not love only for one particular person, but it is kindness to all beings, no matter who they are, no matter whether we know them or whether they are strangers. We are attached to people and we also encourage them to be attached to us. We want to be well liked, we want to be object of clinging. Khun Sujin said: “It is kindness to others if we don’t cling to them or encourage them to be attached to us.” Mettå is love without any selfish motives. ****** Nina. #91481 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:38 pm Subject: Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, We should not only know the characteristic of vipåka which is more obvious, such as in the case of a pleasant or an unpleasant event, but also the characteristic of vipåka which is the experience through the senses of the manifold objects in daily life. If we understand that vipåkacitta which arises is the result of kamma we performed ourselves, can we still be angry with other people or blame them for the vipåka we receive? In the Scriptures we read about events in the lives of people of old who received different vipåkas. Also in the present time different events occur which clearly show that each person has to receive vipåka, the result of past kamma, but we cannot predict in which way it will appear. For example, a building may collapse and crush the owner so that he dies. A bomb is not the cause that the building collapses and crushes that man. His death is not caused by being shot or assaulted. Kamma performed in the past is the cause for receiving results through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue or the bodysense. Therefore, one should not be angry with someone else or blame him for the vipåka one receives. Sati can be aware of the characteristic of the dhamma which is vipåkacitta, not a being, person or self. Thus one can come to understand that the moment of vipåka is the result of past kamma, different from the moments of attachment, aversion and ignorance, or the moments of kusala dhammas. The kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas which arise are causes in the present which will condition the arising of results in the future. ---------- Nina. #91482 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, Op 15-okt-2008, om 0:06 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You ask whether > seeing of this moment is a khandha. No, of course it is not a > khandha, for > it is a single nama. A khandha is a collection of phenomena, > whereas the > seeing of this moment is a single phenomenon. Nina, 'khandha' means > "collection", > and it must be distinguished from a single member of that > collection. You are > mixing the categories of individual and collection for no reason. > This is > illogical and imprecise language usage, and pointless. > ----- N: Alex answered: One of the nama groups or vinnana+sanna+vedana, khandas. N: I never suggested that seeing arises in isolation, not at all. But it is urgent to know what khandha it is. The Buddha did not teach about khandhas in general, but very precisely about seeing, hearing and all realities arising now. I wanted to go step by step, and first asked you about seeing. If you think it is not khandha, what else is vi~n~naa.na kkhandha? Can you give examples? Nina. #91483 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Threes (7-12) , Co. part 2. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: Three unwholesome elements: sensuality, enmity, cruelty. (Tisso akusaladhaatuyo: kaamadhaatu, byaapaadadhaatu, vihi.msaadhaatu.) --------- N: The Co explains that kaama-dhaatu is wrong thinking, thinking accompanied by kaama. The same is said about vyaapaada-dhaatu and vihi.msaa-dhaatu. As to the element of illwill, the Co. refers to ten bases of illwill, such as thinking that someone has done me harm, is doing so, will do so, or has done harm to someone who is dear, and so on. Because of this the citta is displeased. As to violence, someone will vex another person with his hand, clod of earth, stick, weapon, rope or any other thing. All akusala dhammas are kaama-dhaatu. The Co. explains that the three wrong ways of thinking are specified, but they are together united as one talk on kaama-dhaatu; as was said, all akusala dhammas are kaama-dhaatu. Kaama means sense desire clinging (kilesa kaama) as well as the object of sense desire (vatthu kaama). The subco explains that kaama in the sense of kilesa as well as in the sense of object of clinging is to be applied here. ---------- Co: Kaamadhaatuaadiisu ‘‘kaamapa.tisa.myutto takko vitakko micchaasa"nkappo. Aya.m vuccati kaamadhaatu. Sabbepi akusalaa dhamma kaamadhaatuu’’ti aya.m kaamadhaatu. ‘‘Byaapaadapa.tisa.myutto takko vitakko micchaasa"nkappo. Aya.m vuccati byaapaadadhaatu. Dasasu aaghaatavatthuusu cittassa aaghaato pa.tighaato anattamanataa cittassaa’’ti aya.m byaapaadadhaatu. ‘‘Vihi.msaa pa.tisa.myutto takko vitakko micchaasa"nkappo. Aya.m vuccati vihi.msaadhaatu. Idhekacco paa.ninaa vaa le.d.dunaa vaa da.n.dena vaa satthena vaa rajjuyaa vaa a~n~natara~n~natarena vaa satte vihe.thetii’’ti aya.m vihi.msaadhaatu. ---------------- Sutta: Three wholesome elements: renunciation, non-enmity, non-cruelty. (Tisso kusaladhaatuyo: nekkhammadhaatu, abyaapaadadhaatu, avihi.msaadhaatu.) --------- The Co explains that this is ‘thinking’ connected with renunciation. All kusala dhammas are the element of renunciation, nekkhammadhaatu. As to the element of non-illwill, this is the extension of mettaa to beings, and freedom of heart by mettaa. As to the element of non-vilence, this is the extension of compassion to beings and the freedom of heart by compassion. --------- Co: Nekkhammadhaatuaadiisu ‘‘nekkhammapa.tisa.myutto takko vitakko sammaasa"nkappo. Aya.m vuccati nekkhammadhaatu. Sabbepi kusalaa dhammaa nekkhammadhaatuu’’ti aya.m nekkhammadhaatu. ‘‘Abyaapaadapa.tisa.myutto takko…pe… aya.m vuccati abyaapaadadhaatu. Yaa sattesu metti…pe… mettaacetovimuttii’’ti aya.m abyaapaadadhaatu. ‘‘Avihi.msaapa.tisa.myutto takko…pe… aya.m vuccati avihi.msaadhaatu. Yaa sattesu karu.naa…pe… karu.naacetovimuttii’’ti aya.m avihi.msaadhaatu. Idhaapi vuttanayeneva dve kathaa veditabbaa. ---------- As to the word dhaatu, element, the subco states that they are su~n~nata, empty, void of a self, attasu~n~nata. N: No matter akusala citta with sensuousness arises or kusala citta with detachment, all conditioned realities are elements devoid of self. In order to understand them as not self, there should be awareness of them when they arise. Mettaa and compassion do not belong to a self, they are dhaatus. When someone develops mettaa and compassion without taking them for 'mine', mettaa and compassion are purer. ------------- The Co deals with the question in which planes kaama-dhaatu arises. As the Atthasaalinii explains: the planes of existence of the kaamaavacara dhammas, thus, the sensuous planes of existence, extend from the lowest plane, which is the “avíci hell”, up to the highest sensuous plane which is a heavenly plane, called the “paranimmita vasavatti deva plane” (the plane of heavenly beings with power over the creations of others). In all these planes there are sense objects. These are called sensuous becoming, kaama-bhava, or kaama- dhaatu. The Co states that there are the two planes of ruupa-brahmas and aruupa-brahmas, those born as result of ruupa-jhaana and of aruupa- jhaana. Thus there are ruupa-dhaatu and aruupa-dhaatu. In this classification there are: kaama-dhaatu, ruupa-dhaatu and aruupa-dhaatu. Moreover, there is nirodhadhaatu, the element of cessation, which is nibbaana. ------ Nina. Co: Aparaapi tisso dhaatuyoti a~n~naapi su~n~nata.t.thena tisso dhaatuyo. Taasu ‘‘tattha katamaa kaamadhaatu? He.t.thato aviiciniraya.m pariyanta.m karitvaa’’ti eva.m vitthaarito kaamabhavo kaamadhaatu naama. ‘‘He.t.thato brahmaloka.m pariyanta.m karitvaa aakaasaana~ncaayatanupage deve pariyanta.m karitvaa’’ti eva.m vitthaaritaa pana ruupaaruupabhavaa itaraa dve dhaatuyo. Dhaatuyaa aagata.t.thaanamhi hi bhavena paricchinditabbaa. Bhavassa aagata.t.thaane dhaatuyaa paricchinditabbaa. Idha bhavena paricchedo kathito. Ruupadhaatuaadiisu ruupaaruupadhaatuyo ruupaaruupabhavaayeva. Nirodhadhaatuyaa nibbaana.m kathita.m. ** #91484 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was it inevitable aeons ago that this effects happens? jonoabb Hi Alex > By Fatalism I mean that nothing can be changed. If Arhatship happens > today or Aeons later is all due to unchangeble conditions. OK, but the same comment applies: "no control" means that there can be no stopping the next dhamma to arise, and no changing the dhamma now arisen. The idea that "If X happens today or aeons later is all due to unchangeable conditions" has nothing to do with the dhammas of the present moment. Essentially, it is an view about cause and effect (kamma and vipaka). It sounds to me like a wrong view; but just how "wrong" would depend on the speaker. Jon #91485 From: "alberto.spera" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was it inevitable aeons ago that this effects happens? alberto.spera --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > By Fatalism I mean that nothing can be changed. If Arhatship happens > today or Aeons later is all due to unchangeble conditions. > > > Best wishes, > Dear Alex (and Jon) I'd like to comment your statement in terms of paramattha dhammas, Now is conditioned (paccayuppanna), just as it will be in next aeons and as it was in the past, but Now is also a conditioning factor (paccaya), as it will do over the next aeons and did over the past. Condtioned and conditioning dhammas arise and fall at the speed of light, never the same twice, avijjia (the main akusala conditioned and conditioning factor) does its task and prevents us from seeing all this, panna (the main kusala conditioned and conditioning factor) does its tasks and allow us to see all this Now we're probably conditioned by avijja, but now just as probably we're also condtioning more avijja to arise I suppose the term fatalism could apply to a period when there is no Dhamma around to assist us in the emancipating process from avijja, but this is not our case, now we have the possibility to develop whatever panna we have accumulated over all these aeons we've been spending in samsara Alberto #91486 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariy... jonoabb Hi Howard > Jon, I think you are correct in part. We cannot "simply decide" to want > to be kind nor to want to be polite etc. or to act at least partly free of > self-serving motive, and immediately get that result. However, wanting to be "a > better person" can lead us into willful activities of study, contemplation, > ongoing mindfulness, guarding the senses, and clearing and calming the mind > that will cultivate good habits and inclinations, so that the arising of > wholesome mind states more and more becomes the norm. Yes, it's possible, I suppose so, at least to a certain (limited) degree, but not for kusala of the level of insight. Nothing you mention here is exclusive to the teaching of a Buddha. It is generic, conventional "good intentions". Not to be sneezed at, certainly, but also not the kind of kusala that can prevent the increase in attachment to the idea of a "self". The teaching of a Buddha is much more subtle than this, and it has to be because what it targets is the clinging to self and to continuation in existence. >. If we think in terms not of > final goals resulting at once, directly from immediate will, but in terms of > cultivation over time, the idea of kusala arising with will as a condition is > quite natural. Our inclinations are modifiable by will, but not in a > simplistic "I will it, so it happens" way, and not by willing alone. Yes, but an appreciation of the gradual nature of the develoment of kusala, valuable though that may be, does not mean the absence of an idea of "self". > Spontaneous > kusala is arises due to habit and inclination forged in a kiln with intentions > as fuel and hammered out by right effort. Well everything involves intention; but it is only kusala intention that can be a condition for more kusala; and kusala intention only arise with kusala in the first place. So it's not a case of intention being the "cycle buster" ;-)) IMVA Jon #91487 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:08 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... jonoabb Hi Tep > T: Read the above elaboration I made; that is how I see it : "A monk > generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his > intent" in all four cases in order to prevent akusalas from arising, > to abandon an arisen akusala, to condition kusalas that have not yet > arisen, and to develop an arisen kusala further to perfection. > Reveiew MN 8, MN 78 and MN 141. I understand this passage to be giving a description of the mental factor of right effort that accompanies each moment of kusala. I do not read it as saying that kusala can only arise in a person who has first conceived in a deliberate, purposeful manner the intention to have kusala. If this passage is the basis for your view that all kusala must be preceded by the deliberate conceiving of doing kusala, then I think we'll have to agree to differ on the matter. As regards the rest of your post, I thank you for the lengthy and detailed comments. I fear we are working from different definitions of "spontaneous". For example, in connection with children and animals you say: > Children and animals must be taught to be kind and obedient, otherwise > they are not kind or obdient. Once they have developed the taught > skill, such 'kusala' is retained in the memory (a part of perception). > The trained perception of kusala will accordingly condition a thought > (a recollection of the trained skill) to guide their future action to > be kind and obedient. No spontaneity. Here I think you are saying that even if an action may appear to be a spontaneous one it is not in fact so because there must have been some mind-moments of conceiving of doing kusala, however brief, occurring before the actual doing of the kusala act. According to my usage of the term, such a kusala act could still be spontaneous, as long as any thoughts preceding the act were so brief or subtle as to not to amount to deliberate thinking (conventionally so called). By the way, do you accept the prompted/unprompted distinction mentioned in the texts and, if so, how do you understand the term "unprompted" in that context? Jon #91488 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:10 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... jonoabb Hi Alex > Tep you are correct. There are too many one sided Buddhist teachings > being taught today. Some insist that Buddhism is all about non- doing, > non-striving, etc and etc. However when you actually read sutta pitaka > you *will* find a large number of suttas that *do* talk quite a bit > about energy, effort, striving; and in such a strong language that it > seems quite unlikely that it meant anything else. These are very broad and general statements, Alex ;-)) Perhaps it would be useful to look at one or two of the sutta passages (different from the one cited by Tep) that you have in mind. Jon #91489 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anupubbasikkhaa sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- On Wed, 15/10/08, han tun wrote: >No, I cannot point out exactly which I disagreed with. It was only that I could not follow your deep interpretation. I will study your comments again. I am happy that you are planning to come back to Udana quote. I look forward to it. .... S: Coming back to the Udana quote, it is clear (from the commentary), that anupubbasikkhaa (gradual training, as in the subject heading), refers to adhissila, adhicitta and adhipa~n~naa. Anupubba means successive, gradual and sikkhaa of course means training. It refers to the purification of cittas, stage by stage as I understand. Of course the adhi-states are always with right understanding. When the listener sees the value of wholesome states, more and more can be added. If we cannot give away material goods and see the value of generosity, how can there be any giving up of self-view? So in other words, as you wrote at the start: H: >I am interested in your discussions on a gradual training (anupubbasikkhaa),because this gradual training is quite well-known in Burma. We call it Six Kathaas. (1) Daana kathaa, generosity (2) Siila kathaa, morality (3) Sagga kathaa, heaven or celestial states (4) Kaamagu.naa aadiinava kathaa, the drawbacks of sensual pleasures (5) Nekkhamma aanisansa kathaa, blessings of renunciation (6) Sacca kathaa, the Four Noble Truths. >A Burmese Sayadaw explained that if one follows the first three kathaas, he/she may obtain good results in this very life or rebirth in human and deva planes in the next existence. However, the pleasures achieved in this way are sensual pleasures which have drawbacks, and the Buddha teaches those drawbacks. To avoid those drawbacks, the Buddha next teaches the blessings of renunciation. By this time the mind becomes pliable and is ready to appreciate deeper teaching. Then the Buddha teaches him/her the Four Noble Truths. .... S: As I said, I have no disagreement with your helpful comments here and thanked you for sharing them. Metta, Sarah ======== #91490 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/15/2008 2:38:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: If we understand that vipÃ¥kacitta which arises is the result of kamma we performed ourselves, can we still be angry with other people or blame them for the vipÃ¥ka we receive? ============================= Recognizing our role in what comes to us is important in many ways including learning to change our mode of action (most of all), and (yes) also tempering our anger towards others who acted improperly towards us and towards others for whom we feel protective. But I would add, to properly balance matters, that the results of our kamma that come to us are not solely conditioned by our kamma. Our emotional reactions, though, are largely matters of our kamma, even kamma seeded long, long ago, and this is an area that requires great attention by us, for every time we permit a magnification of angry reaction, for example, we lay the groundwork for more of the same in the future. Emotionally charged reactions are among the most powerful forces for good or ill. I would also add that tempering anger towards others can, in addition to considering our own role in what comes to us, be even more effectively combated by a number of other means including considering the similarity between ourselves and others (thereby developing empathy), contemplation of metta, calming the mind through habituated right action, right speech, right livelihood, and (yes) meditation, and, very much so, carefully guarding the mind door to detect the approach of and forestall the blossoming of obsessive, harmful, thought proliferation (papan~ca). Thought proliferation is a primary mechanism for seeding the mind with inclination to harmful emotion and for feeding the sense of self. (It also should be mentioned that right thinking can be an important means for moving in the opposite direction, and considering the role of our own kamma certainly comes in there.) With metta, Howard #91491 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana scottduncan2 Dear Larry and Tep, Regarding: T: "A very important implication of this conclusion is : you cannot attain the 1st jhana if your purification of virtues is not yet at the Stream-entry level! Do you agree with me, friends?" Larry: "I disagree, but I don't have any textual back-up. It isn't necessary to experience nibbana before entering jhana. My own thought on jhana is that the 'object' is tranquility. Cultivating a kasina or the breath is a way of entering tranquility..." Scott: I'm with Larry, here. There is jhaana related to objects and jhaana related to characteristics. Consider Atthasaalinii (pp.222-223): "In the term 'born of solitude' the meaning is separation, solitude, freedom from the Hindrances. Or it means 'solitary,' 'separated.' The group of states associated with jhaana and separated from the Hindrances is the meaning. And 'born of solitude' is born from that solitude, or in that solitude...Jhaana is twofold: that which (views or) examines closely the object and that which examines closely the characteristic marks. Of these two, 'object scrutinising' jhaana examines closely those devices [for self-hypnotism] as mental objects. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called 'characteristic-examining jhaana.' Of these three, insight is so called from the examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, etc. Because the work to be done by insight is accomplished through the Path, the Path is also so-called. And because Fruition examines closely the Truth of cessation, and possesses the characteristics of truth, it also is called characteristic-examining jhaana. Of these two kinds of jhaana, the object-scrutinising mode is here intended. Hence, from its examining the object and extinguishing the Hindrances, jhaana is to be thus understood." Sincerely, Scott. #91492 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/15/2008 2:48:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, Op 15-okt-2008, om 0:06 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You ask whether > seeing of this moment is a khandha. No, of course it is not a > khandha, for > it is a single nama. A khandha is a collection of phenomena, > whereas the > seeing of this moment is a single phenomenon. Nina, 'khandha' means > "collection", > and it must be distinguished from a single member of that > collection. You are > mixing the categories of individual and collection for no reason. > This is > illogical and imprecise language usage, and pointless. > ----- N: Alex answered: One of the nama groups or vinnana+sanna+vedana, khandas. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I disagree with Alex's formulation on this point. An instance of seeing is a member of the aggregate sa~n~nakkhandha, but it is not itself the aggregate. It is a single phenomenon, not a heap of phenomena. I am speaking only of language use, Nina, pointlessly imprecise usage that leads only to confusion. ----------------------------------------- N: I never suggested that seeing arises in isolation, not at all. But it is urgent to know what khandha it is. The Buddha did not teach about khandhas in general, but very precisely about seeing, hearing and all realities arising now. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, it is a matter of clear speech. Instances of hardness, warmth, sights, sounds etc are not khandhas, they are rupas. The collection of all rupas is a khandha. Please note the following from S. XXII, 48): "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" Notice how the buddha said "all that BELONGS to the consciousness-group." He didn't say "All that IS the consciousness-group." Khandhas are groups, not individual members of groups. The rupakkhandha is the collection of all rupas. Don't use 'khandha', meaning "heap" to describe an individual that is a member of a heap. An instance of seeing is not a khandha, it is an act of knowing, and, as such, is a MEMBER of the vi~n~nanakkhandha. A member of an organization is not the organization. A doctor is not the hospital. A DSG participant is not DSG. Using collection terminology for members of a collection is a pointless and misleading speech convention that needs to be dropped. ------------------------------------------- I wanted to go step by step, and first asked you about seeing. If you think it is not khandha, what else is vi~n~naa.na kkhandha? Can you give examples? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, I simply can't believe that you are not getting what I'm talking about. I'm talking about *speech usage*. Of course I know that seeing is a kind of consciousness. But it is not the vi~n~nanakhandha, it is not the consciousness collection. It is a MEMBER of the consciousness aggregate. It is one of many. Nina, you are simply misusing the word 'khandha' which means COLLECTION. ----------------------------------------- Nina. ====================== With metta, Howard #91493 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariy... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/15/2008 6:03:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > Jon, I think you are correct in part. We cannot "simply decide" to want > to be kind nor to want to be polite etc. or to act at least partly free of > self-serving motive, and immediately get that result. However, wanting to be "a > better person" can lead us into willful activities of study, contemplation, > ongoing mindfulness, guarding the senses, and clearing and calming the mind > that will cultivate good habits and inclinations, so that the arising of > wholesome mind states more and more becomes the norm. Yes, it's possible, I suppose so, at least to a certain (limited) degree, but not for kusala of the level of insight. Nothing you mention here is exclusive to the teaching of a Buddha. It is generic, conventional "good intentions". Not to be sneezed at, certainly, but also not the kind of kusala that can prevent the increase in attachment to the idea of a "self". -------------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, I think you need to re-read what you quoted above of my writing and to re-read what the Buddha had to say about sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. I spoke above of studying and contemplating the Dhamma, of ongoing sati, of right effort, and of samadhi. It is this that cultivates the mind and leads eventually to awakening. --------------------------------------------- The teaching of a Buddha is much more subtle than this, and it has to be because what it targets is the clinging to self and to continuation in existence. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Such vague allusion provides nothing, Jon. -------------------------------------------- >. If we think in terms not of > final goals resulting at once, directly from immediate will, but in terms of > cultivation over time, the idea of kusala arising with will as a condition is > quite natural. Our inclinations are modifiable by will, but not in a > simplistic "I will it, so it happens" way, and not by willing alone. Yes, but an appreciation of the gradual nature of the develoment of kusala, valuable though that may be, does not mean the absence of an idea of "self". --------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! No kidding! Jon, what is your point? Of course, we are immersed in "self". And as for the gradual development of wholesome states is concerned, your "valuable though that may be" is at best silly. Sati is wholesome, pa~n~na is wholesome, and metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are wholesome. Exactly what value would you assign to these wholesome phenomena? Jon, it seems to me that when all the verbal obfuscation is put aside, you are devoted to the notion that there is no escape from ignorance and dukkha. ---------------------------------------------- > Spontaneous > kusala arises due to habit and inclination forged in a kiln with intentions > as fuel and hammered out by right effort. Well everything involves intention; but it is only kusala intention that can be a condition for more kusala; and kusala intention only arise with kusala in the first place. