#92200 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35 hantun1 Dear Jon, > Jon: On the subject of recollection on death generally, I'm inclined to think it's more about the fragility of life and the urgency of the development of insight, than about what's going to happen to us and our loved one when we die. As Nina mentioned in another thread, even when reflecting on the dhamma, our natural tendencies are such that our thoughts inevitably turn to ourselves ;-)) Han: Yes, Jon, your observation is correct in my case. My recollections are superficial and there will always be my thoughts turning to myself and loved ones. I only admire you and Sarah, and Nina for being able to go deeper. Respectfully, Han #92201 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35 nilovg Dear Han, No mistake: I am selfish and think of having to miss the dear company of a loved one. Dosa, conditioned by clinging, it is as it is. At the same time I am glad to be reminded of the truth that also such thought is only citta that arises and falls away immediately. Each citta does, and it is momentary death. But it takes a long time of developing before this is realized. Eventually it will help us to attach less importance to my thoughts, my feelings, thus, less disturbance. I have to stress: eventually. Nina. Op 1-nov-2008, om 11:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > My recollections are superficial and there will always be my > thoughts turning to myself and loved ones. I only admire you and > Sarah, and Nina for being able to go deeper. #92202 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (1) philofillet Dear Han > Han: I like the following passage very much. > > [All things that are pleasing and attractive are liable to change, to vanish, to become otherwise. Do not, Sire, die filled with longing. To die filled with longing is painful and blameworthy.] > > [sabbeheva deva piyehi manaapehi naanaabhaavo vinaabhaavo a~n~nathaabhaavo. Maa kho tva.m deva saapekkho kaalamakaasi. Dukkhaa saapekkhassa kaala.mkiriyaa garahitaa ca saapekkhassa kaala.mkiriyaa.] > > Han: The above advice stays with me. When my time comes would I be able to die without longing? I do not know. I can only hope I do so. Ph: I was impressed the other day when you said "I do not mind if I am reborn in Hell." That indicated a kind of wisdom I don't have. I cling a lot for human rebirth. And I wish the same for you so that understanding can continue to develop. The human realm is best for that, I have read. In my case, I think it is very unlikely I will have the opportunity to face death lucidly. My mother is losing her mind to Azheimer's and I am the spitting image of her, we must be DNA match for everything except our sex. So I don't expect to remain lucid, unless I am struck by a death when I am younger. I place emphasis on developing wholesome habits now in the hope that they will carry me through one way or another. And of course I will not give up on bhavana. But thanks to something you wrote about 2 years ago ("I think some friends don't place enough emphasis on morality") I have righted the ship and am practicing in a suitable way for one such as me. I thank you sincerely for that and other things I have picked up for you. I don't know just how impending your death is, but I am on the verge of trying to leave the internet again until my writing career gets going (I had a book published about 8 years ago on my first submission, but then just dropped my concentrated efforts when Dhamma took over) and I have a hunch that this time my resolution my stick. I have that feeling. So I will probably be away for a couple of years. I think I will reward selling my first novel by returning to Dhamma discussion, and that will take awhile. So you might not be hear when I get back. (That is true of anyone, of course, we never know.) So I want to thank you now for having been such an inspirational force for me. I am not leaving for good for a couple of more weeks, but I have a feeling it's coming soon, so I will say thank you now! And to everyone else who has helped me, which means everyone. The whole membership of DSG might die tonight and leave Han standing with his hands open saying "where did everyone go?!?!?!" That is the nature of the unpredictability of death as taught by the Buddha! :) metta, phil #92203 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:12 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (1) hantun1 Dear Phil, I am moved by your very forceful and sincere post. I also thank you for thanking me now, because I may not be here after two years. In my family, grand-parents, parents, and other relatives, no one had lived more than 84 years of age. I am now 82. So by considering the family trend, it is very likely that I may not be here when you rejoin the DSG. I am also not sure whether I will be lucid when I die. When I was hospitalized in February this year, I had hiccup non-stop for 3-4 days. At the time, I could not think of anything else except my hiccup. I could not even think about my loved ones. I will touch upon this topic when I write about maranaasanna vithi. As regards siila, I consider that it is the most important thing for a beginner as well as for advanced people. When I quote Dhammapada verse 183 (Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one’s mind), these activities should be founded on solid morality. I am glad to know that you have righted the ship and are practicing in