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I am not persuaded that this is so. Have you never heard of unintended consequences of actions? But even if it is so, so what? I know of no one totally bereft of wholesome intentions. ---------------------------------------------- So it's not a case of intention being the "cycle buster" ;-)) --------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course it is! Otherwise, it is a matter of random good luck. That is not Dhamma, Jon. -------------------------------------------- IMVA ---------------------------------------- Howard: IDKTA (I don't know the acronym. ;-) ------------------------------------------ Jon ======================== With metta, Howard #91494 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:17 am Subject: Correction Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina, Alex, and all - In a message dated 10/15/2008 7:47:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I disagree with Alex's formulation on this point. An instance of seeing is a member of the aggregate sa~n~nakkhandha, but it is not itself the aggregate. It is a single phenomenon, not a heap of phenomena. I am speaking only of language use, Nina, pointlessly imprecise usage that leads only to confusion. ========================== The word 'sa~n~nakkhandha' should have been 'vi~n~nanakkhandha'. With metta, Howard #91495 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, I've been meaning to say how much I appreciate these extracts from "Survey" which you're sharing. Somehow, as short extracts they have more 'impact' for me when I catch up, usually reading them later, as now: --- On Fri, 10/10/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Because of visible object which appears through the eyes it seems as if there are many people living together in this world, at a certain time and in a particular location. However, if there is clear comprehension of the characteristic of the element which experiences, the dhamma which arises and sees the object which appears at that moment, one will know that, while there is seeing just for a short moment, there is only the world of seeing. Then there are no people, other living beings or different things. At the moment of seeing there is not yet thinking about shape and form, there is not yet thinking of a story about what is seen. When we think that there is the world, beings, people or different things, we should know that this is only a moment of citta which thinks about what appears to seeing, about visible object. Seeing occurs at a moment different from thinking about what appears. For everyone there is citta which arises just for a moment and is then succeeded by the next one, and this happens continuously. Thus, it seems that there is the whole wide world with many different people and things, but we should have right understanding of what the world is. We should know that realities appear one at a time, and that they appear only for one moment of citta. Since cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another very rapidly, it seems that there is the world which does not disintegrate, the world which lasts, with beings, people and many different things. In reality the world lasts just for one moment, namely, when citta arises and cognizes an object just for that moment; and then the world falls away together with the citta.< **** S: I think it's well- worth reading a few times. Beautifully said (and translated) in my opinion, of course. Also appreciating the Sri Lanka series. I find I can almost 'hear' K.Sujin giving so many of the good reminders which had such an impact on me at the time. Thank you again, for all the work in your reports, sharing and additional reflections. I'd forgotten about the spilt soup incident! Metta, Sarah ======= #91496 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Tue, 14/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >Could the "anything else" be Nibbana? ... S: Nibbana is classified as nama. (I'd rather not get into the nibbana-nama debate again, however. It can be found in U.P. under 'nibbana -nama', I'm sure:-)) ... TG:> At any rate, self-view is tightly associated with grasping after the reality of phenomena... one way or another...it doesn't really matter much. ... S: Yes, grasping realities or the khandhas with sakkaya-ditthi in one of the 20 ways enumerated. I think it is very important to understand what sakkaya-ditthi is and this is only possible when the realities or khandhas are known for what they are. For example, if the rupas are taken to be 'my body' or belonging to me, there is sakkaya-ditthi. .... TG:> If the mind is detached from phenomena, it is far less likely being tied up with self-view. I see you as massively tied up with "dhammas" so that is another reason for questioning a self-view. ... S: I see the dhammas as being the Buddha's teaching and a refusal to accept them (even intellectually) as actualities/realities as being plain ignorance. Metta, Sarah ========= #91497 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Twisted 'wisdom'? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Wed, 15/10/08, Alex wrote: > S: It depends whether there is any idea of anyone taking steps:-) > ... >No, *you* can't do any of them. When there are conditions for >particular cittas to arise, they arise. That's all. If right >understanding has been sufficiently developed, there are conditions >for the vipassana nanas to occur. But no one can ever *do* them. > .... A:> According to that logic one shouldn't (and can't) restrain one's evil impulses because that would affirm self view?? What if, G-d forbid, someone were to get an impulse to commit a heineous crime? Should one do one's best at restraining? ... S: What is done or not done just depends on conditions. If there is self view now or an impulse to commit a crime, it's conditioned already. Conventionally speaking, we perform all sorts of actions and restrain ourselves from all sorts of others. In actuality, there are just conditioned cittas, cetasikas and rupas. ..... A:> Somehow what you are saying seems to be relevant to the Arahant, but not us. ... S: The Buddha's teachings about dhammas as anatta, beyone anyone's control are relevant to all of us. Metta, Sarah ========== #91498 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi TG, (& Ken H) --- On Wed, 15/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: > Seeing cannot be known without visible object. Seeing does not have a "different set of conditions." For "visible object" is part of "seeing's" "set of conditions. Seeing cannot have a separate characteristic, because visible object is part and parcel of "seeing's characteristic. " Not fully different, not fully the same. But interacting and interrelated yes. .... S: You've read the Visuddhimagga and some of the Abhidhamma, so you'll be aware that what you write here is totally at odds with these texts. I'd also say it's totally at odds with the Sutta Pitaka, but then each interprets it in his/her own way:-). Simply: 1.Seeing and visible object can never be known at the same time. 2. The conditions for seeing are completely different from the conditions for visible object. It's true that v.o. is a major condition for seeing to arise. 3. Seeing and visible object have very different characteristics. One is a nama and one is a rupa for a start. The first stage of insight can never be attained without a clear understanding of the distinction. 4. Inter-related at moments of seeing, yes. Completely distinct dhammas, however. ..... TG:> Phenomena cannot be understood for what they are with this artificial separation. Nothing is "their own." "Their own" view is a flawed view. ... S: It's not an "artificial separation". Rupas arise and fall away all the time, regardless of whether they are experienced or not. Forget about "their own" - there are just dhammas rising and falling away. Each one is 'distinct', that's all. Seeing can never be visible object and visible object can never be seeing. Hearing can never be sound and sound can never be hearing. .... TG:> What is experienced are not individual things of "their own," but a conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha. So best to detach from phenomena, and not delight in the identifying of it. ... S: No, no, No, TG! Seeing is dukkha on account of its impermanence. Visible object is dukkha, hearing is dukkha, sound is dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned dhammas (i.e the 5 khandhas) are dukkha. Seeing and v.o. are not a "conglomeration of conditions", they are dhammas arising on account of various conditions. ... >TG Diatribetically OUT .... S: Phew!! Metta, Sarah p.s I think it's Ken H's turn to take over all these Diatribes:-). Or Perhaps Phil could skype you - I think you might be the one to really push him back into the Abhidhamma lotus ponds:-)). Worth a try? =========== #91499 From: han tun Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: Coming back to the Udana quote, it is clear (from the commentary), that anupubbasikkhaa (gradual training, as in the subject heading), refers to adhissila, adhicitta and adhipa~n~naa. Anupubba means successive, gradual and sikkhaa of course means training. It refers to the purification of cittas, stage by stage as I understand. Of course the adhi-states are always with right understanding. When the listener sees the value of wholesome states, more and more can be added. If we cannot give away material goods and see the value of generosity, how can there be any giving up of self-view? Han: Thank you very much for your comments on the Udana quote. I read the above together with the text you had posted before. ["It is the three trainings [adhisiila, adhicitta, adhipa~n~naa] that are included by means of 'progressive trainings', the thirteen things constituting the limbs of asceticism [dhuta"ngadhammaa] by means of 'progressive obligations' , whilst it is the seven contemplations, the eighteen great vipassanaas, the thirty-eight classifications of objects(forming meditation subjects) [40 kamma.t.thaanas minus kasinas of light (aaloka) and space (aakaasa)], and the thirty-seven things that are constituents of enlightenment [4 satipatthanas, 4 padhaanas etc] that are included by means of 'progressive practices'. 'There being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge' (na aayataken' eva a~n~naapa.tivedho): there not being, unlike the hopping motion of the frog, that known as penetration of arahantship without one's having, right from the very beginning, first worked towards the fulfilment of morality and so on [siilapuuranaadii ni], meaning rather that attainment of arahantship comes only after one has successively fulfilled morality, concentration and insight."] Han: As a matter of fact, I like your short explanation better than the Commentary which is like a shopping list. Yes, the gradual training can be the Six Kathaas as I mentioned before, or it can be the gradual training of siila, samaadhi, pa~n~naa. Yet, another possibility is the gradual training through daana, siila, and bhaavanaa. Or, it can still be a mixture of all these steps. Whatever training module one chooses, as you rightly said, all these steps must be with the right understanding. Like in the Noble Eightfold Path, one starts with right understanding (sammaa ditthi) and culminates in right understanding (magga ~naana and phala ~naana). Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #91500 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and TG & Ken) - In a message dated 10/15/2008 9:29:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: No, no, No, TG! Seeing is dukkha on account of its impermanence. Visible object is dukkha, hearing is dukkha, sound is dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned dhammas (i.e the 5 khandhas) are dukkha. ======================== Just a small point, Sarah: The word 'dukkha' serves as an adjective and as a noun. "Seeing is dukkha" is an adjectival usage meaning "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" or "a condition for suffering". But when TG writes "conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha," that is a nominal usage, with 'dukkha' mean "suffering". What is meant by 'dukkha' depends on the speech context. With metta, Howard #91501 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta visitorfromt... Hello Phil, - Thank you for being considerate but it is too formal. --- "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Tep and all > > >(stress on was, Tep is > > helping me to see the value of Ajahn Mun, who came before and was > > more of a purist) > > Tep, sorry if I have put words into your mouth about Ajahn Mun or > seem to have disparaged Ajahn Lee. That was not my intention, and I > don't think that was what you wrote to me either. Yes, I will take this > first little glitch as a good reminder to keep our discussion about > meditation which was agreed to be offlist offlist! Thanks for your > patience.... > .............................. T: Whatever you wrote is fine with me, Phil. Even our off-list discussion does not have to be kept personal. I leave it to you : if you think it might be useful to other members then feel free to discuss it with them. Tep === #91502 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:33 am Subject: Re: Pali version of Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta truth_aerator Hi Phil, Sarah and all, >Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah and all (p.s to Scott) >predicatbly, comfort with the idea of the observer. Isn't that applicable to DSG'ers who stress observation and understanding of realities happening now? > But I have heard it in other > traditions, such as some Mahasi Sayadaw tradition teachers. I think > it is inevitable that there is an observer at first, and yes, I'd > agree that there is more "self?h involved in formal meditation than > in discussion. I disagree 100%. The more self involvement is in meditation, the harder it is to meditate but is much and much easier to argue. The less "self view" there is, the less desire there is to argue, talk and so on. I suggest you read an online book "Simply this moment" where world famous heavy samatha teacher Ajahn Brahm puts to rest speculations about "observer", "doing" and so on. Except for meditation emphasis, he seems to have graduated strait from DSG with a PhD. I've uploaded the file zSimply_This_Moment.pdf on this site. Please see it. "It can be very scary to get into deep meditations. Do you know the reason why? It's because `you' have to disappear before you get into them. You're letting go of you, or what you take to be you. That's why it's wonderful to be able to completely get rid of the person in here who is always calling the shots, always talking, always making the decisions. " pg 144 Best wishes, #91503 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:45 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... truth_aerator Hi Jon, >--- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > These are very broad and general statements, Alex ;-)) Perhaps it > would be useful to look at one or two of the sutta passages > (different from the one cited by Tep) that you have in mind. > > Jon The suttas where the Buddha has talked about effort as if one's hair is on fire. The suttas about "let the flesh and blood dry up but I won't move." the story about monk who walked until he had blisters on his feet, so much effort that one is in tears, sticking the tongue toward the roof of the mouth and crushing mind with mind, victory in battle, suttas like that. Personally I believe that they imply the strength of effort needed at certain occasions. The idea of calm and non-doing doesn't fit in those occasions. I don't want to argue. You believe what you believe, and I will believe what I believe. The results will speak for themselves. Best wishes, #91504 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:06 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... visitorfromt... Dear Jon, - Perhaps your denial of the sutta quotes that I gave you with a lengthy elaboration, concerning right effort & the powers of success (Iddhipada) e.g. desire and intent, might not be due to a stubborn disbelief in the Buddha's words of wisdom or due to your refusal to understand the sutta words the way they areally mean. Perhaps, you did not read these suttas at all, let alone not reading them carefully (?). Above all of the above, possibly the denial might be caused by MY failure to communicate clearly enough. So let me try for one last time before I quit. ............................ > T: Read the above elaboration I made; that is how I see it: "A monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent" in all four cases in order to prevent akusalas from arising, to abandon an arisen akusala, to condition kusalas that have not yet arisen, and to develop an arisen kusala further to perfection. Reveiew MN 8, MN 78 and MN 141. Jon (#91487): I understand this passage to be giving a description of the mental factor of right effort that accompanies each moment of kusala. T: Yes, the right effort is a kusala cetasika. And there are other Iddhipada dhammas 'desire' and 'intent' that should NOT be overlooked. Jon: I do not read it as saying that kusala can only arise in a person who has first conceived in a deliberate, purposeful manner the intention to have kusala. If this passage is the basis for your view that all kusala must be preceded by the deliberate conceiving of doing kusala, then I think we'll have to agree to differ on the matter. T: So that IS the mental blockade. To remove such blockade let me ask you this : If you did not read it that way, then how would you explain "A monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen" ? [MN 141] Of course I will take that advice to leave you alone, if your answer to this question leads to nowhere. Remember, this is not a debate for a prize; or that being a DSG Moderator, you must win in all arguments. ;-) .......................................... Jon: As regards the rest of your post, I thank you for the lengthy and detailed comments. I fear we are working from different definitions of "spontaneous". For example, in connection with children and animals you say: > Tep: Children and animals must be taught to be kind and obedient, otherwise they are not kind or obdient. Once they have developed the taught skill, such 'kusala' is retained in the memory (a part of perception). The trained perception of kusala will accordingly condition a thought (a recollection of the trained skill) to guide their future action to be kind and obedient. No spontaneity. Jon: Here I think you are saying that even if an action may appear to be a spontaneous one it is not in fact so because there must have been some mind-moments of conceiving of doing kusala, however brief, occurring before the actual doing of the kusala act. T: Sorry, I did not say so with that "tongue in cheek" manner. The action is NOT spontaneous, period. Did the Buddha ever mention anything relating to "mind-moments" in MN 141? It is all your interpretation, Jon. Jon: According to my usage of the term, such a kusala act could still be spontaneous, as long as any thoughts preceding the act were so brief or subtle as to not to amount to deliberate thinking (conventionally so called). T: The Buddha's usage of the terms 'desire', 'endeavor', 'persistence', 'upholding' and 'exerting intent' are what we should pay attention to in this discussion. Your theory or my theory are beside the point. Tep === #91505 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 10/15/2008 7:07:19 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: TG:> If the mind is detached from phenomena, it is far less likely being tied up with self-view. I see you as massively tied up with "dhammas" so that is another reason for questioning a self-view. ... S: I see the dhammas as being the Buddha's teaching and a refusal to accept them (even intellectually) as actualities/S: I see the dhammas as being the Bu Metta, Sarah ............................................... TG: Well, we've gone from "Ultimate realities," to "realities" to now "actualities." We're making progress here!!! "Actuality" is a far better term. That means something "acts" in one way or another. This term is not only much more correct, it loses a lot of the ontological baggage that "realities" has. When you are finally admitting to "relativities" for "Dhammas," then I know we will have hit pay-dirt. LOL I did not fail to notice that tactical semantic nonsense above apparently designed for "argument winning." If it is unclear to you whether or not I think elements, aggregates and the like actually appear or not, then you must just be deleting my posts. I have made clear why I don't like the way you use the term dhammas...and I have done so in the post you are responding to. Interesting that Nibbana is a nama. I can see why you wouldn't want to debate THAT! Since the Buddha describes Parinibbana as complete end of nama and rupa. I know, you are sooo faithful to the Suttas that this must make you want to reconsider you commentarial point of view. Oh well. I think I'll practice some mindfulness now to decontaminate some of these misleading influences. ;-) TG OUT #91506 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. TGrand458@... Hi Sarah It seems Abhidhamma commentarial has not only made nonsense out of much of the Suttas, it seems to have destroyed common sense as well. In a message dated 10/15/2008 7:29:31 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: You've read the Visuddhimagga and some of the Abhidhamma, so you'll be aware that what you write here is totally at odds with these texts. I'd also say it's totally at odds with the Sutta Pitaka, but then each interprets it in his/her own way:-). Simply: 1.Seeing and visible object can never be known at the same time. 2. The conditions for seeing are completely different from the conditions for visible object. It's true that v.o. is a major condition for seeing to arise. 3. Seeing and visible object have very different characteristics. One is a nama and one is a rupa for a start. The first stage of insight can never be attained without a clear understanding of the distinction. 4. Inter-related at moments of seeing, yes. Completely distinct dhammas, however. ..... TG:> Phenomena cannot be understood for what they are with this artificial separation. Nothing is "their own." "Their own" view is a flawed view. ... S: It's not an "artificial separation". Rupas arise and fall away all the time, regardless of whether they are experienced or not. Forget about "their own" - there are just dhammas rising and falling away. Each one is 'distinct', that's all. Seeing can never be visible object and visible object can never be seeing. Hearing can never be sound and sound can never be hearing. .... TG:> What is experienced are not individual things of "their own," but a conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha. So best to detach from phenomena, and not delight in the identifying of it. ... S: No, no, No, TG! Seeing is dukkha on account of its impermanence. Visible object is dukkha, hearing is dukkha, sound is dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned dhammas (i.e the 5 khandhas) are dukkha. Seeing and v.o. are not a "conglomeration of conditions", they are dhammas arising on account of various conditions. ... >TG Diatribetically OUT .... S: Phew!! Metta, Sarah p.s I think it's Ken H's turn to take over all these Diatribes:-)p.s I think it's Ken H's turn to take over all these Diatribes:-). Or Perhaps Phil could skype you - I think you might be the one to #91507 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Accidentally sent the previous post. At any rate... In a message dated 10/15/2008 7:29:31 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: TG:> What is experienced are not individual things of "their own," but a conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha. So best to detach from phenomena, and not delight in the identifying of it. ... S: No, no, No, TG! Seeing is dukkha on account of its impermanence. Visible object is dukkha, hearing is dukkha, sound is dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned dhammas (i.e the 5 khandhas) are dukkha. Seeing and v.o. are not a "conglomeration of conditions", they are dhammas arising on account of various conditions. ................................................................... TG: Dukkha requires a sentient system that feels/experiences. Things are not MERELY Dukkha on account of their impermanence. It is on account of impermanence and attachment that there is Dukkha. THIS requires a "conglomeration" of interacting conditions. We are at a full impasse... in that I see you are tied to "book speak" and apparently not able to collate the words into the meaning of the words...regarding Suttas. I think that's enough of this. TG OUT #91508 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:27 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... Unlimited Stubbornness... visitorfromt... Hi Alex and Jon, - I knew it. Sooner or later even Alex -- one of the coolest guys around here -- will also quit discussing Dhamma with you, Jon. >Jon: > These are very broad and general statements, Alex ;-)) Perhaps it > would be useful to look at one or two of the sutta passages > (different from the one cited by Tep) that you have in mind. > > Jon Alex: The suttas where the Buddha has talked about effort as if one's hair is on fire. The suttas about "let the flesh and blood dry up but I won't move." the story about monk who walked until he had blisters on his feet, so much effort that one is in tears, sticking the tongue toward the roof of the mouth and crushing mind with mind, victory in battle, suttas like that. Personally I believe that they imply the strength of effort needed at certain occasions. The idea of calm and non-doing doesn't fit in those occasions. I don't want to argue. You believe what you believe, and I will believe what I believe. The results will speak for themselves. Best wishes, ........................... T: You are right, Alex. The suttas you have referred to are very definitive with zero ambiguity. Congratulations for the explanation well done. Also, I thank you for the patience. But it takes nothing less than unlimited metta & patience to deal with unlimited stubbornness and repeated denials. Tep === #91509 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Hi Larry (Scott, Phil, Alex), - Thank you so much for paying attention to the post. >Tep: "A very important implication of this conclusion is : you cannot attain the 1st jhana if your purification of virtues is not yet at the Stream-entry level ! Do you agree with me, friends?" Larry: Sorry, I don't have any thoughts on virtue. I disagree, but I don't have any textual back-up. It isn't necessary to experience nibbana before entering jhana. T: It is unfortunate that you don't have any thoughts on virtue, since purification of virtues happens to be a central theme of the sutta MN 78 : The practice for the 1st jhana is the same as the practice "leading to the cessation of unskillful resolves" which is through the right effort(samma vayama). You disagree that cessation of unskillful resolves(akusala vitakka), which is supported by the three good conducts (skillful habits in body, verbal and mental actions), is purification of virtues at the Stream-entry level. Yet it is clear that the three good conducts and freedom from akusala vitakkas together define purtification of virtues. If not, then what defines purtification of virtues? Larry: My own thought on jhana is that the "object" is tranquility. Cultivating a kasina or the breath is a way of entering tranquility. Noticing whether the breath is long or short is a way of letting go of extraneous thoughts and basically relaxing. But that relaxing takes an effort. Hence applied thought and sustained thought. Think of it as striking a bell and the bell resonating. It is how effort is applied to stay focused on the agenda. After awhile that effort is no longer necessary. T: Isn't tranquillity (samatha) samadhi cetasika? Aren't kasina and breath objects of samatha kammatthana? But I agree with you that noticing the characteristics of the breath "is a way of letting go of extraneous thoughts and basically relaxing". The idea that vitakka & vicara contribute to (support) concentration (or "focusing") is interesting. But I look at them simply as jhana factors that support the 1st jhana the same way as piti, sukha and ekaggata do. Larry: One complication is that the breath sensations can also be an object of insight. You can't cultivate tranquility and insight at the same time, imo. You have to go one way or the other. However, insight leads to the experience of nibbana and nibbana is ultimately tranquility. So which ever way you go you end up at tranquility. T: There is no complication. Vedana anupassana is the theme of the second tetrad of anapanasati (there are four tetrads, the first is samatha and the last three are vipassana). Have you heard of samatha and vipassana being "yoked together" or coupling of serenity and insight? Thanks for the thoughts, Larry. Tep === #91510 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:28 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Dear Scott (Larry, Alex), - You agree with Larry who disagrees with my postulate that "you cannot attain the 1st jhana if your purification of virtues is not yet at the Stream-entry level". And to support your disagreement, which is not a problem with me since my Self Demon is taking a nap right now, you give a commentary quote that in summary states that [the first] jhana is to be understood as "examining the object and extinguishing the Hindrances". Is my conclusion fair enough? But it is not clear to me yet as to why that commentarial meaning of jhana contradicts, or disagrees with the postulate. Please kindly elaborate. Tep === #91511 From: "Atula Siriwardane" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:26 am Subject: Help me to find this sutta... asiri57 There is a sutta Buddha explains that when a king is corrupt, the ministers, officials and finally people become corrupt and the results.. Can some one name the sutta. Atula #91512 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 15-okt-2008, om 13:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nina, I simply can't believe that you are not getting what I'm talking > about. I'm talking about *speech usage*. Of course I know that > seeing is a > kind of consciousness. But it is not the vi~n~nanakhandha, it is > not the > consciousness collection. It is a MEMBER of the consciousness > aggregate. It is one > of many. Nina, you are simply misusing the word 'khandha' which means > COLLECTION. ------- N: You see it in the theoretical way whereas I wish to convey something that is very precious to me: the actuality of khandhas in daily life. So, I think that seeing now is vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and this arises together with the other three naama-khandhas, feeling, sa~n`naa, and five more cetasikas that are grouped as sa.nkhaarakkhadha, and moreover, it has a physical base that is eyesense, which is ruupakkhandha. It experiences visible object that is ruupakkhandha. Thus, for an extremely short moment these khandhas arise and then fall away together. No more of these khandhas, but there is a following group of khandhas, another vi~n~naa.nakhandha with the three naamakhandhas and ruupakhandha. And so on. This is the meaning of the khandhas that are past, future and present. Thus, the five khandhas are a collection, because citta and cetasikas always arise together and in this plane they never lack rupa as base. In this sense only we can speak of a collection. But not in the way you see it: all rupas together, all cittas together etc. That is an abstraction. They never appear all together. The Buddha speaks about realizing impermanence, how could this be realized of all cittas together in one group? No, we have to consider the khandhas now, at this very moment. In S.N. III, 71, mode of reckoning the Buddha said of each of the five khandhas: whatsoever of rupa, feeling etc. is past, ceased, changed, - that is reckoned, termed, and named as "has been". It is not reckoned as "is" or "will be". Of each of the khandhas it is clearly stated that what has been what is and what will be. Scott once discussed this sutta. Very actual, it can be realized by insight after the difference between nama and rupa has been directly understood.Then impermanence of each dhamma can be directly known. Later on more about: a whole. what a whole is. Ga.na sa~n~naa. Nina. #91513 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. nilovg Dear Sarah, I also find it good to reread my Survey Quotes. Op 15-okt-2008, om 14:52 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I'd forgotten about the spilt soup incident! ------ N: See it all before my eyes (sa~n~naa), the room, the table where they were sitting, and how we discussed the matter. I was so impressed by Ven. Dhammadhara's sermon, I took on tape. You will read later. Lodewijk also appreciates it. I read Sri L. Revisted to him after dinner. After this our evening reading will be Cetasikas. Nina. #91514 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - I give up on this matter. You are just not understanding me, and no matter how many ways I rephrase the matter you still do not. Seeing now is not a khandha, Nina - it is not a collection. That it occurs together with other phenomena doesn't make the seeing a collection. It is a single phenomenon. This whole business is most odd. Just one last comment: None of this is a matter of substance or Dhamma, but of language use, and so it is relatively unimportant. I am dropping it. With metta, Howard #91515 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > >I give up on this matter. You are just not understanding me, and no >matter how many ways I rephrase the matter you still do not. >Seeing now is not a khandha, Nina - it is not a collection. That >it occurs together with other phenomena doesn't make the seeing a >collection. It is a single phenomenon. Are you saying that "seeing" is a particular instance of certain generality (certain khandas)? I agree with that. > This whole business is most odd. >Just one last comment: None of this is a matter of substance or >Dhamma, but of language use, and so it is relatively unimportant. I >am dropping it. > > With metta, > Howard Best wishes, #91516 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:43 pm Subject: Re: Help me to find this sutta... truth_aerator Hi Atula, > "Atula Siriwardane" wrote: > > There is a sutta Buddha explains that when a king is corrupt, the > ministers, officials and finally people become corrupt and the >results.. Can some one name the sutta. > Atula Probably the DN26 Cakkavatti Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.26.0.than.html Best wishes, #91517 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/15/2008 5:36:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > >I give up on this matter. You are just not understanding me, and no >matter how many ways I rephrase the matter you still do not. >Seeing now is not a khandha, Nina - it is not a collection. That >it occurs together with other phenomena doesn't make the seeing a >collection. It is a single phenomenon. Are you saying that "seeing" is a particular instance of certain generality (certain khandas)? I agree with that. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Sort of, Alex. When the Buddha spoke of the five khandhas, he meant the five heaps (or aggregates or collections), each a set/collection of all phenomena of a certain type. The rupakkhandha, for example, is the collection of all rupas, past, present, and future. Each rupa is an element of that set. It makes no sense to speak of rupas as khandhas. They are not each an aggregate but a *member* of an aggregate. We would not call a member of a congregation a congregation - we would call him/her a congregant. We would not call a member of a chess set a chess set - we would call it a chess piece. We would not call a member of a forest a forest - we would call it a tree. Likewise, a member of any of the five khandhas should not be called a khandha, because it is NOT a khandha, but a paramattha dhamma! --------------------------------------------- > This whole business is most odd. >Just one last comment: None of this is a matter of substance or >Dhamma, but of language use, and so it is relatively unimportant. I >am dropping it. > > With metta, > Howard Best wishes, ============================ With metta, Howard #91518 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:31 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... visitorfromt... Hi Nina, Howard, Alex, - > >Alex: Are you saying that "seeing" is a particular instance of certain generality (certain khandas)? I agree with that. ----------------------------------------------- >Howard: Sort of, Alex. When the Buddha spoke of the five khandhas, he meant the five heaps (or aggregates or collections), each a set/collection of all phenomena of a certain type. The rupakkhandha, for example, is the collection of all rupas, past, present, and future. Each rupa is an element of that set. It makes no sense to speak of rupas as khandhas. They are not each an aggregate but a *member* of an aggregate. T: I think I understand why there is a confusion about basic definitions of the khandhas. I find the following two suttas very good at defining, for example, rupa (form), rupakkhandha(form aggregate), and rupupadanakkhandha[form as clinging-aggregate]. (Definitions for the other four khandhas are also given in these two suttas.) SN 22.79: "And why do you call it '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. [rupa] SN 22.48: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the form aggregate. [rupakkhandha] "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. [rupupadanakkhandha] Howard, please note carefully that Nina may be right. The aggregate is defined in SINGULAR mode, not plural. The definition does not state that 'form aggregate' means the WHOLE set or WHOLE collection of all forms i.e. past, future, ..., far or near altogether. Regards, Tep === #91519 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:56 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. visitorfromt... Dear Nina (Howard, Alex), - I think I understand exactly the meaning of your statements : >Nina: >I think that seeing now is vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and this arises together with the other three naama-khandhas .. >it has a physical base that is eyesense, which is ruupakkhandha. >It experiences visible object that is ruupakkhandha. >Thus, for an extremely short moment these khandhas arise and then fall away together. ... >the five khandhas are a collection, because citta and cetasikas always arise together and in this plane they never lack rupa as base. >In this sense only we can speak of a collection. This understanding is what the Thai translators call "roo-ying" before "kam-nod-roo" rupa & nama. Thank you very much. Regards, Tep === #91520 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:47 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Nina), If I understand the chariot simile correctly its point is: just as when the parts of a chariot are correctly assembled we say a chariot exists, so too, when the five khandhas arise together we say a living being exists. Each category of chariot part (the axle, for example) can take a variety of forms, can't it? It could be a strong axle for heavy loads, a lightweight axle for racing: it could be made of timber, or of iron: it could be long or short . . . and so on. A chariot needs only one of the various kinds of axle. Similarly it needs only one set of the various kinds of chariot wheels, and one of the various kinds of body (etc). We don't have to wait until one of every type within each category of chariot parts is present. Only one from each category is required. It is the same when the five khandhas are correctly assembled. Only one of the six kinds of citta, only one of the 89 combinations of sankhara-namas, only one feeling . . and so on . . is actually present. Ken H > N: I never suggested that seeing arises in isolation, not at all. But > it is urgent to know what khandha it is. The Buddha did not teach > about khandhas in general, but very precisely about seeing, hearing > and all realities arising now. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nina, it is a matter of clear speech. > Instances of hardness, warmth, sights, sounds etc are not khandhas, they > are rupas. The collection of all rupas is a khandha. Please note the > following from S. XXII, 48): "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether > past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, > far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists > of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness > ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" Notice how the buddha said > "all that BELONGS to the consciousness-group." He didn't say "All that IS the > consciousness-group." Khandhas are groups, not individual members of groups. > The rupakkhandha is the collection of all rupas. Don't use 'khandha', meaning > "heap" to describe an individual that is a member of a heap. #91521 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > I give up on this matter. You are just not understanding me, and no > matter how many ways I rephrase the matter you still do not. Seeing now is not a > khandha, Nina - it is not a collection. That it occurs together with other > phenomena doesn't make the seeing a collection. It is a single phenomenon. > This whole business is most odd. > Just one last comment: None of this is a matter of substance or Dhamma, > but of language use, and so it is relatively unimportant. I am dropping it. > I don't think that this is simply a semantic issue- this issue strikes at the heart of my pet issue: the existence of people. Howard, you will find that the followers of KS deny the existence of khanda as collection. This is because if they acknowledge that the Buddha taught the existence of khandas as collections then they will have to admit the existence of people. Then their mantra of "there are only namas and rupas" goes right out the window! So, they will always refer to "dhamma khanda", as if individual dhammas were khandas. Now, I am not a Pali expert, but I am convinced that this is the wrong use of Pali. Now, when push comes to shove and they have to deal with the sutta use of khanda, they will claim that the Buddha is just using a "teaching method". So, then the five khandas taught by the Buddha aren't real anymore, they are just a "teaching method". And, if you push it much father than that and start quoting Pali sources for the definition of "khanda" or "aggregate" they will get downright testy until you feel compelled to drop the issue. Metta, James #91522 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. visitorfromt... --- "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Howard (and Nina), > ... > > It is the same when the five khandhas are correctly assembled. Only > one of the six kinds of citta, only one of the 89 combinations > of sankhara-namas, only one feeling . . and so on . . is actually > present. > > Ken H T: In other words, it does not make sense to think of each khandha as a set consisting of the past, future, present, ..., near and far of the same kind altogether ! Tep === #91523 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:49 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. kenhowardau Hi Tep and Howard, -------- KH: > > It is the same when the five khandhas are correctly assembled. Only > > one of the six kinds of citta, only one of the 89 combinations > > of sankhara-namas, only one feeling . . and so on . . is actually > > present. > > > T: In other words, it does not make sense to think of each khandha as > a set consisting of the past, future, present, ..., near and far of > the same kind altogether ! -------- Why doesn't it? It makes sense to think of the classification 'chariot-axle' as including heavy chariot-axles, light chariot-axles, wooden chariot-axles, iron chariot-axles, chariot axles that have existed in the past, chariot axles that will exist in the future, near, far . . . They all come under the classification 'chariot axle' don't they? When it is time for assembling the five (?) groups of chariot-parts to make a chariot, each group will comprise just one (or two in the case of wheels etc) of the various kinds. This seems pretty straightforward to me! Why are you so keen to find fault with the Abhidhamma? Ken H #91524 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, (and Larry), T: "You agree with Larry who disagrees with my postulate that 'you cannot attain the 1st jhana if your purification of virtues is not yet at the Stream-entry level'..." Scott: Correct. (Of course it depends on the way in which you might clarify your term 'at the Stream-entry level.') It is well-known that there were proficient jhaana practitioners prior to the Buddha's enlightenment. For example, the Brahmajaala Sutta, DN1, outlines the many wrong views arrived at by these unenlightented jhaana masters. None of these jhaana practitioners could have been Stream-Enterers and yet were accomplished in jhaana. I see this as another version of the view that it is only in the ariyan that certain types of consciousness are possible - first pa~n~naa and now the first jhaana. T: "And to support your disagreement...you give a commentary quote that in summary states that [the first] jhana is to be understood as 'examining the object and extinguishing the Hindrances'. Is my conclusion fair enough?" Scott: Correct. I was responding to Larry's comment: "...My own thought on jhana is that the 'object' is tranquility. Cultivating a kasina or the breath is a way of entering tranquility..." Scott: The quote demonstrates that there are two types of jhaana, and Larry's comment refers to the object of jhaana. The quote clarifies the "'object scrutinising' jhaana" which, it notes, "examines closely those devices [for self-hypnotism] as mental objects." T: "But it is not clear to me yet as to why that commentarial meaning of jhana contradicts, or disagrees with the postulate. Please kindly elaborate." Scott: It shows that there is also jhaana, of the type "which (views or) examines closely the object and that which examines closely the characteristic marks." This is shown to be the jhaana of the Path and Fruition consciousnesses. This type, I suggest, would be relevant to the Stream-Enterer since it arises at the moment of the Path and Fruition. If you take the phrase from Atthasaalinii, "In the term 'born of solitude' the meaning is separation, solitude, freedom from the Hindrances" to be an accurate description of jhaana, and if you accept that the jhaana which arose for jhaana practitioners prior the Buddha's enlightenment suppressed the Hindrances, then they must have been virtuous enough to attain to jhaana. Since the Buddha's saasana had not been delivered, they could not have been Stream-enterers. Sincerely, Scott. #91525 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Nina & Alex) - In a message dated 10/15/2008 6:32:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Nina, Howard, Alex, - > >Alex: Are you saying that "seeing" is a particular instance of certain generality (certain khandas)? I agree with that. ----------------------------------------------- >Howard: Sort of, Alex. When the Buddha spoke of the five khandhas, he meant the five heaps (or aggregates or collections), each a set/collection of all phenomena of a certain type. The rupakkhandha, for example, is the collection of all rupas, past, present, and future. Each rupa is an element of that set. It makes no sense to speak of rupas as khandhas. They are not each an aggregate but a *member* of an aggregate. T: I think I understand why there is a confusion about basic definitions of the khandhas. I find the following two suttas very good at defining, for example, rupa (form), rupakkhandha(form aggregate), and rupupadanakkhandha[form as clinging-aggregate]. (Definitions for the other four khandhas are also given in these two suttas.) SN 22.79: "And why do you call it '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. [rupa] SN 22.48: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the form aggregate. [rupakkhandha] "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. [rupupadanakkhandha] Howard, please note carefully that Nina may be right. The aggregate is defined in SINGULAR mode, not plural. The definition does not state that 'form aggregate' means the WHOLE set or WHOLE collection of all forms i.e. past, future, ..., far or near altogether. Regards, Tep ================================== Ven. T's is simply a weird translation. Ven. ~Nanatilkoka renders it as follows: "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" (S. XXII, 48) With metta, Howard #91526 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 10/15/2008 8:31:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > I give up on this matter. You are just not understanding me, and no > matter how many ways I rephrase the matter you still do not. Seeing now is not a > khandha, Nina - it is not a collection. That it occurs together with other > phenomena doesn't make the seeing a collection. It is a single phenomenon. > This whole business is most odd. > Just one last comment: None of this is a matter of substance or Dhamma, > but of language use, and so it is relatively unimportant. I am dropping it. > I don't think that this is simply a semantic issue- this issue strikes at the heart of my pet issue: the existence of people. Howard, you will find that the followers of KS deny the existence of khanda as collection. This is because if they acknowledge that the Buddha taught the existence of khandas as collections then they will have to admit the existence of people. Then their mantra of "there are only namas and rupas" goes right out the window! --------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! You mention here a possible subliminal motivation for avoiding "collection speech" that hadn't even occurred to me! It would account for what I find otherwise unaccountable. However, since I can't get inside the heads of others, I can only consider that as a possibility and not a fact. ------------------------------------------- So, they will always refer to "dhamma khanda", as if individual dhammas were khandas. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that IS the usage, and it is odd to say the least. Whether your "solution" is really the explanation or not I don't know, but it is certainly an interesting observation on your part. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Now, I am not a Pali expert, but I am convinced that this is the wrong use of Pali. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as Tep has pointed out, Ven. Thanissaro renders it the same way, but, as I have pointed out, Ven ~Nanatiloka does not at all. I wonder whether Ven. Thanissaro will now escape from DSG disfavor! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- Now, when push comes to shove and they have to deal with the sutta use of khanda, they will claim that the Buddha is just using a "teaching method". So, then the five khandas taught by the Buddha aren't real anymore, they are just a "teaching method". And, if you push it much father than that and start quoting Pali sources for the definition of "khanda" or "aggregate" they will get downright testy until you feel compelled to drop the issue. Metta, James ============================= With metta, Howard #91527 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:15 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. philofillet Hi James Nice to see you here again >This is because if they acknowledge that the > Buddha taught the existence of khandas as collections then they will > have to admit the existence of people. > Then their mantra of "there > are only namas and rupas" goes right out the window! A couple of points. I think khandas as "aggregates" is referring to the bundle within a certain khanda, so all form whether internal, external, near, far etc are the form aggregate. Now, putting these 5 aggregates together to form people...seems reasonable, but I don't think that that is what is meant by "aggregate" As for the "do people exist" thing, has to be noted that this is *not* a DSG, KS thing. I've been looking into it, and it is pretty clear that it is standard Theravada. (I also look for a sutta in which the Buddha himself lays out in detail this truth, but can only find the famous Bhikkhuni sutta and another one someone showed me at e-sangha about "what is a being" defined in terms of craving and other fetters, or something like that. Agreed, it would be nice to have a major, central discourse spoken by the Buddha on this point, but to say there are not suttas that make it clear is incorrect. The Bhikkhuni sutta is utterly clear on that point, wouldn't you agree?) It is so mainstream Theravada that even the pop Buddhist Joseph Goldstein can write this: "When perception is stronger than mindfulness, we recognize various appearances and create concepts such as "body", "car", "house" or "person" to describe these appreant realities. We then take these concepts to be actually existing things and begin to live in the world of concepts, losing sight of the underlying, insubstantial nature of phenomena." Yes, according to Theravada, people are concepts. So I wouldn't lose touch with the deept truth of the matter because of frustration with the KS approach. I think where it goes wrong is thta there is ignorning what a huge gap there is between the way people of limited understanding see things and the way the great Ariyans penetrated the truth. So, for example, when I told you to tell Amr not to worry because he doesn't really exist, that was a good example of a foolish application of deep, deep wisdom to our own limited understanding of things. So is insisting "there is no Nina," etc, because at our level of understanding there it. When and *if* there is ever penetrative wisdom that shows "no Nina", fine, but that's not there for us. But I think we can accept that according to Theravadin orthodoxy, people don't exist in real terms, they are concepts. It would be crazy to live our lives in light of that, but it is the truth, I think. That's how I see it! Do you see what I mean? (Haha I already know the answer to that one!) Back on Saturday. metta, phil #91528 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:23 pm Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO rinzeee Dear Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rinze Jon: I've enjoyed reading your many posts since you joined the list. I see you have the benefit of familiarity with the teachings as a part of your upbringing and culture. Very fortunate! Rinze: Thankyou for your kind words, Jon. I was only trying to present the Dhamma as I see it. And where ever is relevant, I have presented quotations from the Tripitaka to support my view. If any discrepancies the error is entirely mine. Jon: I hope you don't if I butt into your exchange with Alex and Tep, although the point I raise is not one being discussed in that thread. Rinze: Of course not! In fact I find these posts interfering with my meditations at times. If it happens too often I may drop out for some time. Jon: Quite apart from the problem of how "acting with yoniso manisakara" can be achieved, ….. Rinze: Jon, I don't understand why it is a problem of how? How would you cross a busy road? (1) Irrespective of the fast moving vehicles approaching, would you still cross the road, and perhaps meet with an accident, or (2) Wait till the road is reasonablely clear and then safely cross the road. Which of these two options would you take? If you are now considering which option to take then that is "acting with yoniso manisakara". Jon: …..I wonder how you see this notion in the context of the Buddha's explanation of the reverse order of DO, where it is explained that it is the ceasing of ignorance that leads in due course to the ceasing of becoming (i.e., to enlightenment). Rinze: Eventually that is how it should happen, with the ceasing of ignorance (or some part thereof), there is is the ceasing of becoming, relevant to the ignorance that has ceased. But this is the culmination of a long process. And Lord Buddha often speaks of Gratification, Danger, Escape, the 3 key ideas that condition one another, in arriving at what you are suggesting above. The notion of "acting with yoniso manisakara", arises when investigating the 5 holding aggregates with regard to the 3 key ideas mentioned above. Jon: As far as I know, the notion of the interposition of yoniso manisakara at the Feelings link is not something mentioned by the Buddha or in the texts. Rinze: Yes, I too think it is not mentioned in the Sutta or any where else in the Tripitaka. Everything is not given in Black & White though, but left to ones wisdom, I think. I believe that Lord Buddha was trying to get us to think in a certain manner. Even when someone askes Him a question, He would put a counter question, if He finds that the question is misdirected, and align the questioners thoughts properly, before answering it. If the question is irrelevant He would not answer, or answers it directly if it is pertinent. Therefore, since Suffering is the taste of salt in the Sea of Dhamma, what ever source you read it from (Suttanta, Abhidhamma etc). I feel that, Feeling plays a pivotal role in the Path to Liberation, Nibbana, described as Blissful, ironically, due to the absence of Feeling! Moreover, some describe Lord Buddha as an Awakened One! Which implies that we are asleep. And Feeling is the first cetasika, one senses when one awakes (in the normal sense). If one examines the 12 factored Paticca Samuppada (PS), the 1st two factors (Avijja / Sankahara) is something of the past, the next 5 factors (vinnana to vedana) the present effects of it. Therefore, vedana has already arisen, and there is nothing we can do about it. BUT, the next link `tanha / upadana' factors, is crucial. This tanha is something happening at this moment of experience, a present cause. If we continue to hold onto the vedana regarding the object, to which this PS is related to, then in the very next cycle of PS (cittas arise and fall ceaselessly), this vedana will continue to increase in vigor, creating a positive feedback loop, culminating in bad words and deeds, in case the object is Anger, or `blindly falling in Love', in case of desire! I'll stop at that! :-) This is a simplified conceptual model of an otherwise complex process. Metta Rinze #91529 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:27 pm Subject: Re: DO is Momentary. rinzeee Dear Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Rinze and all, > Alex: For HIM, it wasn't felt as "personal" pain. He didn't feel as if "I [The Buddha] have the Body and it was hurt by a rock". Rinze: Yeah, He didn't feel it as personal. But why should He go through the motions of `pain in the back'; `headache', `pain in the foot' (due to the rock splinter) etc. Unless He is trying to tell us that, `Pain is'. Bodily pain is enevitable, even to a Buddha, due to causes and conditions. And one should understand that with wisdom, and not try seek `happiness' by avoiding it. This is the whole subject matter of what He was trying to tell us, Suffering! If I remember correctly, He suffered a terrible stomachache during His dying days, I think. And He could only bear it by going into the jhanas (or voidness?). If you read the Mahaparinibbana Sutta in DN you wil come across this incident. Alex: The suttas say that when Avijja ceases (which it does for all Arhats) then sankharas, vinnana, namarupa and so on ceases. Considering how the Dhamma is timeless and DO happens at every moment, it may mean that when Avijja ceases, ALL other factors of clinging cease. That includes the "mind&body subject to clinging". In Khemaka and other suttas, it appears that entire DO falls apart with Arhatship and what is is simply "thusness", Tathagata, without egonotions of internal/external, etc. Rinze: Yes. But as long as He lives (till kamma expires), He will go about His day to day chores as a normal `person', though Noble. Lord Buddha cautioned the Arahants not to use their super powers for display or what ever! Alex: Not all Arahants possess triple knowledge. Plenty of them (in Susima Sutta) did NOT have recollection of past lives or see other beings being reborn. Considering that all factors have to be directly seen, it implies to me that rebirth in DO can also mean momentary ego rebirth in the moment that can be seen here and now, and without clairvoyance. The principle of momentary DO and its stability, can then be applied to the past and the future and seen that way. How can a trainee or an Arahant, without divine eye, directly see the TIMELESS Dhamma visible HERE and NOW (Dependent Origination)? Only if entire DO could be seen without clairvoyance, here and now. Rinze: You answered your own question Alex! You are right! Follow your instincts! I asked this same question from some of the Bhikkus here, but they couldn't give a clear answer because they were bogged down with the traditional 3 life interpretation. 