a suitable way for you. I wish you every success in your writing career. Respectfully, Han #92204 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35 hantun1 Dear Nina, > Nina: No mistake: I am selfish and think of having to miss the dear company of a loved one. Dosa, conditioned by clinging, it is as it is. At the same time I am glad to be reminded of the truth that also such thought is only citta that arises and falls away immediately. Each citta does, and it is momentary death. But it takes a long time of developing before this is realized. Eventually it will help us to attach less importance to my thoughts, my feelings, thus, less disturbance. I have to stress: eventually. Han: Very valuable comments, Nina, I really appreciate it, and I will keep in mind your kind suggestions. Respectfully, Han #92205 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mr. Smith goes to Washington D.C. upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - Parts of my post that you quote (copied below by me) make me somewhat uneasy and even self-disapproving. Would you please be so kind as to point me to my email msg that you quote? I'd like to look over the full text of what I wrote to see what was my "punch line." I'd like to know whether I currently find much of value in what I wrote or whether I largely dismiss it. ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ In a message dated 11/1/2008 3:25:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: > I've been reading a book by an Israeli scientist (physicist & > biologist), an orthodox Jew much beloved by creationist Christians. (Hey! Nobody's > perfect! LOL!) What is presented there doesn't cause me to believe in a personal > god or to see anything incorrect in the Dhamma, but it does give me pause as > to some (possibly intentional) omissions from the Buddhadhamma #92206 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Phil) - In a message dated 11/1/2008 4:16:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: As Phil has been saying, I don't think we'll get onto seeing and visible object, but perhaps at least we may get onto the dangers of alcohol and drugs, friendliness to all, consideration for others and a few related topics. If you or Howard have any particular suggestions, please let me know. Obviously I don't want to come over too 'heavy', so will probably just ask him what he's been reflecting on and give positive reinforcement to anything along the right tracks. ============================= Sarah, I'm honored that you would consider what little I might have to say on this. Your suggested approach seems reasonable to me. I would want to avoid technical matters of Dhamma, as Phil has indicated, and I would want to just "be with him," being friendly & caring, and avoiding preachiness. I would mostly lovingly listen to what Nelson has to say, observing his apparent emotion, and responding to that in the moment - being naturally sympathetic and nonjudgmental. With metta, Howard #92207 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi James, (& Alberto), --- On Sat, 1/11/08, buddhatrue wrote: >;-)) I am not really a huge Matrix fan. I reviewed what Alberto wrote and I don't agree with his definition of atta (self). It is overreaching to state that everything we experience through the sense doors is atta simply because the mind conceptualizes those sense impressions. .... S: I'm not sure that was quite what he said, but I'd leave that to him to clarify. ... >I am not impressed by this idea because I happen to believe that what we conceptualize from sense impressions does correspond to an actual reality. In other words, our mind puts together the concept of a chair because the chair actually exists. But, boy oh boy am I tired to death of talking about that! .... S: Yes we have gone round and round on trees and chairs a few times:-). I do think Alberto raised some subtle points and that you did too with the Potthapada quote. As you don't wish to post and discuss too much, I'll just thank you for your comments and leave it there for now. Metta, Sarah ======== #92208 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Sat, 1/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:>Sarah, I'm honored that you would consider what little I might have to say on this. Your suggested approach seems reasonable to me. I would want to avoid technical matters of Dhamma, as Phil has indicated, and I would want to just "be with him," being friendly & caring, and avoiding preachiness. I would mostly lovingly listen to what Nelson has to say, observing his apparent emotion, and responding to that in the moment - being naturally sympathetic and nonjudgmental. ... S: You had shown a lot of sympathy before, so I thought of you. I agree with you - often the greatest help we can offer is just by being friendly and caring without any expectations. Otherwise, it's just clinging again, as Jessica and I were discussing the other day. Thanks, Howard. Metta, Sarah ======= #92209 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > Consider this (Atthasaalinii, p. 127-128): <...