3 life interpretation is also correct, but must be applied in context! Your statement, "Considering that all factors have to be directly seen, it implies to me that rebirth in DO can also mean momentary ego rebirth in the moment that can be seen here and now, and without clairvoyance.." ….."Only if entire DO could be seen without clairvoyance, here and now." Answers your query, "How can a trainee or an Arahant, without divine eye, directly see the TIMELESS Dhamma visible HERE and NOW (Dependent Origination)? But if one so wishes to develop his faculties to the extent of seeing past lives, the option is open wide! Metta Rinze #91530 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:32 pm Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO rinzeee Dear Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Dear Rinze, - > > Thank you for the good reply below. > > > Tep: How do you understand the paramattha dhammas in "an actual > situation"? > > Rinze: > If I may re-open that discussion on Rupa that you terminated, Lord > Buddha answers just this very same question, in Satipattana Sutta. > He starts with Kaya-anupassana. One such contemplation is observing > the body in accordance with the postures it is placed in, when > walking, standing, sitting, lying, bathing, going forward / > backward, eating, urinating, defecating,etc etc. These are "actual > situations". > > 1) In Kaya-anupassana - the 4 elements pathavi, apo, tejo, vayo. > 2) In Vedana-anupassana - the feelings > 3) In Citta-anupassana – The mind (Citta) > 4) In Dhamma-anupassana – The contents of the mind, that is > cetasikas, or conventionally – the hindrances, the 5 clinging > aggregates, the enlightenment factors etc etc. > > And so, if one is mindfull and aware, all the `paramattha dhammas' > are investigated – Consciousness (3), Name (2&4) & Matter (1). > > T: Do you think the 5 clinging aggregates are paramattha dhammas and > why? > > > Tep > === > Rinze: If you could tell me what you think about whether the 5 clinging aggregates are paramattha dhammas and why? , perhaps my response will be better focused. Metta Rinze #91531 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method rinzeee Dear Sarah (cc: Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Rinze, Sarah: S: I disagree that escaping the danger is any indication of lack of understanding of the Dhamma or a failure of any 'test'. Sitting still might be an indication of wrong view and attachment too. Rinze: You missed the point I was trying to make in that post! My post was entirely misunderstood. Please allow me to re-state my case. In this post, I'm trying to raise that very subtle point, which I hope you will be able to grasp it. When Alex asked you the following: Alex: If Sarah refuses to answer, or answers in a very vague and indirect manner, then it would mean that either she doesn't understand the method - or there isn't one. Same applies to other DSG'ers. I'd like to see clear outline, in point form, clear summary of steps neccessary to realize ariyanhood. Rinze: You replied to him with whats below. Sarah 1) Understand the reality appearing now 2) Understand the reality appearing now 3) Understand the reality appearing now 4) Understand the reality appearing now 5) Understand the reality appearing now and so on and so on. Rinze: You were so sure, you had to repeat the same thing 5 times! Moreover, you stated that if things were not clear to ask… Sarah: I hope that's clear, direct, in point form and summarised enough:-) If it's not clear what the reality appearing now is, ask, ask, consider, consider, until it becomes clearer. Rinze: You stated these things in reply to Alex's request for a "clear summary of steps neccessary to realize ariyanhood". Ok, when you say, "Understand the reality appearing now", no doubt you made us understand that cittas and cetasikas / namas and rupas arise and fall away together, etc etc, every moment, the stock phrases which I often read in your posts when you refer to reality. This is what you often mean by `Reality' I'm sure you wouldn't deny. But now, when a pile of junk metal, fashioned in the form of a `train' and hooting away is approaching you, your sense of this `Reality' has changed as implied below: Sarah: Judging someone's understanding by their actions in such scenarios indicates a lack of understanding of realities to me, …. Rinze: Ok, this means that your understanding of `realities' in the above statement, and the reality in `Understand the reality appearing now' as emphasized to Alex, differs in meaning according to the situation, right? Ok, of course I too agree that escaping from any impending danger is the rightl thing to do. That is not what I meant to highlight with the `Train Incident'. In fact 500 odd Bhikkus committed suicide doing the meditation on the Impurities of the Body, which Lord Buddha did not consent (the suiciding), when Ven. Ananda told him of the news. Moreover, even Lord Buddha discovered that, unsuitable situations / circumstances, are not conducive to `Understand the reality appearing now', and disclosed the Middle Path, the clearcut way to realizing Ariyanhood. In fact, why were you trying to escape the train at the time? Because you were responding to `conventional realities' of an ACTUAL train approaching you, and not a pile of junk in the form of a `train' approaching a `mind / body' phenomena inside another pile of junk called a vehcle, which should have been the `reality appearomg right there and then', that should be the case to be considered to realizing ariyanhood, according to you, as you so emphatically stated! Therefore, making the `quantum leap' of understanding `ultimate realities' from `conventional realities', is not only just a matter of `Understand the reality appearing now', there is more to it, as you amply demonstrated. Moreover, understanding realities is just one factor of 8 path factors, there is 7 more, that should arise in harmony to the 1st. The mind, in fact, responds in a conditioned manner to the issues at hand, however well we seem to understand the Dhamma. Seeing these conditions is to see the Dependent Origination of Things. The `removal' of these condtions requires the development of the faculties. This development does not happen in an arbitrary manner, it needs effort. And there is no person behind all these happenings, even though we may use personal pronouns to convey an idea in a conventional sense. Metta Rinze #91532 From: "www.atulasiriwardane.com" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. asiri57 1, Phassa...Everything we experience first of all touches us... 2, Vedana...That creates a sensation... 3, Sangna... We recognize the signal... If we can be equanimous to the sensation the experience won't have any lasting effect. But that is not the case... 4, Sankhara...We accumulate a Sankhara according to our response or lack of response. 4a, Moha Sankhara...If we are not aware of the experience.. because we have no craving or aversion toward it. 4b, Raga Sankhara...If we have craving toward the experience. 4c, Dwesha Sankhara...If we have aversion toward the experience. 5, Vingnana...Because of these Sankhras a part of our mind become unconscious. This causes our suffering. "Avijja pachchaya Sankhara" Avijja simply means 'Not seen'. For Avijja Ignorance is a right word because we ignore something we can be aware of. Because we are unaware (Ignorant) of Phassa, Vedana and Sangna, Sankhara happens. "Sankhara pachchaya Vingnana" Because of the accumulated Sankhara Vingnana happens. This Vingnana is the unconscious mind which adds Sankahras to every experience making our Ignorance, Craving or Aversion too strong, compelling us to react accordingly… This is the problem. The solution is practicing Vipassana. Practicing Awareness and Equanimity toward Kaya….. Vedana.. Chitta…. Dhamma. Buddha says…’ Establishing awareness of these four aspects is the only way to purify the being.” The being is basically pure. The Sankharas make the being defiled. Veya Dhamma Sankhara - Uppada veya dhammino Uppajjithva nirujjhanthi….. The nature of Sankhara is being spent up.. What comes up naturally spent up. Coming up being dissolved…. When we practice awareness of the four aspects of our life Sankharas come up as Vedana -Sensations of body and Dhamma -Thoughts, feelings etc of mind. If we practice equanimity toward them our being become purified. Atula #91533 From: "colette" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Twisted 'wisdom'? ksheri3 Hi Alex, I personally enjoy the concept of Iggulim which would be the way the Jews suggest a non-linear divine thought process, or maybe a twisted thought process, is a CRAZY WISDOM thought process. I think you're taking Sarah into a realm that not even yourself wants to be in BECAUSE it doesn't work with what she's trying to suggest. She made a statement about the rising/cesation of citta this is the foundation; concerning RIGHT UNDERSTANDING she places it as a "conditioner" or fertilizer for the developement of Vipissana nanas. She concludes by simply stating that the complexity of the world is sooooooo VAST that you just can't sit down and conjure, or meditate or as a direct, resultant phenomina, of something that you are planning to do since that would be linear thought; the goer certainly goes but does the goer fully know every step the goer will take when the goer leaves point A, becoming the goer, going to point B? I'll even raise the issue of that nutty economist Adam Smith who clearly showed that "The Invisible Hand" will not allow the goer to arrive at point B from point A which shows that Sarah has a valid argument. Why is negativity so powerful with you? Do heinous crimes actually exist? Are they not manifested through your own addiction to them and your desire for them to be manifested? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Sarah and all, > > >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > ... > > S: It depends whether there is any idea of anyone taking steps:-) > > ... > >No, *you* can't do any of them. When there are conditions for > >particular cittas to arise, they arise. That's all. If right > >understanding has been sufficiently developed, there are conditions > >for the vipassana nanas to occur. But no one can ever *do* them. > > .... > > > According to that logic one shouldn't (and can't) restrain one's evil > impulses because that would affirm self view?? What if, G-d forbid, > someone were to get an impulse to commit a heineous crime? Should one > do one's best at restraining? > > Somehow what you are saying seems to be relevant to the Arahant, but > not us. > > Best wishes, > #91534 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:45 pm Subject: Re: Rinze's qus on conditions -was: DSG's method rinzeee Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Rinze, > > 3) Asevana paccaya is relatively easy to understand. It just refers to the way the javana cittas condition each other in a series, hence 'the habit'. > > > Metta > > Sarah > ======= > Rinze: How does the Javana cittas get at the object? And for how long, is it just for those 7 citta moments (which is some billionths of a second!)? If that is so, it isn't enough to cognize the object, isn't it? Metta Rinze #91535 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Hi Howard, It is not a matter of language. But we have to distinguish between the suttanta method and the Abhidhamma method. You think along the lines of the first, and I think along the lines of the latter. I am not inclined to give up, but if you get tired, I leave the matter. It is not unimportant, it is very important. The five khandhas are not theory. Their impermanence has to be realized. It is odd to realize the impermanence of for example all feelings together of the feeling khandha. When there is happy feeling, there cannot be unhappy feeling, only one feeling at a time can be experienced. I am of this point de départ: what can be experienced right now? This must appeal to you as a phenomenologist, I would think. So, it depends on you whether you wish to continue or not. Nina. Op 15-okt-2008, om 21:31 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I give up on this matter. You are just not understanding me, and no > matter how many ways I rephrase the matter you still do not. Seeing > now is not a > khandha, Nina - it is not a collection. That it occurs together > with other > phenomena doesn't make the seeing a collection. It is a single > phenomenon. > This whole business is most odd. > Just one last comment: None of this is a matter of substance or > Dhamma, > but of language use, and so it is relatively unimportant. I am > dropping it. #91536 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Dear Tep (Howard), Op 16-okt-2008, om 0:56 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > This understanding is what the Thai translators call "roo-ying" > before "kam-nod-roo" rupa & nama. Thank you very much. ------- N: I am glad you understand what I am getting at. I think the misunderstandings about khandhas I have with Howard also hang together with misunderstandings on other matters, such as clinging to a whole of a person. The world of ultimate truth and the world of conventional truth. Nina. #91537 From: "Aaloka" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:25 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana aaloka00 Dear Tep, > That sounds reasonable, yet there still > is a nagging question: for what reason do the rapture & pleasure > arise? It does not seem convincing to me that the knowing of > short/long breath and its wholeness is enough to condition rapture & > pleasure. It's clear that the reason for rapture & pleasure in 1st Jhana is "the 'viveka' (rest/relaxation?) you get by being withdrawn from sensuality". I think your quote from DN22 explains it there as well. (...viveka jampiitisukham pathamam jhaanam...) With Metta, Aaloka. #91538 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:11 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 3, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, What is the difference between mettå and karunå? We read in the “Visuddhimagga” (Ch IX, 93, 94) that the proximate cause of mettå is seeing lovableness in beings and that the proximate cause of compassion is seeing helplessness in those who are overwhelmed by suffering. When we think of someone else’s suffering and we want to ally this there is karunå. However, when someone is suffering we can easily have aversion towards his condition and that is why the near enemy of karunå is “grief based on the homelife” (Vis. Ch IX, 99). Right understanding can know precisely when there is pure compassion and when aversion; if the difference is not known calm based on karunå cannot be developed. Muditå, altruistic joy, is another quality which is among the Brahmavihåras. It has as its proximate cause “seeing beings’ success” (Vis. Ch IX, 95). When we are envious of other people’s happinessthere is no muditå. It is not easy to know the difference between altruistic joy and attachment, but if one does not know this the quality of altruistic joy cannot be developed. When other people are successful or when they obtain a pleasant object such as praise we may easily have envy. When we see the value of kusala and the danger of akusala, there may be conditions for altruistic joy instead of jealousy. My husband had received a decoration of honour and I asked Bhante Dhammadhara whether my gladness about it could be muditå. The Bhante answered that one can easily be attached instead of having muditå where it concerns one’s husband or wife. When there is muditå there should also be impartiality. One should be equally glad about the success of someone else’s husband and is that so? I had to admit that this was not the case. It is difficult to be impartial when it concerns those who are near and dear to us. ***** Nina. #91539 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:15 am Subject: Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, The things outside as well as the rúpas of the body which appear to seeing and are perceived as being tall, short, dark or light, appear actually only at the moment they impinge on the eyesense. If there is no eyesense and we do not see, we cannot think of shape and form, of tall, short, dark and light we take for our body. Therefore, in reality, one’s own body and all the things outside do not belong to anyone. They appear just at the moment seeing- consciousness arises and then they fall away very rapidly. It is the same with sound which only appears when it impinges on the earsense, and then falls away completely. It does not belong to anybody. By being aware of the characteristics of realities, just as they naturally appear in daily life, the wrong view can be eradicated which takes realities for a being, a person or self. In daily life there arises time and again just a moment of seeing, of hearing, of smelling, of tasting, of body-consciousness or of thinking, and all these passing moments are real. They can be objects of satipatthåna so that paññå can investigate their characteristics, and in this way realities can be known as they are: not a being, person or self. ****** Nina. #91540 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:23 am Subject: Non-"I"-dentification produces Harmony! bhikkhu0 Friends: Silly Confrontational Opposition: "I"-Dentification = Egoism is leading to Aversion: "'I Am'... Green, while 'You Are'... Blue"; "Therefore 'I Am' Against 'You'..."; "Therefore Are You Against Me..."; "Therefore I Fear You!!!"; "Therefore I Hate You!!!" Non-"I"-Dentification = selflessness is leading to Harmony: "This is Green, while that is Blue ..." "So is it! So be it! Let it be! Let it go!..." "Polarity is Pain & Diversity is Noise..." "Unity is Peace & Harmony is Bliss..." "As we both & all can, so let us Meditate!" Dwelling in Kind Peace is sweet ease. Please repeat the argument exchanging the Green/Blue pair with these common pairs: Black/White, Rich/Poor, Educated/Uneducated, High/Low, Man/Woman, Young/Old, Big/Small, Intelligent/Stupid, Beautiful/Ugly, Strong/Weak, Eastern/Western, North/Southern, RaceX/RaceY, ReligionX/ReligionY, CultureX/CultureY, etc... SkinX/SkinY NationalityX/NationalityY, etc... PoliticalX/PoliticalY, ColorX/ColorY, etc... FamilyX/FamilyY, GroupX/GroupY etc....! Opposition is a diluted derivative of Hate! Hate produces only suffering! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #91541 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:45 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 306 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 306 Intro: In the following section the Dependent Origination is viewed by way of the second Discrimination: the Discrimination of cause, called “law” or “dhamma”. Reviewing the four kinds of Discrimination, Pa.tisambhidaa: of meaning (attha) or the fruit of a cause, of cause (dhamma), concerned with enunciation of language (nirutti), of penetration which is the understanding of the foregoing kinds of discrimination. In section 305, each of the links of the Dependent Origination was viewed as the effect or fruit of the preceding link. In section 306, each of the links is viewed as a cause or condition for the following link. Seeing the cycle from different points of view helps us to understand that phenomena ‘roll on’, that they have no owner and are beyond control. -------- Text Vis. 306. (b) The meaning of ignorance as condition for formations is profound since it is difficult to understand what mode and on what occasion ignorance is a condition for the several formations.... -------- N: The Tiika states that of the dhammas with their own characteristics (sabhaavadhammaa) the mode of occurring should be distinguished, due to different kinds of conditions. We see that the Vis. text and the Tiika emphasize the way of occurring of the different links, that is, the way they occur now, in daily life. The teaching on the Dependent Origination is not an abstract teaching. At this moment there is ignorance and ignorance conditions the way we act now, it is the cause of kamma performed at this moment. In order to understand in which way ignorance conditions formations, we have to return to former sections. Returning to Text Vis. 65: Here it might be said: 'Let us then firstly agree that ignorance is a condition for formations. But it must now be stated for which formations, and in which way it is a condition'. -------- N: The Tiika states that, while in doubt, he asks, ‘for which formations, and in which way it is a condition?' There are meritorious, demeritorious and imperturbable kamma-formations. Ignorance is a condition for them, but not in the same way for all of them. The Tiika states that the nature of the condition for each of the conditioned dhammas is to be taught. The Vis. then mentions all twenty-four conditions. These have to be applied severally. We read in Vis. 118: When ignorance conditions kusala kamma, it does not arise together with the kusala citta, but it is a natural decisive support condition (pakatuppanissaya paccaya) for kusala citta. The Vis. then explains about decisive support-condition (upanissaya-paccaya) : in order to overcome ignorance one performs kusala, or develops jhåna. Or else, as we also read in the Patthaana, akusala can be a condition for kusala. One performs kusala motivated by clinging to a happy rebirth. Ignorance does not see the danger of rebirth, the danger of even a happy rebirth. We read: “Likewise in one who effects that merit while aspiring for the delight of sense-sphere becoming and fine-material becoming, because he is confused by ignorance.” The latent tendency of ignorance lies dormant also in kusala citta. So long as the latent tendency of ignorance is not eradicated there are conditions for continuing in the cycle. Ignorance of dukkha causes someone to believe that the cycle of birth and death is happiness. Because of ignorance he performs kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma. It is kamma that causes him to be reborn again and again. -------------- Returning to section 306: Text Vis. 306 : the meaning of birth as a condition for ageing-and- death is similarly profound. That is why this Wheel of Becoming is profound in law. This is the profundity of 'law' here. For 'law' is a name for cause, according as it is said, 'Knowledge about cause is discrimination of law' (Vbh. 293). ------- N: The Tiika remarks as to its profundity, that all dhammas in all their modes come into the field of knowledge of the Blessed One (Cuulaniddesa, the questions of Mogharaaja). An ordinary person is unable to understand the Dependent Origination in all aspects. The dhammas are able to perform their function of cause on this or that particular occasion, according to the Tiika, and this is profound. The Tiika remarks that also it is difficult to understand the different modes of occurring of ignorance and the occasion it arises, if kusala has not been accumulated and one is not established in wisdom. -------------------------- ------- Conclusion: As we read, the meaning of birth as a condition for ageing-and-death is similarly profound. Because of ignorance we do not really understand that birth is dukkha and that it leads to ageing and death, to sorrow, lamentation, suffering and woe. Kamma conditions rebirth-consciousness, and when objects impinge on the sensebases, contact conditions feeling, it is the cause of feeling, feeling is the cause of craving and craving is the cause of clinging and this leads to becoming and rebirth. Seeing each link as a cause for the next one helps us to understand conditions and the anattaness of realities. Ignorance as condition for formations is deep and difficult to understand. We should consider what ignorance is. As we read in Vis. 303: <[As to similes:] ignorance is like a blind man because there is no seeing states [dhammas] according to their specific and general characteristics...> Ignorance is not understanding the characteristics of realities, not understanding them as impermanent and non-self. This pertains to any reality appearing now, such as seeing, seeing or attachment. It is hard to realize them as they really are, but a beginning can be made in understanding the characteristic of nama that experiences an object and of rupa that does not know anything. ******** Nina. #91542 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:43 am Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. visitorfromt... Hi Kenh (Nina, Howard), - There is a misunderstanding. --- "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Tep and Howard, > > -------- > KH: > > It is the same when the five khandhas are correctly > assembled. > Only > > > one of the six kinds of citta, only one of the 89 combinations > > > of sankhara-namas, only one feeling . . and so on . . is > actually > > > present. > > > > > > T: In other words, it does not make sense to think of each khandha > as > > a set consisting of the past, future, present, ..., near and far of > > the same kind altogether ! > -------- > > Why doesn't it? It makes sense to think of the classification > 'chariot-axle' as including heavy chariot-axles, light chariot- axles, > wooden chariot-axles, iron chariot-axles, chariot axles that have > existed in the past, chariot axles that will exist in the future, > near, far . . . They all come under the classification 'chariot axle' > don't they? > > When it is time for assembling the five (?) groups of chariot-parts > to make a chariot, each group will comprise just one (or two in the > case of wheels etc) of the various kinds. > > This seems pretty straightforward to me! Why are you so keen to find > fault with the Abhidhamma? > > Ken H > T: I am sorry that you think that way. I just said the same thing that Nina had written earlier. Read her reply to Howard, please. Tep === #91543 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO visitorfromt... Hi Rinze, - I like it better when any non-ariyan discusses the Dhamma rather than teaches it. --- "rinzeee" wrote: > > Dear Tep > > If you could tell me what you think about whether the 5 clinging > aggregates are paramattha dhammas and why? , perhaps my response > will be better focused. > > Metta > Rinze > T: They are not, imho, simply because they are aggregates. The paramattha dhammas are not divisible further. Tep === #91544 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. visitorfromt... Dear Nina (Howard, KenH), - Let's discuss khandhas a little more. > >Tep: > > > This understanding is what the Thai translators call "roo-ying" > > before "kam-nod-roo" rupa & nama. Thank you very much. > ------- > N: I am glad you understand what I am getting at. > I think the misunderstandings about khandhas I have with Howard also > hang together with misunderstandings on other matters, such as > clinging to a whole of a person. > The world of ultimate truth and the world of conventional truth. > Nina. > T: I am glad too to be able to understand khandhas better than before. There is one problem, though. The venerable Nyanatiloka's translation of 'khandha' as 'group' agrees with Howard's interpretation of each khandha as a 'collection'. Perhaps we should look at the original Pali of SN 22.48 : "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the form aggregate. [rupakkhandha] Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation. Howard (#91525) : Ven. T's is simply a weird translation. Ven. ~Nanatilkoka renders it as follows: "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" (S. XXII, 48). Thanks. Tep === #91545 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and James) - In a message dated 10/16/2008 1:15:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi James Nice to see you here again >This is because if they acknowledge that the > Buddha taught the existence of khandas as collections then they will > have to admit the existence of people. > Then their mantra of "there > are only namas and rupas" goes right out the window! A couple of points. I think khandas as "aggregates" is referring to the bundle within a certain khanda, so all form whether internal, external, near, far etc are the form aggregate. Now, putting these 5 aggregates together to form people...seems reasonable, but I don't think that that is what is meant by "aggregate" As for the "do people exist" thing, has to be noted that this is *not* a DSG, KS thing. I've been looking into it, and it is pretty clear that it is standard Theravada. (I also look for a sutta in which the Buddha himself lays out in detail this truth, but can only find the famous Bhikkhuni sutta and another one someone showed me at e-sangha about "what is a being" defined in terms of craving and other fetters, or something like that. Agreed, it would be nice to have a major, central discourse spoken by the Buddha on this point, but to say there are not suttas that make it clear is incorrect. The Bhikkhuni sutta is utterly clear on that point, wouldn't you agree?) It is so mainstream Theravada that even the pop Buddhist Joseph Goldstein can write this: "When perception is stronger than mindfulness, we recognize various appearances and create concepts such as "body", "car", "house" or "person" to describe these appreant realities. We then take these concepts to be actually existing things and begin to live in the world of concepts, losing sight of the underlying, insubstantial nature of phenomena." Yes, according to Theravada, people are concepts. So I wouldn't lose touch with the deept truth of the matter because of frustration with the KS approach. I think where it goes wrong is thta there is ignorning what a huge gap there is between the way people of limited understanding see things and the way the great Ariyans penetrated the truth. So, for example, when I told you to tell Amr not to worry because he doesn't really exist, that was a good example of a foolish application of deep, deep wisdom to our own limited understanding of things. So is insisting "there is no Nina," etc, because at our level of understanding there it. When and *if* there is ever penetrative wisdom that shows "no Nina", fine, but that's not there for us. But I think we can accept that according to Theravadin orthodoxy, people don't exist in real terms, they are concepts. It would be crazy to live our lives in light of that, but it is the truth, I think. That's how I see it! Do you see what I mean? (Haha I already know the answer to that one!) Back on Saturday. metta, phil ================================== There are & there are not people, trees, bodies, cars, and houses. There are such things in the form of fuzzy, relationally patterned collections of phenomena that are part of the whole. In that sense, these are not imagined, whereas self, in anything, is definitely imagined. However, as soon as any of these relationally patterned collections of dhammas is taken to be a thing of its own, with sharp edges and separate from the rest of reality, that is entirely error. Reality is a seamless whole, and fragmenting it into separate things, whether aggregations of dhammas or individual dhammas is error. This seamlessness applies not only to the macroscopic collections that we ignorantly treat as individual realities, but, and here is the harder part, even to the dhammas that some folks here like to call "realities". Nothing separate, as such, is real. The paramattha dhammas when viewed as separate, self-existent realities are also illusion and concept-only. We DO live in a world of concept, not seeing seamless reality at all. From that highest perspective of seamless reality, there are neither bodies, cars, houses, persons, nor paramattha dhammas, and what there IS cannot be stated, but only worldlessly known. Within a river can be found eddies and whirlpools, shallows and deeps, calm water and white water, but none of this has separate reality. With metta, Howard #91546 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/16/2008 2:26:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, It is not a matter of language. But we have to distinguish between the suttanta method and the Abhidhamma method. You think along the lines of the first, and I think along the lines of the latter. I am not inclined to give up, but if you get tired, I leave the matter. It is not unimportant, it is very important. The five khandhas are not theory. -------------------------------------------- Howard: They are not theory. True but irrelevant to the issue I raised with you. -------------------------------------------- Their impermanence has to be realized. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, instead of saying that khandas are impermanent, you should be saying that dhammas are. --------------------------------------------- It is odd to realize the impermanence of for example all feelings together of the feeling khandha. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? ---------------------------------------- When there is happy feeling, there cannot be unhappy feeling, only one feeling at a time can be experienced. ---------------------------------------- Howard: This is a given, but it is also irrelevant to our discussion. ------------------------------------------ I am of this point de départ: what can be experienced right now? This must appeal to you as a phenomenologist, I would think. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Nina, this has no bearing at all on the matter at hand! ------------------------------------------- So, it depends on you whether you wish to continue or not. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, we're not coming even close to connecting. We can't continue, because we haven't begun. We are not engaged in a common conversation, because you don't follow me at all on the matter that I initiated. All that you say above has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I AM talking about language. So, to persist would be entirely pointless, and I will be dropping this thread - sorry. -------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #91547 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:45 am Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. buddhatrue Hi Phil, Howard, and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi James > > Nice to see you here again James: Just popping in a bit. I may do that now and again. :-) > A couple of points. I think khandas as "aggregates" is referring to > the bundle within a certain khanda, so all form whether internal, > external, near, far etc are the form aggregate. Now, putting these 5 > aggregates together to form people...seems reasonable, but I don't > think that that is what is meant by "aggregate" James: I totally don't follow you here. > > As for the "do people exist" thing, has to be noted that this is > *not* a DSG, KS thing. I've been looking into it, and it is pretty > clear that it is standard Theravada. James: Right. That is why I recently asked Sarah, "Do you have such faith in Buddhaghosa?" That is because he is the main proponent of the idea that people don't exist. He states it several times in the Vism. Now, in this group I refer sometimes to "the followers of KS" because they are the more hard-core Theravada. Theravada in today's world in not the same Theravada of the past. As the followers of KS are fond of saying, they are dinosaurs. :-) (I also look for a sutta in which > the Buddha himself lays out in detail this truth, but can only find the > famous Bhikkhuni sutta and another one someone showed me at e- sangha > about "what is a being" defined in terms of craving and other fetters, > or something like that. Agreed, it would be nice to have a major, > central discourse spoken by the Buddha on this point, but to say there > are not suttas that make it clear is incorrect. The Bhikkhuni sutta is > utterly clear on that point, wouldn't you agree?) James: No, I wouldn't agree on the Bhikkhuni sutta. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the nun in that sutta is explaining how there isn't a permanent self, not that beings don't exist. > > It is so mainstream Theravada that even the pop Buddhist Joseph > Goldstein can write this: "When perception is stronger than > mindfulness, we recognize various appearances and create concepts such > as "body", "car", "house" or "person" to describe these appreant > realities. We then take these concepts to be actually existing things > and begin to live in the world of concepts, losing sight of the > underlying, insubstantial nature of phenomena." Yes, according to > Theravada, people are concepts. James: I am not sure what Goldstein means here. I am not sure if he means that bodies, cars, houses, people don't exist, or if we misconceive them as permanent and lasting entities. That last part about "insubstantial" makes me think he is saying something different than what you think. > > So I wouldn't lose touch with the deept truth of the matter because > of frustration with the KS approach. James: I am not losing the "deep truth of the matter" because of a frustration with KS. I know it may seem like I am some kind of dullard, cowpoke Buddhist because I think that people exist, but that isn't the case at all. Actually, I am more in line with Howard on this issue. I believe that people do and don't exist: but that isn't very effective to argue in this group! :-) I approach this matter more from the Mahayana perspective (you know, that branch of Buddhism which was opposed to Buddhaghosa and the teachings of the elders). In the book "Making Life Meaningful" Lama Zopa Rinpoche writes: "Due to the past, present and future merit collected by ourselves and all the buddhas, bodhisattvas and other sentient beings, which are totally nonexistent from their own side, may the I, which is totally nonexistent from its own side, achieve Guru Shakamuni Buddha's enlightenment, which is also totally nonexistent from its own side, and lead all sentient beings, who are totally nonexistent from their own side, to that enlightenment, which is also totally nonexistent from its own side, by myself alone, who is also totally nonexistent from its own side." The difference here is "nonexistent from their own side". Now, that is where the Dhamma is subtle and deep. Any fool can just say that people don't exist. I think where it goes wrong is > thta there is ignorning what a huge gap there is between the way people > of limited understanding see things and the way the great Ariyans > penetrated the truth. So, for example, when I told you to tell Amr not > to worry because he doesn't really exist, that was a good example of a > foolish application of deep, deep wisdom to our own limited > understanding of things. So is insisting "there is no Nina," etc, > because at our level of understanding there it. When and *if* there is > ever penetrative wisdom that shows "no Nina", fine, but that's not > there for us. But I think we can accept that according to Theravadin > orthodoxy, people don't exist in real terms, they are concepts. James: Sorry, but I cannot accept that people are concepts. Concepts don't exist. People exist, but not from their own side (as stated above). It > would be crazy to live our lives in light of that, but it is the truth, > I think. That's how I see it! Do you see what I mean? (Haha I already > know the answer to that one!) James: Yeah, we discussed this a lot in Tokyo. I don't agree on this point. > > Back on Saturday. > > metta, > > phil > Metta, James #91548 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:00 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Dear Aaloka, - One nice benefit of Dhamma discussion is learning of something different. --- "Aaloka" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > > That sounds reasonable, yet there still > > is a nagging question: for what reason do the rapture & pleasure > > arise? It does not seem convincing to me that the knowing of > > short/long breath and its wholeness is enough to condition rapture & > > pleasure. > > It's clear that the reason for rapture & pleasure in 1st Jhana is "the 'viveka' (rest/relaxation?) > you get by being withdrawn from sensuality". I think your quote from DN22 explains it there > as well. (...viveka jampiitisukham pathamam jhaanam...) > > With Metta, > Aaloka. > =========== T: My understanding of the 1st jhana is as follows. 1. vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi = Withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities 2. savitakkam savicaaram = accompanied by directed thought & evaluation 3. viveka jampiitisukham = enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal .. So piiti, sukha of the 1st jhana and viveka are the consequence of vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi + vitakka + vicaara. Here viveka is withdrawal, seclusion. Thanks. Tep === #91549 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Dear Scott (& Larry), - It is allright that you disagree with my postulate which says the 1st jhana is supported by purification of virtues at Stream-entry level. >Scott: It is well-known that there were proficient jhaana practitioners prior to the Buddha's enlightenment. For example, the Brahmajaala Sutta, DN1, outlines the many wrong views arrived at by these unenlightented jhaana masters. None of these jhaana practitioners could have been Stream-Enterers and yet were accomplished in jhaana. T: We have discussed jhana many times, yet I'll continue to hope that one day you would be able to recall that the kind of jhana that is not defined in the suttas never has been my concern. >Scott: I see this as another version of the view that it is only in the ariyan that certain types of consciousness are possible - first pa~n~naa and now the first jhaana. T: I can see that you can very well retain memory of views that bother you. Another problem has been your ability to quickly reach a wrong deduction, projecting from the agitating memory. ........................ > >Tep: "But it is not clear to me yet as to why that commentarial meaning of jhana contradicts, or disagrees with the postulate. Please kindly elaborate." >Scott: It shows that there is also jhaana, of the type "which (views or) examines closely the object and that which examines closely the characteristic marks." This is shown to be the jhaana of the Path and Fruition consciousnesses. This type, I suggest, would be relevant to the Stream-Enterer since it arises at the moment of the Path and Fruition. T: That's a good but not sufficient reason, Scottie. ........................ >Scott: If you take the phrase from Atthasaalinii, "In the term 'born of solitude' the meaning is separation, solitude, freedom from the Hindrances" to be an accurate description of jhaana, and if you accept that the jhaana which arose for jhaana practitioners prior the Buddha's enlightenment suppressed the Hindrances, then they must have been virtuous enough to attain to jhaana. Since the Buddha's saasana had not been delivered, they could not have been Stream-enterers. T: I understand that the five hindrances are absent in the 1st jhana, since the five jhana factors (vitakka, vicaara, piiti, sukha, ekaggata) are oppossing to the five hindrances (sensual desire, ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty). However, in order for the 1st jhana to be the starting jhana of samma- samadhi of the path, you have to have 'vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi' and other path factors as supporting conditions too. MN 117 gives the necessary background. Tep === #91550 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. nilovg Dear Tep and Howard, Op 16-okt-2008, om 12:14 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > T: I am glad too to be able to understand khandhas better than > before. There is one problem, though. The venerable Nyanatiloka's > translation of 'khandha' as 'group' agrees with Howard's > interpretation of each khandha as a 'collection'. Perhaps we should > look at the original Pali of SN 22.48 : > > "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; > blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the > form aggregate. [rupakkhandha] Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation. > > Howard (#91525) : Ven. T's is simply a weird translation. Ven. > ~Nanatilkoka renders it as follows: "Whatever there exists of > corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or > external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that > belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of > feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of > consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" > (S. XXII, 48). ------- N: Ven. Bodhi, Connected Discourses, p. 886, 887: Whatever kind of form there is... A slight difference with Ven. Nyanatiloka. Howard, I do not deny that all kinds of rupa are classified as rupakkhandha, all kinds of feelings are classified as feeling khandha. This is theoretical, but useful, basic. But when the Buddha speaks about: the eye is impermanent, seeing is impermanent, we try to understand this: we know, as you do, that there is one dhamma at a time that can be object of insight. We can understand that seeing, vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, arises together with the khandhas that are cetasikas and that there is at the same time a physical base, rupakkhandha. These arise and fall away but they are there for such an extremely short time. Sati can be aware of just one nama or rupa at a time and later on, in the course of insight impermanence can be directly known. Nina. #91551 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Tep & all, --- On Thu, 16/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: T:>SN 22.48: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the form aggregate. [rupakkhandha] **** H:> Ven. T's is simply a weird translation. Ven. ~Nanatilkoka renders it as follows: "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness- group" (S. XXII, 48) **** S: B.Bodhi's translation: 22:48 (6) Aggregates: "Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate." Pali for the last phrase is: 'aya.m vuccati ruupakkhandho" It's an interesting discussion all round. Metta, Sarah ======= #91552 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... sarahprocter... Hi All, --- On Thu, 16/10/08, sarah abbott wrote: >S: B.Bodhi's translation: 22:48 (6) Aggregates: "Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate." Pali for the last phrase is: 'aya.m vuccati ruupakkhandho" .... New S: and the Pali for the first phrase is: "ya.m ki~nci ruupa" So this translation seems pretty accurate. However, Howard may well like the definition given at the very beginning of the Vibhanga which has this same wording EXCEPT it adds a phrase before "this is called the aggregate of material quality". What it adds is (PTS transl.): "(taking) together collectively and briefly" The Pali for this phrase is: tadekajjha.m abhisa~n~nuuhitvaa abhisa"nkipitvaa" and then "aya.m vuccati ruupakkhandho", as above. Referring to Buddhadatta dict.: tadekajjha.m seems to mean 'that together' abhisa~n~nuuhitvaa abhisa"nkipitvaa" - I'm not sure, I'd have said something like 'intended and arranged', but the translation gives 'collectively and briefly'. Nina or one of the other Pali stars may have more idea. Metta, Sarah ======== #91553 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/16/2008 9:32:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, Tep & all, --- On Thu, 16/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: T:>SN 22.48: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the form aggregate. [rupakkhandha] **** H:> Ven. T's is simply a weird translation. Ven. ~Nanatilkoka renders it as follows: "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness- group" (S. XXII, 48) **** S: B.Bodhi's translation: 22:48 (6) Aggregates: "Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate." Pali for the last phrase is: 'aya.m vuccati ruupakkhandho" It's an interesting discussion all round. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Maybe it is. One thing certain, though, it's all just thinking and talking. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ============================= With metta, Howard #91554 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... visitorfromt... Hi Sarah (Nina, Howard), - I appreciate the Pali text with different ways to translate it. Unfortunately, it is not yet conclusive whether "aggregate" is one or several, singular or plural. But I like Nina's insight. > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Tep & all, > > S: B.Bodhi's translation: > 22:48 (6) Aggregates: > > "Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal > or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is > called the form aggregate." > > Pali for the last phrase is: 'aya.m vuccati ruupakkhandho" > > It's an interesting discussion all round. > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Maybe it is. One thing certain, though, it's all just thinking and talking. ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- No conclusion in black and white yet at this point. Tep === #91555 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, ... basic definitions ... nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 16-okt-2008, om 15:54 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > abhisa~n~nuuhitvaa abhisa"nkipitvaa" - I'm not sure, I'd have said > something like 'intended and arranged', but the translation gives > 'collectively and briefly'. ------- N: abhisa~n~nuuhitvaa from abhisa~n~nuuhati: to heap up, concentrate. sa"nkhipati: abridge, shorten. Thus, collectively and briefly is fine. Nina. #91556 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:45 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: T: "...However, in order for the 1st jhana to be the starting jhana of samma-samadhi of the path, you have to have 'vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi' and other path factors as supporting conditions too. MN 117 gives the necessary background." Scott: Where does it say in MN 117 that the *first jhaana* is 'to be the starting jhaana of samma-samaadhi'? The dhammas constituting the Path are kusala, and automatically suppress the Hindrances. Right view is the forerunner. In rejecting lokuttara jhaana one becomes unable to differentiate mundane jhaana from lokuttara jhaana in considering Dhamma. With this inability, mundane jhaana is erroneously conflated with the Path, and thus the view that mundane jhaana is essential to the Path is born. This is where the distinction made in Atthasalaanii given earlier is relavant: "...Jhaana is twofold: that which (views or) examines closely the object and that which examines closely the characteristic marks. Of these two, 'object scrutinising' jhaana examines closely those devices [for self-hypnotism] as mental objects. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called 'characteristic-examining jhaana.' Of these three, insight is so called from the examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, etc. Because the work to be done by insight is accomplished through the Path, the Path is also so-called. And because Fruition examines closely the Truth of cessation, and possesses the characteristics of truth, it also is called characteristic-examining jhaana..." Sincerely, Scott. #91557 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" nilovg Dear Tep, Op 11-okt-2008, om 19:40 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > Why then do we not develop pa~n~naa so that attachment and clinging to > the objects which appear through the six doors will be eradicated and > there will be less akusala? > > T: When such "attachment and clinging" is eradicated, why are all > akusala NOT eliminated? -------- N: Not yet, the anagaami does not cling to sense objects, he may cling to jhaana and its result, and ignorance still remains. This is eradicated by the arahat. ------ > > T:Why does one who has clinging to an object (nama or rupa) inside or > outside, far or near; past, future, or present; blatant or subtle; > common or sublime; think of it as 'my self' [a self or of anything > pertaining to a self]? ------ N: It depends on the citta rooted in lobha, this may be accompanied by wrong view or not. When it is accompanied by wrong view he takes realities for self. At other moments he may just cling, delight in colour, sound, but he may not have any view about the objects he likes. Nina. #91558 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:01 pm Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Dear Scott, - > >Tep: "...However, in order for the 1st jhana to be the starting jhana of samma-samadhi of the path, you have to have 'vivicceva kaamehi viviccaakusalehi dhammehi' and other path factors as supporting conditions too. MN 117 gives the necessary background." >Scott: Where does it say in MN 117 that the *first jhaana* is 'to be the starting jhaana of samma-samaadhi'? The dhammas constituting the Path are kusala, and automatically suppress the Hindrances. T: Samma-samadhi is defined by 1st jhana - 4th jhana. That is why I say the 1st jhana is the starting of samma-samadhi. At the beginning of the definition of samma-samadhi we see 'vivicceva kaamehi viviccaakusalehi dhammehi'. MN 117 states, "Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions." The first jhana is a kind of singleness of mind without any question. >Scott: Right view is the forerunner. In rejecting lokuttara jhaana one becomes unable to differentiate mundane jhaana from lokuttara jhaana in considering Dhamma. With this inability, mundane jhaana is erroneously conflated with the Path, and thus the view that mundane jhaana is essential to the Path is born. T: In MN 117 or DN 22 or Saccavibhanga Sutta (MN 141) that give analysis (vibhanga) of the magga factors, there is no mention of "lokuttara jhaana" as distinguished from "mundane jhaana". Why? Samma-samadhi is sufficient and complete, according to the Greatest Teacher. >Scott: This is where the distinction made in Atthasalaanii given earlier is relavant: "...Jhaana is twofold: that which (views or) examines closely the object and that which examines closely the characteristic marks. Of these two, 'object scrutinising' jhaana examines closely those devices [for self-hypnotism] as mental objects. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called 'characteristic-examining jhaana.' Of these three, insight is so called from the examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, etc. Because the work to be done by insight is accomplished through the Path, the Path is also so-called. And because Fruition examines closely the Truth of cessation, and possesses the characteristics of truth, it also is called characteristic-examining jhaana..." .................................... When one reads too much outside the Suttas s/he may become an opinionatedly confident and argumentative book-worm instead of wise and humble practitioner. Yours truly, Tep === #91559 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" visitorfromt... Dear Nina, - I appreciate your Dhamma discussion for the sake of learning the Dhamma and promoting correct understanding in others. Taking ownership in the Dhamma is a danger to the arising of right view. > >N: Why then do we not develop pa~n~naa so that attachment and clinging to the objects which appear through the six doors will be eradicated and there will be less akusala? > > > Tep: When such "attachment and clinging" is eradicated, why are all > akusala NOT eliminated? -------- N: Not yet, the anagaami does not cling to sense objects, he may cling to jhaana and its result, and ignorance still remains. This is eradicated by the arahat. ------ T: It is confusing why the eradication of "attachment and clinging", or cessation of upadana, does not result in nirodha that cuts off all akusalas. According to Dependent Origination, it does. " ... 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 stress & suffering." [SN 12.2 Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta] Have I misundertood the Teaching? .............................. > >Tep: Why does one who has clinging to an object (nama or rupa) inside or outside, far or near; past, future, or present; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; think of it as 'my self' [a self or of anything pertaining to a self]? ------ N: It depends on the citta rooted in lobha, this may be accompanied by wrong view or not. When it is accompanied by wrong view he takes realities for self. At other moments he may just cling, delight in colour, sound, but he may not have any view about the objects he likes. T: Thank you for the answer that makes sense. I have seen repeated warnings about 'my lobha and self view' all the time whenever I talk about practicing the Dhamma with desire(chanda iddhipada) and intent (citta iddhipada), as if lobha and ditthi are always unavoidable when there is intention(cetana). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.020.than.html Tep === #91560 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:29 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. philofillet Hi James > James: Just popping in a bit. I may do that now and again. :-) > > > A couple of points. I think khandas as "aggregates" is referring > to > > the bundle within a certain khanda, so all form whether internal, > > external, near, far etc are the form aggregate. Now, putting these > 5 > > aggregates together to form people...seems reasonable, but I don't > > think that that is what is meant by "aggregate" > > James: I totally don't follow you here. Ph: Yes, the last part is wrong I thing. THe khandas are always together, I guess. But the first part is right. Maybe you already knew this, but I didn't - "aggregates" doesn't mean the collection of five different khandas, it refers to a collection withing each of the five. B.Bodhi can explain better than I can from p. 842 of the anthology: "The word khandas means, among other things, a heap or mass (raasi). THe five aggregates are so called because they each unite under one label a multiplicity of phenomena that share the same defining characteristic. Thus whatever form there is, "past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near," is incorporated into the form aggregate, and so for each of the aggregates." So "aggregate" if *not* referring to the collection of five khandas, it is referring to the collection within each khanda. That much is clear. Now it is surely true that the khandas are always together (I guess?) but that is not what "aggregate" refers to. That's all. Just a matter of defining that term, but it doesn't bring us any closer to solving the big issue. > > > > > As for the "do people exist" thing, has to be noted that this is > > *not* a DSG, KS thing. I've been looking into it, and it is pretty > > clear that it is standard Theravada. > > James: Right. That is why I recently asked Sarah, "Do you have such > faith in Buddhaghosa?" That is because he is the main proponent of > the idea that people don't exist. He states it several times in the > Vism. Now, in this group I refer sometimes to "the followers of KS" > because they are the more hard-core Theravada. Theravada in today's > world in not the same Theravada of the past. As the followers of KS > are fond of saying, they are dinosaurs. :-) Ph: OK, I see. > (I also look for a sutta in which > > the Buddha himself lays out in detail this truth, but can only > find the > > famous Bhikkhuni sutta and another one someone showed me at e- > sangha > > about "what is a being" defined in terms of craving and other > fetters, > > or something like that. Agreed, it would be nice to have a major, > > central discourse spoken by the Buddha on this point, but to say > there > > are not suttas that make it clear is incorrect. The Bhikkhuni > sutta is > > utterly clear on that point, wouldn't you agree?) > > James: No, I wouldn't agree on the Bhikkhuni sutta. As I have > pointed out many times in the past, the nun in that sutta is > explaining how there isn't a permanent self, not that beings don't > exist. Ph: OK, I can see how you can reach that conclusion from that sutta. > > It is so mainstream Theravada that even the pop Buddhist Joseph > > Goldstein can write this: "When perception is stronger than > > mindfulness, we recognize various appearances and create concepts > such > > as "body", "car", "house" or "person" to describe these appreant > > realities. We then take these concepts to be actually existing > things > > and begin to live in the world of concepts, losing sight of the > > underlying, insubstantial nature of phenomena." Yes, according to > > Theravada, people are concepts. > > James: I am not sure what Goldstein means here. I am not sure if he > means that bodies, cars, houses, people don't exist, or if we > misconceive them as permanent and lasting entities. That last part > about "insubstantial" makes me think he is saying something > different than what you think. Ph: OK, possible, but I would keep reflecting on it. > > > > So I wouldn't lose touch with the deept truth of the matter > because > > of frustration with the KS approach. > > James: I am not losing the "deep truth of the matter" because of a > frustration with KS. I know it may seem like I am some kind of > dullard, cowpoke Buddhist because I think that people exist, but > that isn't the case at all. Actually, I am more in line with Howard > on this issue. I believe that people do and don't exist: but that > isn't very effective to argue in this group! :-) Ph: "People do and don't exist." That's what I feel, but I guess if I'm saying Theravada says ultimately they don't, I am leaning with the latter. But they certainly exist until are understanding directly shows us otherwise, they don't stop existing when they say they don't. We all believe they exist, at our level of understanding, no matter what we say about the deep theory of how the Ariyans understand....or something like that. > I approach this matter more from the Mahayana perspective (you know, > that branch of Buddhism which was opposed to Buddhaghosa and the > teachings of the elders). In the book "Making Life Meaningful" Lama > Zopa Rinpoche writes: > > "Due to the past, present and future merit collected by ourselves > and all the buddhas, bodhisattvas and other sentient beings, which > are totally nonexistent from their own side, may the I, which is > totally nonexistent from its own side, achieve Guru Shakamuni > Buddha's enlightenment, which is also totally nonexistent from its > own side, and lead all sentient beings, who are totally nonexistent > from their own side, to that enlightenment, which is also totally > nonexistent from its own side, by myself alone, who is also totally > nonexistent from its own side." > > The difference here is "nonexistent from their own side". Now, that > is where the Dhamma is subtle and deep. Any fool can just say that > people don't exist. Ph: I see what you mean. I started looking into Mahayana, you know, just because of this issue. And found in the Diamond Sutta (from a very brief look) very detailed descriptions of beings, very organic, and then parallel teachings of the sort above, "nonexistent from their own side." I will keep looking at it. I started a thread at e-sangha entitled "Does not-self mean there are no beings" or soemthing like that, and subtitled it "If there are no beings, what did the Buddha vow to liberate?" because that has never made sense to me (like the precept against killing doesn't) but I had to retract that subtitle because the Theravadin moderators rightly said that that was not a Theravadin teaching. In Theravada, the Buddha didn't vow to liberate all beings from their suffering. I have always been very compassion oriented (since some intense childhood experiences I have neglected to tell you about), my writing is all about it, my teaching is all about it, so it could be someday I gravitate towards Mahayana more, we'll see. For now I am tilting back a bit more on the wisdom wing. Funny, when I looked up the definition of khandas, I found something Naomi wrote in the margin of the anthology. She used to do that sometimes 3 or 4 years ago, when I was intensely into sutta and Abhidhamma study and listening to talks all the time and she probably feared I was slipping away from her. She wrote in big block letters "LOVE is the best gift from (drawing of Buddha)." I would disagree, as I've said to you offlist, I don't think there can be real metta or karuna without some degree of wisdom, otherwise it is just creating emotion to respond to different situations, so I think wisdom is the best gift from the Buddha. > I think where it goes wrong is > > thta there is ignorning what a huge gap there is between the way > people > > of limited understanding see things and the way the great Ariyans > > penetrated the truth. So, for example, when I told you to tell Amr > not > > to worry because he doesn't really exist, that was a good example > of a > > foolish application of deep, deep wisdom to our own limited > > understanding of things. So is insisting "there is no Nina," etc, > > because at our level of understanding there it. When and *if* > there is > > ever penetrative wisdom that shows "no Nina", fine, but that's not > > there for us. But I think we can accept that according to > Theravadin > > orthodoxy, people don't exist in real terms, they are concepts. > > James: Sorry, but I cannot accept that people are concepts. > Concepts don't exist. People exist, but not from their own side (as > stated above). > > It > > would be crazy to live our lives in light of that, but it is the > truth, > > I think. That's how I see it! Do you see what I mean? (Haha I > already > > know the answer to that one!) > > James: Yeah, we discussed this a lot in Tokyo. I don't agree on > this point. Ph: That's cool. I'll drop it there and leave it to you if you want to add anything. It's a deep point and I don't expect to fully understand it any day soon.... metta, phil #91561 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:43 pm Subject: Is there a "ground of being?" wsa [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. philofillet Hi Howard and all > There are & there are not people, trees, bodies, cars, and houses. > There are such things in the form of fuzzy, relationally patterned > collections of phenomena that are part of the whole. In that sense, these are not > imagined, whereas self, in anything, is definitely imagined. However, as soon > as any of these relationally patterned collections of dhammas is taken to be > a thing of its own, with sharp edges and separate from the rest of reality, > that is entirely error. Reality is a seamless whole, and fragmenting it into > separate things, whether aggregations of dhammas or individual dhammas is > error. "Reality is a seamless whole" This, and the reference you made later to whirlpools etc rising from the river ("Within a river can be found eddies and whirlpools, shallows and deeps, calm water and white water, but none of this has separate reality")remind me of the teaching I kept seeing in Mahayana teachers about a kind of "ground of being" like I was asking about a few weeks ago. That is a separate but related topic, I guess, whether Theravada also teaches of a ground of being. You know you always see references in zen books (I have only read a few but always see this) of a wave rising from the sea, and thinking it is separate, forgetting it is water. A student who belongs to Sokagakkai also talked about that. I have never seen that in Theravada, this idea of a ground of being we rise from to form deluded self-idnetities and then fall back into. It doesn't make sense to me from the point of view of rebirth, linking consciousness. What do you think of the idea of a "ground of being?" I think I asked this in a thread before (after asking about "interconnectedness") but as far as I remember I didn't get an answer...might have missed it. I have a backlog of posts that I have to get to on tomorrow, so I probably won't discuss this at length, but curious to see what people make of this sort of thing. metta, phil #91562 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:29 pm Subject: Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. philofillet Hi again James I wrote: >It's a deep point and I don't expect to fully > understand it any day soon.... And the neat thing is, it is not a pressing matter - the only thing that really matters for me these days at my shallow level of understanding is behaviour, whether what I do, say and speak is harmful to myself and others, and reflecting before, during and after I behave whether the behaviour is in line with this. ("The wise man is known by behaviour", as the Buddha taught, at a certain level.) Writing this is a reminder to myself, maybe, for there are signs of SOWS (sexiness of wisdom syndrome) creeping up on me again...I'm glad I'm getting into Abhidhamma again, but I feel a certain feverish aspect to it again...keep an eye on me and remind me of these words. Don't hesitate to use the SOWS joke at me the way I used it at other people :) metta, phil #91563 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: T: Samma-samadhi is defined by 1st jhana - 4th jhana. That is why I say the 1st jhana is the starting of samma-samadhi. At the beginning of the definition of samma-samadhi we see 'vivicceva kaamehi viviccaakusalehi dhammehi'." MN 117 Mahaacattaariisakasutta.m (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi): "What, bhikkhus, is noble right concentration with its supports and its requisites, that is right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness? Unification of mind equipped with these seven factors is called noble right concentration with its supports and its requisites." "Katamo ca, bhikkhave, ariyo sammaasamaadhi saupaniso saparikkhaaro? Seyyathida.m â€" sammaadi.t.thi, sammaasa"nkappo, sammaavaacaa, sammaakammanto, sammaaaajiivo, sammaavaayaamo, sammaasati; yaa kho, bhikkhave, imehi sattaha"ngehi cittassa ekaggataa parikkhataa â€" aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyo sammaasamaadhi saupaniso itipi, saparikkhaaro itipi." Note 1099: "Ariya.m sammaa samaadhi.m sa-upanisa.m saparikkhaara.m. MA explains 'noble' here as supramundane, and says that this is the concentration pertaining to the supramundane path. Its 'supports and requisites,' as will be shown, are the other seven path factors." T: "In MN 117 or DN 22 or Saccavibhanga Sutta (MN 141) that give analysis (vibhanga) of the magga factors, there is no mention of 'lokuttara jhaana' as distinguished from 'mundane jhaana'..." Scott: You can see for the MN 117 quote, the Paa.li shows that it is *noble* right concentration (ariya.m sammaa samaadhi.m) which is being considered. This is supramundane. Can you suggest any other explanation for the use of 'ariya.m sammaa samaadhi.m'? Now a look at the other references provided. It will be shown that sammaasaamadhi is being discussed, not ariya.m sammasammaadhi. DN 22 Mahaasatipa.t.thaanasutta.m: "...And what, monks is Right Concentration? Here, a monk detached from sense desires, detached from unwholesome mental states, enters and remains in the first jhaana, which is with thinking and pondering, born of detachment, filled with delight and joy..." "Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammaasamaadhi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakka.m savicaara.m vivekaja.m piitisukha.m pa.thama.m jhaana.m upasampajja viharati..." Scott: Here, there is 'sammaasamaadhi' only. The term ariya.m sammaa samaadhi.m' is not used here. This is because here, mundane jhaana is being described. MN 141: "And what, friends, is right concentration? Here, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhaana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion..." "Katamo caavuso, sammaasamaadhi? Idhaavuso, bhikkhu vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakka.m savicaara.m vivekaja.m piitisukha.m pa.thama.m jhaana.m upasampajja viharati..." Scott: Again, the Paa.li shows 'sammaasamaadhi' without the qualifier used in MN 117, that being 'ariya.m.' So here, too, we see that mundane jhaana is being described. It is clear, given the suttas cited, that one does indeed find the distinction between mundane and supramundane taught in the suttas. The commentary merely clarifies this distinction; it doesn't create it since it clearly exists within the suttas themselves. Sincerely, Scott. #91564 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and James) - In a message dated 10/16/2008 7:29:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Ph: Yes, the last part is wrong I thing. THe khandas are always together, I guess. But the first part is right. Maybe you already knew this, but I didn't - "aggregates" doesn't mean the collection of five different khandas, it refers to a collection withing each of the five. B.Bodhi can explain better than I can from p. 842 of the anthology: "The word khandas means, among other things, a heap or mass (raasi). THe five aggregates are so called because they each unite under one label a multiplicity of phenomena that share the same defining characteristic. Thus whatever form there is, "past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near," is incorporated into the form aggregate, and so for each of the aggregates." So "aggregate" if *not* referring to the collection of five khandas, it is referring to the collection within each khanda. That much is clear. Now it is surely true that the khandas are always together (I guess?) but that is not what "aggregate" refers to. That's all. Just a matter of defining that term, but it doesn't bring us any closer to solving the big issue. ============================= There are five collections, each of which is referred to as a khandha: the collection of rupas and the four classes of namas (of types vi~n~nana, vedana, sa~n~na, and sankhara). The quintet consisting of these five collections is itself, of course, also a collection, but it isn't referred to as a khandha. Wiith metta, Howard #91565 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:56 pm Subject: Re: Is there a "ground of being?" was [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote ... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/16/2008 7:43:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard and all > There are & there are not people, trees, bodies, cars, and houses. > There are such things in the form of fuzzy, relationally patterned > collections of phenomena that are part of the whole. In that sense, these are not > imagined, whereas self, in anything, is definitely imagined. However, as soon > as any of these relationally patterned collections of dhammas is taken to be > a thing of its own, with sharp edges and separate from the rest of reality, > that is entirely error. Reality is a seamless whole, and fragmenting it into > separate things, whether aggregations of dhammas or individual dhammas is > error. "Reality is a seamless whole" This, and the reference you made later to whirlpools etc rising from the river ("Within a river can be found eddies and whirlpools, shallows and deeps, calm water and white water, but none of this has separate reality")remind me of the teaching I kept seeing in Mahayana teachers about a kind of "ground of being" like I was asking about a few weeks ago. That is a separate but related topic, I guess, whether Theravada also teaches of a ground of being. You know you always see references in zen books (I have only read a few but always see this) of a wave rising from the sea, and thinking it is separate, forgetting it is water. A student who belongs to Sokagakkai also talked about that. I have never seen that in Theravada, this idea of a ground of being we rise from to form deluded self-idnetities and then fall back into. It doesn't make sense to me from the point of view of rebirth, linking consciousness. What do you think of the idea of a "ground of being?" ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not fond of it, and it is not a metaphor I use. It is the same as the Brahman of the Vedantsts - a literal substance (sub-stance: something "standing under"). For me, there is but one reality, and it can be (not too badly) conceptualized as a many-faceted but seamless reality, a la the river simile or like a vast, luminous diamond, but which is really not like these at all, for as soon as we name it, conceptualize it, or describe it, that is not it. When conditionality is known, it is known. It is right here at our fingertips, nose, eyes, ears, tongue, and mind, but not as corrupted by our thinking. As the Zen folks do say: "Look! Look!" --------------------------------------------- I think I asked this in a thread before (after asking about "interconnectedness") but as far as I remember I didn't get an answer...might have missed it. I have a backlog of posts that I have to get to on tomorrow, so I probably won't discuss this at length, but curious to see what people make of this sort of thing. metta, phil ============================= With metta, Howard #91566 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:22 pm Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana visitorfromt... Dear Scottie, I am happy to learn from your kind Pali posting that shows the term 'ariyo sammaasamaadhi' in MN 117 versus just 'sammaasamaadhi' in DN 22 or MN 141. Thanks. >Tep: Samma-samadhi is defined by 1st jhana - 4th jhana. That is why I say the 1st jhana is the starting of samma-samadhi. At the beginning of the definition of samma-samadhi we see 'vivicceva kaamehi viviccaakusalehi dhammehi'." >Tep: "In MN 117 or DN 22 or Saccavibhanga Sutta (MN 141) that give analysis (vibhanga) of the magga factors, there is no mention of 'lokuttara jhaana' as distinguished from 'mundane jhaana'..." Scott: You can see for the MN 117 quote, the Paa.li shows that it is *noble* right concentration (ariya.m sammaa samaadhi.m) which is being considered. This is supramundane. Can you suggest any other explanation for the use of 'ariya.m sammaa samaadhi.m'? Scott: Now a look at the other references provided. It will be shown that sammaasaamadhi is being discussed, not ariya.m sammasammaadhi. Scott: Again, the Paa.li shows 'sammaasamaadhi' without the qualifier used in MN 117, that being 'ariya.m.' So here, too, we see that mundane jhaana is being described. It is clear, given the suttas cited, that one does indeed find the distinction between mundane and supramundane taught in the suttas. The commentary merely clarifies this distinction; it doesn't create it since it clearly exists within the suttas themselves. =========================== T: It is a weak evidence that does not mean much, Scott. The context of MN 117 is clear that the Buddha emphsized the ariyan's sammaasamaadhi that is supported by the other seven samma magga factors, but He did not call it "lokuttara" or downgraded the magga factors in the many other suttas as lokiya ("mundane"). Frankly, do you believe that sammaasamaadhi (as defined in DN 22 and MN 141 and many other suttas) is NOT that of the ariyans and is NOT supported by the other seven samma magga factors? I do not think you have a strong evidence to conclude as you did above. Just one appearance of 'ariyo' in MN 117 is not enough to assume that the Buddha defined two different kinds of sammaasamaadhi. Ariyo denotes ariyans and that's all. We sometimes say 'human beings' and other times we just say 'humans'. We sometimes say 'college professors' and other times we just say 'professors'. The list goes on. Tep === #91567 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Is there a "ground of being?" was [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote ... TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/16/2008 7:57:14 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: for as soon as we name it, conceptualize it, or describe it, that is not it. ......................................................... “… in whatever way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 911, The True Man, Sappurisa Sutta, #113) #91568 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:30 pm Subject: On Virtue (siila) .. Part I. visitorfromt... Hi Larry, Scott, (Nina, Sarah, Jon and All,) - I am going to present some passages about virtue(siila) from the Ptsm in only a few postings. The objective is to promote an understanding of what siila means beyond the Buddhists' precepts. The inserted Pali words in parentheses are taken from the Index at the back of the book (translated by Nanamoli Bhikkhu. Path of Discrimination. PTS publication, 2002, hard cover). Patisambhidamagga, I (Treatise on Knowledge) : ---------------------------------------------- 261. What is virtue? There is virtue as volition(cetanaa), virtue as consciousness concomitant(cetasika), virtue as restraint(sam.vara), virtue as non- transgression(aviitikkama). 262. How many kinds of virtue are there? There are three kinds of virtue: profitable virtue, unprofitable virtue, indeterminate virtue. 263. From what does virtue originate? Profitable virtue originates from profitable cognizance(citta), unprofitable virtue originates from unprofitable cognizance, indeterminate virtue originates from indeterminate cognizance. 264. With how many ideas(dhammas) does virtue combine(samodhaaneti)? Virtue combines with restraint, virtue combines with non- transgression, virtue combines with the volition produced about such an idea [as restraint or non-transgression]. In the case of killing living things virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression. In the case of taking what is not given ... sexual misconduct .... false speech ... malicious speech ... harsh speech .... gossip ... covetousness ... ill-will ... In the case of wrong view virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression. Through renunciation in the case of zeal(chanda) for sensual-desires virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression. Through non ill-will in the case of ill-will virtue is in the sense of its restraint, ... Through perception of light in the case of stiffness and torpor virtue is in the sense of its restraint, .... Through non-distraction in the case of agitation virtue is in the sense of its restraint, .... Through investigation-of-ideas in the case of uncertainty virtue is in the sense of its restraint, ... Through knowledge in the case of ignorance virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression. Through gladness in the case of boredom virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression. Through the first jhana in the case of the hindrances virtue is ... non-transgression. Through the second jhana in the case of applied thought and sustained thought virtue is ... non-transgression. Through the third jhana in the case of happiness virtue is ... non-transgression. Through the fourth jhana in the case of pleasure and pain virtue is is in the sense of their restraint, virtue is in the sense of their non-transgression. [to continue ...] Questions: Can a wrong view be restrained? If yes, then how? Can zeal(chanda) for sensual desire be restrained through renunciation (nekkhamma)? If yes, then how? Can uncertainty(doubt) be restrained through investigation of dhammas (dhamma-vicaya)? Tep === #91569 From: "colette" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: Is there a "ground of being?" wsa [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, was Quote Survey. ksheri3 Hi Phil, VERY INTRIGUEING! You know you always see references in > zen books (I have only read a few but always see this) of a wave > rising from the sea, and thinking it is separate, forgetting it is > water. A student who belongs to Sokagakkai also talked about that. colette: this reminds me of the ending to the movie THE MATRIX where "Trinity" is flying a helicopter. The helicopter strikes a building but we see the impact of the helicopter with the building not as a destructive force we first see it as a wave that radiates outward from the point of impact, intersection. I feel that this scene in the movie is extremely reasonable since it would be like slowing time down so that we can see the split second that a citta arises and falls. The scene shows, after the wave, the actual explosive destruction that would be the reality that people actually witness. The type of concepts you are relating are like a "common denominator", a foundation upon which thought can continue. A basis for speaking. THE GROUND OF BEING is a good meditational thought. Thanx for the chance. I'll give it a go but I'm deep into the paper: "theory theory to the max" by stephen stich and Shaun Nichols. I LOVE IT! toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: <...> > "Reality is a seamless whole" This, and the reference you made > later to whirlpools etc rising from the river ("Within a river can > be found eddies and whirlpools, shallows and deeps, calm water and > white water, but none of this has separate reality")remind me of > the teaching I kept seeing in Mahayana teachers about a kind > of "ground of being" like I was asking about a few weeks ago. That > is a separate but related topic, I guess, whether Theravada also > teaches of a ground of being. You know you always see references in > zen books (I have only read a few but always see this) of a wave > rising from the sea, and thinking it is separate, forgetting it is > water. A student who belongs to Sokagakkai also talked about that. I > have never seen that in Theravada, this idea of a ground of being we > rise from to form deluded self-idnetities and then fall back into. > It doesn't make sense to me from the point of view of rebirth, > linking consciousness. > > What do you think of the idea of a "ground of being?" I think I > asked this in a thread before (after asking > about "interconnectedness") but as far as I remember I didn't get an > answer...might have missed it. <....> #91570 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:39 pm Subject: Forest Bliss! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Ease of Serene Calm: A radiant deity once asked the Buddha: Those who dwell deep in the forest, Peacefully living the Noble life, Eating only a single meal a day, Why is their appearance so serene? The Blesses Buddha responded: They do not trouble over the past, Nor do they crave for any future, They live just with what is present, Therefore are their looks so serene! By urging towards the yet unreal future, By longing back into a forever lost past, Fools verily dry up and wither away, Like a green creeper cut at the root... Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya I 5 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Solitary serene calm is the Bliss in the Forest! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #91571 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:05 am Subject: silly? confrontational opposition! reverendagga... Ven.Gotama/Prince Mara Nibbana/Dukkha Good/Evil Good is the discouragement of suffering. Evil is the encouragement of suffering. Good is striving for and encouraging the above as a compass for true spiritual maturity as OPPOSED to simple spiritual experience. Is it not the nature of good to be OPPOSED to evil? Is it not the nature of evil to be OPPOSED to good? Hate produces only suffering? Hate or aversion? May the Buddhas,Deva and Angels bless All of you! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #91572 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:33 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 3, no 9. nilovg Dear friends, Upekkhå, equanimity, is another Brahmavihåra. Its charactreistic is promoting the aspect of neautrality towards beings (Vis. Ch IX, 96). Seeing beings’ ownership of kamma is its proximate cause. For example, when we see someone who suffers but he is beyond help, there can be equanimity instead of aversion, if we realize that he has to receive the result of the kamma he performed. Through equanimity there can be calm amidst the vicissitutes of life. One day there is praise, but the next day there will be blame; one day there is gain, but the next day there will be loss. The “Visuddhimagga” (Ch IX, 96) states that the manifestation of upekkhå is the quieting of resentment and approval. We can learn to see that it is beneficial to have less attachment to pleasant objects and less aversion towards unpleasant objects. The experience of such objects depends on kamma that produces its result accordingly, it does not depend on our will. The Brahmavihåras are difficult to develop because of our defilements. They can only be developed if there is a precise knowledge of kusala as kusala and of akusala as akusala. Through the development of samatha one can become temporarily free from lobha, dosa and moha, but these defilements cannot be eradicated. Do we want temporary kusala or do we want to eradicate defilements? Vipassanå is the only way to eradicate defilements. Samatha was taught also by other teachers before the Buddha’s time, but vipassanå is exclusively the Buddha’s teaching. The Buddha reminded the monks of the goal of the teachings, the eradication of defilements, and he exhorted them not to be satisfied with lesser attainments, but to continue developing the right conditions for the attainment of arahatship. ******* Nina. #91573 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, We should carefully consider what our possessions we believe we own really are. The moments we do not see them we can merely think about them, but we believe that we own many things. However, of what use can these things be to us during the moments we do not see or touch them? When the characteristics of paramattha dhammas have been understood as they are: not a being, person or self, it will be realised that paramattha dhammas are the same for all people, and that in that respect all people are equal. When seeing-consciousness arises, it sees what appears and then it falls away. The seeing- consciousness and what appears to seeing, visible object, do not belong to anybody. Therefore, we should not take anything for “I” or “mine”. All people are equal, they are the same as far as paramattha dhammas are concerned. The defilement, however, which takes realities for “I” or “mine” is of a different degree for each person. ----------- Nina. #91574 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] On Virtue (siila) .. Part I. sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Just to say that I'm very happy that you're presenting this series and thank you for adding the key Pali terms. Anumodana! --- On Fri, 17/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: Patisambhidamagga, I (Treatise on Knowledge) : ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- 261. What is virtue? There is virtue as volition(cetanaa) , virtue as consciousness concomitant( cetasika) , virtue as restraint(sam. vara), virtue as non- transgression( aviitikkama) . 262. How many kinds of virtue are there? There are three kinds of virtue: profitable virtue, unprofitable virtue, indeterminate virtue. .... S: A lot of 'meat' in these first sections already! Metta, Sarah #91575 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:30 am Subject: Photo in Japan buddhatrue Hi All, I just uploaded a photo of me and Phil in Japan. We went to a very famous Buddhist temple and statue. I never, in my life, thought I would be able to see this statue in person (but I have admired it many times in photographs). It was really a very special day for me: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/photos/view/8e16?b=70 Metta, James #91576 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo in Japan sarahprocter... Hi James & Phil, a lovely pic - thanks for sharing and putting it in the album! I'm so glad the typhoon worked out so well for you guys:-). metta, Sarah From: buddhatrue I just uploaded a photo of me and Phil in Japan. We went to a very famous Buddhist temple and statue. I never, in my life, thought I would be able to see this statue in person (but I have admired it many times in photographs) . It was really a very special day for me: http://ph.groups. yahoo.com/ group/dhammastud ygroup/photos/ view/8e16? b=70 #91577 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was it inevitable aeons ago that this effects happens? sarahprocter... Dear Alberto (& Alex), The following was a good answer, I thought: --- On Wed, 15/10/08, alberto.spera wrote: >>Alex: By Fatalism I mean that nothing can be changed. If Arhatship happens > today or Aeons later is all due to unchangeble conditions. .... Alberto: >I'd like to comment your statement in terms of paramattha dhammas,Now is conditioned (paccayuppanna) , just as it will be in next aeons and as it was in the past, but Now is also a conditioning factor (paccaya), as it will do over the next aeons and did over the past. Condtioned and conditioning dhammas arise and fall at the speed of light, never the same twice, avijjia (the main akusala conditioned and conditioning factor) does its task and prevents us from seeing all this, panna (the main kusala conditioned and conditioning factor) does its tasks and allow us to see all this Now we're probably conditioned by avijja, but now just as probably we're also condtioning more avijja to arise I suppose the term fatalism could apply to a period when there is no Dhamma around to assist us in the emancipating process from avijja, but this is not our case, now we have the possibility to develop whatever panna we have accumulated over all these aeons we've been spending in samsara< .... S: I'll look forward to more of your reflections on various topics. Metta, Sarah ======= #91578 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana - Ariya scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: T: "It is a weak evidence that does not mean much, Scott. The context of MN 117 is clear that the Buddha emphasized the ariyan's sammaasamaadhi that is supported by the other seven samma magga factors, but He did not call it 'lokuttara' or downgraded the magga factors in the many other suttas as lokiya ('mundane')..." Scott: I understand that the Path and Fruit arise but once each (at each of the four levels of 'enlightenment') and that the magga factors noted as being supports for ariya.m sammaasamaadhi refer to the mental factors which arise conascently at the moment of the Path. I don't understand this to refer to jhaana citta and the mundane absorptions at all. T: "...Frankly, do you believe that sammaasamaadhi (as defined in DN 22 and MN 141 and many other suttas) is NOT that of the ariyans and is NOT supported by the other seven samma magga factors? I do not think you have a strong evidence to conclude as you did above. Just one appearance of 'ariyo' in MN 117 is not enough to assume that the Buddha defined two different kinds of sammaasamaadhi. Ariyo denotes ariyans and that's all..." Scott: Not 'of the ayiyans', no - just 'ordinary' jhaana - still kusala of course. Sammaasamaadhi is described in terms of the mental factors which arise (or do not arise) with jhaana citta to comprise the first four jhaanas - e.g. piiti, sukha, etc. Ariya.m sammaasamaadhi refers to citass'ekaggataa, a mental factor arising at moment of the Path supporting and supported by the other mental factors listed. A close look at the different sutta indicates clearly that two separate uses are made of the term sammaadhi. 'Ariyan' is concept - a conventional designation not meant to be taken literally as a 'person'. In MN 117 the term is used to describe a certain type of kusala consciousness. Regarding the claim: 'Ariyo denotes ariyans and that's all,' consider MN 48, Kosambiyasutta.m, which refers to 'the great reviewing knowledges' (mahaapaccavekkha.na~naa.na) of a stream-enterer, and it will be clear that 'ariya.m' is in adjectival reference to dhammas, not persons: "'And how does this view that is noble and emancipating lead the one who practises in accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering?... "Katha~nca, bhikkhave, yaaya.m di.t.thi ariyaa niyyaanikaa niyyaati takkarassa sammaa dukkhakkhayaaya?" He understands thus: 'There is no obsession unabandoned in myself that might so obsess my mind that I cannot know and see things as they actually are. My mind is well disposed for awakening to the truths. This is the first knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people... "...So eva.m pajaanaati â€" 'natthi kho me ta.m pariyu.t.thaana.m ajjhatta.m appahiina.m, yenaaha.m pariyu.t.thaanena pariyu.t.thitacitto yathaabhuuta.m nappajaaneyya.m na passeyya.m. Suppa.nihita.m me maanasa.m saccaana.m bodhaayaa'ti. Idamassa pa.thama.m ~naa.na.m adhigata.m hoti ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m puthujjanehi." "...When I pursue, develop, and cultivate this view, I obtain internal serenity, I personally obtain stillness.' This is the second knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people (ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m puthujjanehi)... "...He understands thus: 'There is not other recluse or brahmin outside [the Buddha's Dispensation] possessed of a view such as I possess.' This is the third knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people (ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m puthujjanehi)... "...He understands thus: " I possess the character of a person who possesses right view.' This is the fourth knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people...This is the fifth knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people (ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m puthujjanehi)... "...He understands thus: 'I possess the strength of a person who possesses right view.' This is the sixth knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people...This is the seventh knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people (ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m puthujjanehi)..." Scott: It is clear that the phrase, repeated seven times, 'this is the...knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people' refers to '~naa.na' not 'persons.' It is clear that, since this is describing the mahaapaccavekkhaa.na~naa.na of the stream-enterer, it refers to supramundane concsciousness. The Paa.li ('...ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m. puthujjanehi) clearly shows that the designations 'ariya.m' and 'lokuttara.m' not only refer to a class of consciousness but are, again, well evident in the suttas. Sincerely, Scott. #91579 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rinze's qus on conditions -was: DSG's method sarahprocter... Dear Rinze, --- On Thu, 16/10/08, rinzeee wrote: >>S: 3) Asevana paccaya is relatively easy to understand. It just refers to the way the javana cittas condition each other in a series, hence 'the habit'. .... >Rinze: How does the Javana cittas get at the object? And for how long, is it just for those 7 citta moments (which is some billionths of a second!)? If that is so, it isn't enough to cognize the object, isn't it? ... S: The javana cittas experience the same object as the other cittas in the process. For example, in the eye-door process, the rupa, visible object, is experienced by all 17 cittas, including the 7 javana cittas. So there has already been the adverting to the object, the seeing of it, the investigating of it and so on. The particular wholesome or unwholesome javana cittas arise, depending on natural decisive support condition - on accumulations from the past. However briefly any cittas arise, they cognize their object thoroughly. From the Atthasaalinii, "Analysis of Terms": "Herein consciousness with lust is one thing, that with hate is another, that with delusion is another, that experienced in the universe of sense is another, and those experienced in the universe of attenuated matter, etc., are others. Different is consciousness with a visible object, with an auditory object, etc.,; and in that with visible objects, varied is consciousness of a blue-green object, of a yellow object, etc. And the same is the case with the consciousness of auditory objects." ".....For that reason the Blessed One has said, 'bhikkhus, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?' 'Yea, Lord.' 'bhikkhus, that masterpiece of art is designed by the mind. Indeed, Bhikkhus, the mind is even more artistic than that masterpiece.'"* *SN iii 151 Metta, Sarah ======== #91580 From: "alberto.spera" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Thoughts on pannati alberto.spera Dear Sarah, thanks for your encouragement, I would have posted this anyway but now I can add you asked for it! :-) Pannati/thougths are not p.dhammal, yet they are the object of nama-dhammas while these arise & fall away through the mano-dvara vithi/process (with the exception of the first one after a panca-dvara vithi), They are not nama neither rupa, yet they are dhamma-arammana (together with the 7 visaya rupa, after been experienced through their corresponding sense door, and the rest of the sabhava/nipphana rupa and all nama-dhamma, which citta & cetasikas can experience only through the mano dvara), and citta can experience thoughts through the mind door only. Since awarneess of some aspects of p.dhammas requires the arising and falling of kusala dhamma (citta composed with sati), thougths are the dhamma we are aware by default. Thoughts don't actually arise & fall away. They are paccaya (conditions for p.dhamma to arise, ie as arammana and pakatupanissaya paccayas), but they are not paccayuppanna (they are not conditioned to arise). I found this aspect of pannati (a dhamma that conditions but isn't condtioned) difficult to understand, but more carefully listening and considering what KS says helped. She often refers to sanna/memory as the p.dhamma where all the past arammana/objects of citta are stored. Sanna can contain both, p. dhamma and pannati, which I think explains why sati-patthana is impossible to kick-start by volition alone if we have no memory of it, and also why it can become so effortless and natural once it has been accumulated enough. Alberto #91581 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method sarahprocter... Dear Rinze, --- On Thu, 16/10/08, rinzeee wrote: >Rinze: >.... Ok, when you say, "Understand the reality appearing now", no doubt you made us understand that cittas and cetasikas / namas and rupas arise and fall away together, etc etc, every moment, the stock phrases which I often read in your posts when you refer to reality. This is what you often mean by `Reality' I'm sure you wouldn't deny. ... S: When there is awareness and understanding of "the reality appearing now", it is just one characteristic of reality, one object only which is experienced. I wasn't referring to how "namas and rupas arise and fall away together, etc etc, every moment". For example, visible object can be known when it appears. At such a time, there is no idea of anything else. .... R:> But now, when a pile of junk metal, fashioned in the form of a `train' and hooting away is approaching you, your sense of this `Reality' has changed as implied below: >Sarah: Judging someone's understanding by their actions in such scenarios indicates a lack of understanding of realities to me, …. .... S: My point was that the realities are just the same, whether here or there. Seeing sees visible object regardless of the conventional scenario you describe. Understanding these realities has nothing to do with whether one turns left or right, whether one jumps out of the car or stays put. .... >Rinze: Ok, this means that your understanding of `realities' in the above statement, and the reality in `Understand the reality appearing now' as emphasized to Alex, differs in meaning according to the situation, right? .... S: No, this is the opposite of what I always say. ... R:> In fact 500 odd Bhikkus committed suicide doing the meditation on the Impurities of the Body, which Lord Buddha did not consent (the suiciding), when Ven. Ananda told him of the news. Moreover, even Lord Buddha discovered that, unsuitable situations / circumstances, are not conducive to `Understand the reality appearing now', and disclosed the Middle Path, the clearcut way to realizing Ariyanhood. .... S: We can discuss this as a separate thread if you like. The Buddha knew what would happen to the bhikkhus and gave them the meditation subject that would be helpful before their death. The Middle Path is the path of understanding dhammas, not a conventional 'do this' or 'avoid that' scenario. .... R:> In fact, why were you trying to escape the train at the time? Because you were responding to `conventional realities' of an ACTUAL train approaching you, and not a pile of junk in the form of a `train' approaching a `mind / body' phenomena inside another pile of junk called a vehcle, which should have been the `reality appearomg right there and then', that should be the case to be considered to realizing ariyanhood, according to you, as you so emphatically stated! .... S: As I said, what happens at such a time depends on conditions. Understanding realities does not mean not avoiding trains! The Buddha had omniscient knowledge and wisdom and yet he still knew the names of the bhikkhus, which was his kuti, what kind of food was on his plate and so on. No conflict at all in the understanding of dhammas in an absolute sense and the conventional knowledge of trains and computers. .... R:> Therefore, making the `quantum leap' of understanding `ultimate realities' from `conventional realities', is not only just a matter of `Understand the reality appearing now', there is more to it, as you amply demonstrated. Moreover, understanding realities is just one factor of 8 path factors, there is 7 more, that should arise in harmony to the 1st. ... S: Yes, 8 path factors. Samma ditthi is the leader. ... R:> The mind, in fact, responds in a conditioned manner to the issues at hand, however well we seem to understand the Dhamma. Seeing these conditions is to see the Dependent Origination of Things. The `removal' of these condtions requires the development of the faculties. This development does not happen in an arbitrary manner, it needs effort. And there is no person behind all these happenings, even though we may use personal pronouns to convey an idea in a conventional sense. ... S: I'm glad you stress the last point about how 'there is no person behind all these happenings'. This is the crucial point and on this note, we fully agree. Many thanks for all your reflections, Rinze. If there are many points, please feel free to split up your comments into separate threads to make it easier for everyone to follow. Metta, Sarah ========= #91582 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& TG), --- On Wed, 15/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: No, no, No, TG! Seeing is dukkha on account of its impermanence. Visible object is dukkha, hearing is dukkha, sound is dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned dhammas (i.e the 5 khandhas) are dukkha. ============ ========= === H:> Just a small point, Sarah: The word 'dukkha' serves as an adjective and as a noun. "Seeing is dukkha" is an adjectival usage meaning "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" or "a condition for suffering". .... S: Yes, inherently unsatisfactory. I wouldn't say "a condition for suffering". It is 'suffering' in its absolute sense. SN 22:10 (BB transl.): "Bhikkhus, form is suffering, both of the past and the future, not to speak of the present.....Feeling...Perception...volitional formations....Consciousness...." ... H:> But when TG writes "conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha, " that is a nominal usage, with 'dukkha' mean "suffering". What is meant by 'dukkha' depends on the speech context. .... S: Here perhaps you are referring to the meaning of dukkha as unpleasant bodily and mental feeling? In the context, I believe we were discussing conditioned dhammas or realities as being Dukkha as in sabbe sankhara dukkha. This would be the meaning of dukkha in my comments above. Metta, Sarah ======== #91583 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Tep), --- On Sun, 12/10/08, Scott wrote: >I'd like to know the relationship between pa~n~naa, ~naa.na, and di.t.thi? Can anyone make any comments? ... S: If by di.t.thi you are referring to sammaa di.t.thi, then I understand all these terms to be synonyms used for different kinds of understanding in different contexts. Did you reach any other conclusion? Metta, Sarah ======= #91584 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "If by di.t.thi you are referring to sammaa di.t.thi, then I understand all these terms to be synonyms used for different kinds of understanding in different contexts." Scott: Yes, 'sammaa di.t.thi.' The question refers to the various ways in which the function of pa~n~naa is described - which term subsumes which particular term in language usage. 'Samma di.t.thi' would subsume '~naa.na', for example, and would refer to a function of pa~n~naa. S: "Did you reach any other conclusion?" Scott: I don't think so. The point I'm pursuing is that there is a development of pa~n~naa from 'weak' to 'strong' ('lower' to 'higher;' 'mundane' to 'supramundane'), in contradistinction to the claim that pa~n~naa only arises for 'ariyans' and is not a mental factor that can arise for the 'ordinary person.' Sincerely, Scott. #91585 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thoughts on pannati sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, I was just about to close my computer when I saw your message. What you write is very deep indeed and shows you've been listening and considering very carefully indeed. I rejoice in your appreciation of the Dhamma. --- On Fri, 17/10/08, alberto.spera wrote: >Pannati/thougths are not p.dhammal, yet they are the object of nama-dhammas while these arise & fall away through the mano-dvara vithi/process (with the exception of the first one after a panca-dvara vithi), .... S: Yes. .... >They are not nama neither rupa, yet they are dhamma-arammana (together with the 7 visaya rupa, after been experienced through their corresponding sense door, and the rest of the sabhava/nipphana rupa and all nama-dhamma, which citta & cetasikas can experience only through the mano dvara), and citta can experience thoughts through the mind door only. ... S: Yes. ... >Since awarneess of some aspects of p.dhammas requires the arising and falling of kusala dhamma (citta composed with sati), thougths are the dhamma we are aware by default. .... S: I don't follow this. Yes, awareness arising with all kusala dhammas and for awareness of paramatha dhammas, there has to also be understanding of these, but if p.dhamma is the object, why do you say "thoughts [i.e concepts] are the dhamma we are aware of by default"? ... >Thoughts don't actually arise & fall away. They are paccaya (conditions for p.dhamma to arise, ie as arammana and pakatupanissaya paccayas), but they are not paccayuppanna (they are not conditioned to arise). ... S: Excellent! ... >I found this aspect of pannati (a dhamma that conditions but isn't condtioned) difficult to understand, but more carefully listening and considering what KS says helped. She often refers to sanna/memory as the p.dhamma where all the past arammana/objects of citta are stored. ... S: Or sanna/memory as being responsible for marking every object and recognising/recalling objects according to conditions. Because of sanna, we remember what these letters and words mean. We remember what we like and dislike. ... >Sanna can contain both, p. dhamma and pannati, ... S: It doesn't "contain" p.dhamma and pannati, it 'marks' and 'remembers' them as objects of sanna. ... >which I think explains why sati-patthana is impossible to kick-start by volition alone if we have no memory of it, and also why it can become so effortless and natural once it has been accumulated enough. ... S: Yes, exactly. If there hasn't been the hearing and considering and development of pariyatti (right intellectual understanding of dhammas), no patipatti or satipatthana will develop. Great comments - the couple I questioned are probably just a misunderstanding on my part as the gist shows a real appeciation of Abhidhamma at this moment. I'll look forward to more - take that for a 'standing order' or encouragement anytime! Metta, Sarah ========= #91586 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- On Fri, 17/10/08, Scott wrote: >Sarah: "If by di.t.thi you are referring to sammaa di.t.thi, then I understand all these terms to be synonyms used for different kinds of understanding in different contexts." ... >Scott: Yes, 'sammaa di.t.thi.' The question refers to the various ways in which the function of pa~n~naa is described - which term subsumes which particular term in language usage. 'Samma di.t.thi' would subsume '~naa.na', for example, and would refer to a function of pa~n~naa. .... S: I'm not sure we can say "'Samma di.t.thi' would subsume '~naa.na'". Doesn't it depend on the context again? For example, '~naa.na' can be a very broad term referring to any kind of understanding whatsoever as in the definiton of the 8 kinds of kaamaavacara kusala dhammas: "somanassa-sahagatam, ~naa.na-sampayutta.m, asa"nkhaarikam eka.m", (accompanied by pleasant feeling, with wisdom, unprompted)etc .... >S: "Did you reach any other conclusion?" ... >Scott: I don't think so. The point I'm pursuing is that there is a development of pa~n~naa from 'weak' to 'strong' ('lower' to 'higher;' 'mundane' to 'supramundane' ), in contradistinction to the claim that pa~n~naa only arises for 'ariyans' and is not a mental factor that can arise for the 'ordinary person.' .... S: Yes pa~n~naa or ~naa.na or sammaa di.t.thi can arise even in those who've never heard the Buddha's teachings as you suggest or now, as we consider what we read. Kusala cittas can be with or without wisdom, with happy or indifferent feeling, prompted or unprompted. Metta, Sarah ======== #91587 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:21 am Subject: Re: Cha.t.tha Sa"ngaayana Pali version abhidhammika Hello Thomas Law You wrote and asked: "In PTS version, MN vol. III, p. 115: 'Na kho, AAnanda, arahati saavako satthaara.m anubandhitu.m yadida.m sutta.m geyya.m veyyakara.nassa hetu.' ... Jim Anderson indicated to me that the CSCD version reads"... veyyaakara.na.m tassa hetu", instead of " ... veyyakara.nassa hetu" in the PTS version. ... Could you tell me, do the Thai and Sinhala versions have the same words as the PTS or the CS version does?" Suan answered: Today (Friday, 17 Oct. 08), I visited the ANU Menzies library to consult the Print Edition of Majjhimanikaaya. There is only one version of Pali Tipi.taka with a variant reading `veyyaakara.nassa hetu', which is from Myanmar. This means that the Cha.t.tha Sangaayanaa Print Edition did not see a variant reading for that Pali line in the Pali Tipi.taka versions from other nations while it was being edited before 1960. I did look at the PTS version of Majjhimanikaaya edited by Robert Chalmers with that variant reading published in 1960. As I was in the library, I also checked the version from India edited by Rahul(aa) Sankrityayana and printed in Naagari script. It also has the same reading as the Cha.t.tha Sangaayanaa Edition. By the way, Rahul Sankrityayana (1893-1963) was born into the Brahmin caste and converted to Buddhism. In fact, he became a learned Buddhist scholar monk and, while teaching as a monk at a university in Russia, met a Russian woman, left the monkhood and married her. Rahul Sankityayana was a leading figure to undertake revival of Buddhism and Buddhist studies in India. He travelled everywhere in search of lost Buddhist manuscripts in Sanskrit. My first exposure to the ancient authors of Sanskrit Buddhism such as Naagarjuna, and Vasubandhu was through his Bauddha Darshan (Buddha Dassana) in Burmese translation from Hindi. I am also a fan of his novels in Burmese translation from Hindi. Yes, there are specialist Burmese writers who read languages such as Hindi and Chinese and translate works in those languages into Burmese since the ancient times before the arrival of European languages such as English. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #91588 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/17/2008 8:47:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (& TG), --- On Wed, 15/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: No, no, No, TG! Seeing is dukkha on account of its impermanence. Visible object is dukkha, hearing is dukkha, sound is dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned dhammas (i.e the 5 khandhas) are dukkha. ============ ========= === H:> Just a small point, Sarah: The word 'dukkha' serves as an adjective and as a noun. "Seeing is dukkha" is an adjectival usage meaning "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" or "a condition for suffering". .... S: Yes, inherently unsatisfactory. I wouldn't say "a condition for suffering". It is 'suffering' in its absolute sense. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Rupas, for example, are dukkha. They are unsatisfactory in that no lasting satisfaction is attainable through them and, moreover, craving them and clinging to them leads to suffering. But they are NOT themselves suffering, intrinsic or extrinsic, because suffering is a nama - suffering is mental pain, and they are not that nama or any nama. Sarah, words really do have meaning. It is terrible usage to speak of any dhamma as suffering unless it is suffering itself, i.e., mental pain, that is the dhamma being discussed. -------------------------------------------------- SN 22:10 (BB transl.): "Bhikkhus, form is suffering, both of the past and the future, not to speak of the present.....Feeling...Perception...volitional formations....Consciousness...." ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Simply abysmally bad usage. The fact that it is common doesn't make it good. It is terrible! ----------------------------------------------- ... H:> But when TG writes "conglomeration of conditions which all lead to one thing....Dukkha, " that is a nominal usage, with 'dukkha' mean "suffering". What is meant by 'dukkha' depends on the speech context. .... S: Here perhaps you are referring to the meaning of dukkha as unpleasant bodily and mental feeling? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I am referring to mental pain, ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme aversion. It is aversive emotional reaction. That is what suffering is. ----------------------------------------------------- In the context, I believe we were discussing conditioned dhammas or realities as being Dukkha as in sabbe sankhara dukkha. This would be the meaning of dukkha in my comments above. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Here 'dukkha' should be translated as 'unsatisfactory', 'unsatisfying', 'imperfect', or 'conducive' to aversion. ---------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ============================ With metta, Howard #91589 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:13 am Subject: Re: Is there a "ground of being?" was [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, w moellerdieter Hi TG, you wrote: '". in whatever way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that." (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 911, The True Man, Sappurisa Sutta, #113) I can not find above quote within the Sappurisa Sutta ( A.N. IV , 73 see below ) please advise where to find this statement by the Buddha.. with Metta Dieter Sappurissa Sutta : A Person of Integrity (translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) "Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of no integrity.' Which four? "There is the case where a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals another person's bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's bad points in full & in detail, without omission, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.' "Then again, a person of no integrity, when asked, does not reveal another person's good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.' "Then again, a person of no integrity, when asked, does not reveal his own bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.' "Then again, a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals his own good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.' "Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of no integrity.' "Now, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of integrity.' Which four? "There is the case where a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal another person's bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.' "Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another person's good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.' "Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.' "Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal his own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.' "Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of integrity.'" unquote #91590 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:20 am Subject: Re: Is there a "ground of being?" was [dsg] Re: the five khandhas, w upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/17/2008 12:12:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi TG, you wrote: '". in whatever way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that." (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 911, The True Man, Sappurisa Sutta, #113) I can not find above quote within the Sappurisa Sutta ( A.N. IV , 73 see below ) please advise where to find this statement by the Buddha.. with Metta Dieter =============================== I had a problem finding it also, Dieter. It is MN 113, not the Anguttara Nikaya sutta by the same name. With metta, Howard #91591 From: "alberto.spera" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thoughts on pannati alberto.spera --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > > I was just about to close my computer when I saw your message. What you write is very deep indeed and shows you've been listening and considering very carefully indeed. I rejoice in your appreciation of the Dhamma. > > --- On Fri, 17/10/08, alberto.spera wrote: > >Pannati/thougths are not p.dhammal, yet they are the object of > nama-dhammas while these arise & fall away through the mano-dvara > vithi/process (with the exception of the first one after a panca-dvara > vithi), > .... > S: Yes. > .... > >They are not nama neither rupa, yet they are dhamma-arammana (together > with the 7 visaya rupa, after been experienced through their > corresponding sense door, and the rest of the sabhava/nipphana rupa > and all nama-dhamma, which citta & cetasikas can experience only > through the mano dvara), and citta can experience thoughts through the > mind door only. > ... > S: Yes. > ... > >Since awarneess of some aspects of p.dhammas requires the arising and > falling of kusala dhamma (citta composed with sati), thougths are the > dhamma we are aware by default. > .... > S: I don't follow this. Yes, awareness arising with all kusala dhammas and for awareness of paramatha dhammas, there has to also be understanding of these, but if p.dhamma is the object, why do you say "thoughts [i.e concepts] are the dhamma we are aware of by default"? > ... Dear Sarah, thanks for your feedback, I was trying to say that what arises by default, due to kilesa, is akusala-dhamma (citta composed with miccha-sati), which can be aware only of thoughts/pannati. > >Thoughts don't actually arise & fall away. They are paccaya > (conditions for p.dhamma to arise, ie as arammana and pakatupanissaya > paccayas), but they are not paccayuppanna (they are not conditioned to > arise). > ... > S: Excellent! > ... > >I found this aspect of pannati (a dhamma that conditions but isn't > condtioned) difficult to understand, but more carefully listening and > considering what KS says helped. She often refers to sanna/memory as > the p.dhamma where all the past arammana/objects of citta are stored. > ... > S: Or sanna/memory as being responsible for marking every object and recognising/recalling objects according to conditions. Because of sanna, we remember what these letters and words mean. We remember what we like and dislike. > ... > >Sanna can contain both, p. dhamma and pannati, > ... > S: It doesn't "contain" p.dhamma and pannati, it 'marks' and 'remembers' them as objects of sanna. > ... > >which I think explains > why sati-patthana is impossible to kick-start by volition alone if we > have no memory of it, and also why it can become so effortless and > natural once it has been accumulated enough. > ... > S: Yes, exactly. If there hasn't been the hearing and considering and development of pariyatti (right intellectual understanding of dhammas), no patipatti or satipatthana will develop. > > Great comments - the couple I questioned are probably just a misunderstanding on my part as the gist shows a real appeciation of Abhidhamma at this moment. > > I'll look forward to more - take that for a 'standing order' or encouragement anytime! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= > #91592 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:40 am Subject: Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana - Ariya visitorfromt... Dear Scott (and Nina, Sarah), - Our discussion doesn't have to be serious like a debate to win a grand prize in Pali Excellence. My Pali knowledge is elementary at best anyway, so you are already the winner. ;-) > >Tep: .. Just one appearance of 'ariyo' in MN 117 is not enough to assume that the Buddha defined two different kinds of sammaasamaadhi. Ariyo denotes ariyans and that's all. >Scott: Not 'of the ayiyans', no - just 'ordinary' jhaana - still kusala of course. ... 'Ariyan' is concept - a conventional designation not meant to be taken literally as a 'person'. In MN 117 the term is used to describe a certain type of kusala consciousness. T: Scottie, you are extending too much beyond the sutta evidence by adding your thought and interpretation (sometime right, sometime wrong). I did a research on 'ariya' and 'ariyan' and found the following results that contradict with your "extension" above : ariya means 'noble', 'right' and 'good'; e.g. ariya uposatha = the ideal feast day; ariya puggala or just 'ariya' or 'ariyan', and it means 'noble persons' i.e. trainer(sekha) and arahant. There is nothing that relates ariya to 'ordinary jhaana' or 'a certain type of kusala consciousness' as you claim. I stand to be corrected by the DSG Pali experts. PTS Dictionary: Ariya = noble, distinguished, of high birth; right, good, ideal in accord with the customs and ideals of the Aryan clans, held in esteem by Aryans, generally approved. ............ yam. tam. ariyaa aacikkhanti 'upekkhako satimaa sukha vihariti' = of which the Noble Ones say 'that pleasure is experienced by one who is equanimous and aware'. [third jhaana; Vipassana Research Publication] ............. ariya magga = the Aryan Path ariya uposatha = the ideal feast day .............. Britanica : ariya-puggala = a person who has attained one of the four levels of holiness ............. what-buddha-said.net/ : ariya-puggala or simply ariya = 'Noble Ones', 'noble persons' ................................. >Scott: Regarding the claim: 'Ariyo denotes ariyans and that's all,' consider MN 48, Kosambiyasutta.m, which refers to 'the great reviewing knowledges' (mahaapaccavekkha.na~naa.na) of a stream- enterer, and it will be clear that 'ariya.m' is in adjectival reference to dhammas, not persons: "'And how does this view that is noble and emancipating lead the one who practises in accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering?... "Katha~nca, bhikkhave, yaaya.m di.t.thi ariyaa niyyaanikaa niyyaati takkarassa sammaa dukkhakkhayaaya?" T: As my dictionary research (as shown above) indicates, 'ariya' as an adjective means noble, right, good; and as a noun it means 'noble ones' (equivalent to ariya puggala). So, both cases are right. ................................... >Scott: It is clear that the phrase, repeated seven times, 'this is the...knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people' refers to '~naa.na' not 'persons.' It is clear that, since this is describing the mahaapaccavekkhaa.na~naa.na of the stream-enterer, it refers to supramundane concsciousness. The Paa.li ('...ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na.m. puthujjanehi) clearly shows that the designations 'ariya.m' and 'lokuttara.m' not only refer to a class of consciousness but are, again, well evident in the suttas. T: Okay, Scott. I already agree that 'ariya' is noble (and also same as ariyan or noble one as my research shows). But I disagree that '~naa.na', a cetasika, is the same as consciousness. Further, I do think there is no evidence in this sutta MN 48 for you to conclude that "the designations 'ariya.m' and 'lokuttara.m' not only refer to a class of consciousness but are, again, well evident in the suttas". Despite our minor disagreement, I truly appreciate your effort and the useful sutta quotes. Regards, Tep === #91593 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" nilovg Dear Tep, Op 17-okt-2008, om 0:45 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > It is confusing why the eradication of "attachment and clinging", > or cessation of upadana, does not result in nirodha that cuts off all > akusalas. According to Dependent Origination, it does. > " ... 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 stress & suffering." [SN 12.2 > Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta] > > Have I misundertood the Teaching? > .............................. > N: No you have not misunderstood this text. This is in the context > of D.O. and for D.O. there are many methods of teaching, as we > shall see in Vis. XVII, 306. Anuloma (in order), patiloma (in > reverse order), etc. Starting in the middle, or at the end. It is > not possible to use one pattern and adapt that to all cases. The anagaamii still has the latent tendency of ignorance. He still has subtle clinging, he cling to rebirth and this is accompanied by ignorance. Each akusala citta is accompanied by ignorance. The magga- citta of the arahat eradicates ignorance and all subtle clinging. ------- > T. I have seen repeated > warnings about 'my lobha and self view' all the time whenever I talk > about practicing the Dhamma with desire(chanda iddhipada) and intent > (citta iddhipada), as if lobha and ditthi are always unavoidable when > there is intention(cetana). ------ N: Only you yourself can know when cetana is kusala and when kusala. The same for chanda. But it is a fact that akusala cittas arise more often than kusala cittas, since we have accumulated akusala for aeons. It is ignorance that blinds us, so that we do not see akusala as akusala. Nina. #91594 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] On Virtue (siila) .. Part I. nilovg Dear Tep, I appreciate your series and your questions. Op 17-okt-2008, om 5:30 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > Can a wrong view be restrained? If yes, then how? > Can zeal(chanda) for sensual desire be restrained through renunciation > (nekkhamma)? If yes, then how? > Can uncertainty(doubt) be restrained through investigation of dhammas > (dhamma-vicaya)? ------- N Before I answer the Q., I would like to go to the heading of this Ch II. It is about siila-maya~naa.na, it is understanding, ~naa.na of what consists of siila. 251 states: What strikes me is the emphasis on listening, it begins with listening, and understanding. If we do not listen we do not understand anything about what siila is, what the different levels are. Considering this will help me to understand the section on siila. -------- Questions: > T: Can a wrong view be restrained? If yes, then how? ------ N: Wrong view is a distorted view of realities, and this can only be eliminated by understanding of realities. Understanding beginning at the level of listening. How else could it begin? I would not use the word restrain in this case. It is a matter of understanding. -------- T: Can zeal(chanda) for sensual desire be restrained through renunciation ------ N: It can be temporarily suppressed by the development of jhaana, but as soon as one emerges from jhaana, it arises again. There are different levels of renunciation, nekkhamma, as we read in the Sangiitisutta. All kusala dhammas are nekkhamma. One renounces from selfishness. Even a beginning pa~n~naa has a degree of detachment. One begins to understand: the seeing that appears is not self, it is a kind of nama. Seeing sees visible object, not a person. It is really hard to give up clinging to persons. Only pa~n~naa can lead to this. Pa~n~naa developed in vipassanaa goes together with renunciation, and renunciation grows in the course of the development of pa~n~naa, and eventually pa~n~naa leads to renunciation of all defilements. ------ T: Can uncertainty(doubt) be restrained through investigation of dhammas (dhamma-vicaya)? ------ Doubt is always about dhammas; are they self or not, are they impermanent or permanent? N: Dhammavicaya is pa~n~naa that investigates the truth of dhammas. This will eliminate all doubt. ------- Nina. #91595 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:04 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] On Virtue (siila) .. Part I. visitorfromt... Dear Nina (Sarah and others), - I am grateful to you for taking the time to answer my three questions (at the end of 'On Virtue, Part I'). I am sorry if you feel that the questions are not well formulated or may be confusing. 1. Can a wrong view be restrained? If yes, then how? 2. Can zeal(chanda) for sensual desire be restrained through renunciation(nekkhamma)? If yes, then how? 3. Can uncertainty(doubt) be restrained through investigation of dhammas(dhamma-vicaya)? Your answers are essentailly the same, i.e. you say that pa~n~naa (understanding) eliminates wrong views, zeal for sensual desire, and it also eliminates all doubt. However, it is not clear to me how pa~n~naa can substitute for restraint (sam.vara) which is siila. If it could then the Buddha would have taught only samadhi and pa~n~naa. > >1. Can a wrong view be restrained? If yes, then how? >N: It is about siila-maya~naa.na, it is understanding, ~naa.na of what consists of siila. >Wrong view is a distorted view of realities, and this can only be eliminated by understanding of realities. Understanding beginning at the level of listening. How else could it begin? I would not use the word restrain in this case. It is a matter of understanding. -------- T: True, this treatise is about knowledge of what consists of siila, that's why this chapter explains what siila is, the various kinds of siila, etc. 261. What is virtue? There is virtue as volition(cetanaa), virtue as consciousness concomitant(cetasika), virtue as restraint(sam.vara), virtue as non- transgression(aviitikkama). T: 'Virtue as restraint' is the central theme of my three questions above. Based on the text in paragraph 264 : "In the case of wrong view virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression.", my answer to Question 1 is : yes, a wrong view can be restrained the same way that killing and false speech can be restrained by hiri & ottappa (conscern & conscience). Understanding alone is not enough in people who kill or give a false speech despite their knowing that killing and false speech are wrong. Understanding takes time to develop, so it is not powerful enough to stop defilements in ordinary people. On the other hand, restraint that is assisted by hiri & ottappa can stop the impulse to initiate a wrong doing or a wrong view. After that understanding takes over. But I can be wrong. Tep === #91596 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" visitorfromt... Dear Nina, - Only one issue remains at this point. >N: Only you yourself can know when cetana is kusala and when kusala. The same for chanda. But it is a fact that akusala cittas arise more often than kusala cittas, since we have accumulated akusala for aeons. It is ignorance that blinds us, so that we do not see akusala as akusala. Nina. T: What you are describing is very scary, Nina. It is like an overwhelming budget deficit that is only getting worse. There is no way to avoid bankruptcy ! Are you predicting that nobody will be awakened forever? Tep === #91597 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/17/2008 8:10:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Dear Nina, - Only one issue remains at this point. >N: Only you yourself can know when cetana is kusala and when kusala. The same for chanda. But it is a fact that akusala cittas arise more often than kusala cittas, since we have accumulated akusala for aeons. It is ignorance that blinds us, so that we do not see akusala as akusala. Nina. T: What you are describing is very scary, Nina. It is like an overwhelming budget deficit that is only getting worse. There is no way to avoid bankruptcy ! Are you predicting that nobody will be awakened forever? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the story seems to be that the overwhelming number of mind states arising are unwholesome, that unwholesome leads only to unwholesome, and that there is no willing of action that can result in change. So, what would you infer from that story? ------------------------------------------------- Tep ============================= With metta, Howard #91598 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" visitorfromt... Hi Howard (Nina), - >T: What you are describing is very scary, Nina. It is like an overwhelming budget deficit that is only getting worse. There is no way to avoid bankruptcy ! >Are you predicting that nobody will be awakened forever? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the story seems to be that the overwhelming number of mind states arising are unwholesome, that unwholesome leads only to unwholesome, and that there is no willing of action that can result in change. So, what would you infer from that story? ------------------------------------------------- T: Forever doomed, my friend, we are forever doomed. Tep === #91599 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On Virtue (siila) .. Part I. visitorfromt... Hi Sarah, - Anumodana to you too for possessing instant gladness in the Dhamma. ---sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Just to say that I'm very happy that you're presenting this series and thank you for adding the key Pali terms. Anumodana! > .... ============== 'When shall I with calm endowed Wisely see as caught in raging blaze The countless forms, sounds, scents, and tastes, And contacts and mental things?' Theragatha v. 1099 (Taalaputa) ............