> > "The eight 'restraints' are those of the eye, the ear, the nose, the > tongue, the skin, the moving body, of speech, and mind. In the > ultimate sense they are five principles, namely: virtue (siila.m), > mindfulness (sati), knowledge (~naa.na.m), patience (khanti), and > energy (viiriya.m)." > > Cakkhusa.mvaro sota ghaanaa jivhaa pasaadakaaya copanakaaya vaacaa manosa.mvaroti ime pana a.t.tha sa.mvaraa naama. Te atthato > 'siila.m sati ~naa.na.m khanti viiriya'nti ime pa~nca dhammaa honti. ... Sarah: You've been giving some great quotes and whilst doing some 'house-keeping', this caught my attention. I'm used to thinking of 'restraint' (sa.mvaro) in terms of sati, but here it clearly indicates the 'five principles' (pa~nca dhamaa) which are restraint. There is more that could be discussed about these 'dhamaa' and their opposites sometime - for example, what dhammaa siila and khanti are referring to above....Also, now I look at the opposites in your message (90885), I think there must be a typo - ah yes, you missed 'absence of knowledge', but gave its Pali. Metta, Sarah ======= #92210 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, --- On Sat, 1/11/08, sprlrt wrote: >I'm not very familiar yet with the Survey's chapter on Vipassana bhavana, to which I was referring when writing about it, I just wanted to point out the importance of being anatta :-) ... S: And you did that well! ... >The samma-ditthi factor of the Path spells out anatta very clearly, by being panna itself and by being the opposite of miccha-ditthi, which is directly connected with atta. And since samma-magga, patipatti and satipatthana are one and the same thing, some degree of 'anattaness' is required even before vipassana-nana stages, right from the start of patipatti, and to be acquired through pariyatti. ... S: Yes, fully agreed. This is why it's so important to read, listen and consider more about dhammas as anatta -- no people, no things at all. Without the right theory, there will never be the patipatti, let alone the vipassana-nana stages as you say. Metta, Sarah ======= #92211 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] World as representation! sarahprocter... Dear Ven Samahita, --- On Sat, 1/11/08, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: >The exalted Buddha answered: That end of the world, where one neither is born, nor ages, nor dies, nor is reborn, cannot ever be reached, known, or seen by travelling.. . However, friend, I say that without reaching the end of the world, there cannot be any end of Suffering... It is just here within this fathom long carcass, endowed with conscious experience, that the world emerges, manifests, ceases, and the Way leading to its cessation is developed, completed and made known... Therefore, knowing this world to be thus, the intelligent one reach the end of the world, by completing the Noble life. Having directly known the world's end, at ease & in peace, there remains no longing for this or any other world...!!! ... >Comments: This seems IMHO the most profound and far reaching statement in human history so far... The world start & ends within this very frame of a conscious corpse... .... S: In other words, the namas and rupas appearing now. ... >600 years later the 'Mind-Only' idealists took this to the extreme by declaring: 'All is Empty'..., which -though captivating- , leads nowhere, except ever deeper into the entangling jungle of speculative views... ... Sarah: Good comments! Thank you. Please repeat them often:-). Metta and respect, Sarah ======= #92212 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death (1) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- On Sat, 1/11/08, han tun wrote: As promised to James, I will write a little bit at a time, my attitude towards death. I started to study and practice seriously the Teachings of the Buddha quite late in my life. Maybe because of my age at that time, old age and death fascinated me from the very beginning, and I read those suttas that depict old age and death, and drew samvega from them. Today, I will quote DN 17 Mahaasudassana Sutta. ... S: thank you very much for all your helpful comments and the excellent extract in the first of this series. I think it'll be very beneficial for us all to reflect on. .... >Han: I like the following passage very much. [All things that are pleasing and attractive are liable to change, to vanish, to become otherwise. Do not, Sire, die filled with longing. To die filled with longing is painful and blameworthy. ] [sabbeheva deva piyehi manaapehi naanaabhaavo vinaabhaavo a~n~nathaabhaavo. Maa kho tva.m deva saapekkho kaalamakaasi. Dukkhaa saapekkhassa kaala.mkiriyaa garahitaa ca saapekkhassa kaala.mkiriyaa. ] >Han: The above advice stays with me. When my time comes would I be able to die without longing? I do not know. I can only hope I do so. .... S: Yes, we don't know, but your selection of passage and this quote shows your deep reflections on this important topic. It's also a reminder of what is beneficial for our dear ones too - the helpful reminders about Dhamma as the chief 'palace'. Metta, Sarah ======= #92213 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35 sarahprocter... Dear Ken H & Nina, --- On Fri, 31/10/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >When citta that thinks of life, of the world, falls away, the world with all the people in it is no more. Life is just in one moment, and even intellectual understanding of this fact leads to more understanding of realities. So, you are not overlooking the essence of the teaching but expressing it all the time. ... S: Agreed! It reminds me of the discussion we had about the Jatakas in KK when you were with us. Always deeper and deeper levels to consider and understand. Metta, Sarah ======= #92214 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/1/2008 5:55:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > You both feel that it's important to avoid terminology that connotes > self, and that the use of such terminology leads to wrong view. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Then why does every other ordinary-language utterance by a meditator on > DSG meet with a variant of "Oh, but that implies self-view!!"? Buddha forbid, > it would seem, if anyone should ever speak of willing something or doing > anything at all for that matter unless it is quoting KS! I'm struggling to relate this to our discussion. In any event, I don't recall ever saying to you (or anyone) that something said in a post to me implies self-view on your/their part. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I haven't a specific reference for you, Jon. Perhaps I'm unfairly generalizing in including you. But this does happen a lot. In particular, any time a meditator writes of intentionally doing something, be it meditating, guarding the senses, or abstaining from wrong speech or action, unless it is "studying the ancient texts," the atta-view accusation is trotted out. ---------------------------------------------------- As far as talk of "willing" something is concerned, the only question I can recall raising with you is whether that would necessarily be kusala (and if not then how could it be the intended meaning of the Buddha). > Now, Jon, you know darn well that how we think is affected by the > terminology we use! There is no *doubt* that you know that! Am I allowed to say I disagree? ;-)) ----------------------------------------- Howard: No, Jon! I forbid it! LOL! ----------------------------------------- I have never before heard it suggested that how a person thinks is affected by the terminology that the person uses in speech. I can't even begin to understand what that means exactly. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I find that astonishing. --------------------------------------- Would you mind giving an example or two. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I would mind. It is so common that I wouldn't even begin with example giving. How one speaks and how one thinks are mutually conditioning, and this is a fact. Concept and word are the interior and exterior faces of the same phenomenon. Mind (i.e., point of view, conceptual outlook and intention) is the leader. Look at the beginning of the Dhammapada. ----------------------------------------- I'm probably just being dense (I'd say it was too much Fijian kava, except that I haven't had any ;-)). > In fact, you and others > here who share your interpretation of the Dhamma, when it suits you stand on > your head to resist others using "personal" terminology." Jon, a drop of > introspection might show you that you are not always "playing fair." Personal *terminology* has never been something I question, once it has been explained as such; personal *ideas* about the way things are, however, is another matter. > I don't think this is an idea that appears in the texts. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Jon, have you ordered a bumper sticker to that effect? ;-) > ----------------------------------------------- You're correct that it's a comment I make quite often ;-)) > Nor do I > see the Buddha avoiding conventional atta-sounding terminology ('I', > 'self', etc). > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But YOU insist on it - when it suits you, as I pointed out. We're talking about terminology, not about ideas/views. I cannot recall ever picking someone up because they expressed an idea using conventional "I" or "me" terms or such like. > Such language is sometimes easy to avoid and sometimes not so easy. Any > Indo-European language, being noun-based, offers difficulty in avoiding it. > Often the use is rather harmless, but other times it is far from harmless, > reinforcing our tendency to reify, and the repeated use of agency terminology > when applied, in particular, to conditioned paramattha dhammas, which the > Buddha has repeatedly said are anicca, dukkha, and anatta, and as insubstantial as > can be, is very harmful in that respect. Yes, I understand this is your argument. But I'm not aware of any basis for it in the teachings. And for that reason I question its validity or at least its relevance to the development of the path. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Have "the teachings" told you that it is important to sleep? If not, would you skip it? ---------------------------------------------- > If you are suggesting that wrong view can be avoided, or right view > developed, by careful choice of terminology I would disagree. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What's being suggested is that how one speaks affects how one thinks, > and that care must be taken in speaking for that reason among others. That, and > nothing more, has been suggested. > --------------------------------------------------- Could you perhaps spell out the connection as you see it? Thanks. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. is all I'll say. ----------------------------------------------------- > That's > a similar idea to the one that by being restrained in how we act we > can develop more kusala. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In the bat of an eye and a movement of the lip, you have negated the > very obvious psychological fact that actions (including speech) affect > attititude. Have you read that denial in the "texts," Jon? Does the Buddha not > repeatedly endorse intentionally speaking carefully? Does he say that this should > happen only if it is unwilled? I find this position absurd, Jon. > ----------------------------------------------------- But that would be in the context of avoiding wrong speech, I think. That's not what we're talking about here. > To my understanding of the teachings, > things are in fact the other way around, namely, if more kusala is > developed, one's conduct becomes purer. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Actions, including speech, do affect attitude! It is not a one- way > street. > ------------------------------------------------------ Thanks, Howard. The point being urged is clear enough, but I'd like to hear the explanation as to why it is so ;-)) --------------------------------------------------- Howard: What more is there to be said than what one hears affects how one thinks? It is too trivially true to discuss any further. ------------------------------------------------- Jon ========================= With metta, Howard #92215 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:52 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: Threes (19 - 23) , and Co, part 1. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: DN 33.1.10(19) Three fetters: of personality belief, of doubt, of attachment to rite and ritual. Tii.ni sa.myojanaani - sakkaayadi.t.thi, vicikicchaa, siilabbataparaamaaso. ----- The Fetters or Samyojanas are a group of akusala dhammas. The samyojanas "fetter" khandhas (in this life) to khandhas (of the next), or kamma to its fruit. So long as there is the performing of kamma there will be vipaka and thus life goes on. Or they fetter beings to suffering... (Visuddhimagga XXII, 48). Through the fetters we are tied to the cycle of birth and death. There are different classifications of the fetters. In the Book of Analysis (Chapter 17, 940) there is a distinction between "lower fetters" and "higher fetters". There are five lower fetters (orambhagiya-samyojana) which tie beings to the sensuous planes and five higher fetters (uddhambhagiya-samyojana) which tie beings to the higher planes, the rupa-brahma planes and the arupa-brahma planes. The magga-citta of the sotapanna eradicates the three lower fetters of personality belief, clinging to rules and rituals (wrong practice) and doubt. N: The Co. refers to the twenty kinds of personality view, four with regard to each of the five khandhas. He identifies self with ruupa, sees self as possessing ruupa, as being in ruupa and as the container of ruupa, and in the same way for the four naamakkhandhas. As to doubt, someone, while considering, doubts, he cannot come to a conclusion, the Co explains. The Co. refers to eight bases of doubt, such as doubt about the teacher. This is explained in the Atthasaalinii (II, the summary, Triplets, 354): there may be doubt about the Buddha’s personality and qualities, his specific bodily features; he may doubt about the Dhamma, the Sangha, the threefold training in higher siila, higher thought and higher wisdom, the past, the future, the Dependent Origination. The subco: while investigating the characteristic of dhamma (dhammasabhaava), he doubts, he becomes tired (kilamati). N: This is doubt with regard to the dhamma that appears at the present moment. When seeing, there is seeing and visible object, but one dhamma at a time can be object of sati. Doubt may arise as to the characteristic of dhamma that appears: is it naama or ruupa? When pa~n~naa is not keen enough there is bound to be doubt. The sotaapanna has eradicated doubt. As to clinging to rules and rituals, wrong practice, the subco explains that he takes what is not the path of purity for the path of purity (suddhimaggo). ---------- sutta: Three intoxicants, to wit, the poisons of sensuality, future life and ignorance. Tayo aasavaa - kaamaasavo, bhavaasavo, avijjaasavo. The Co states that the aasavas have been fermenting for a long time (cirapaarivaasi). The Co refers to the Anguttara Nikaaya V, 113: “ No ultimate point of ignorance is apparent, bhikkhus, so that one may say, ‘once there was no ignorance and it has since come to be’.” The same is said of the clinging to becoming, the wrong view about becoming. The Co states that the aasavas are flowing when visible object is seen through the eyesense, sound through the earsense, and so on. The Co explains that in the texts there are different classifications of the aasavas. At some places they are classified as twofold: the aasavas of the present and the future. The Atthasaalinii (I, The Summary, 369): As threefold: as the aasavas of sensuality, becoming and ignorance, as we find here in the Sangiitisutta. In the Abhidhamma they are classified as fourfold, where the aasava of wrong view is classified together with the other three. Or as fivefold: leading to hell, to animal birth, to becoming as a ghost, to human birth, to birth in the deva planes. So long as the aasavas have not been eradicated there are conditions for rebirth. Aasavas can be classified as six when seen as to be abandoned in six ways, and here the Co refers to A III, 387: by restraint (of the six doors), by use (for the monk: wisely using the requisites), by endurance (adhivaasanaa, patience with regard to our living conditions, such as enduring cold, heat, etc.), avoidance, dispelling, developing (the factors leading to enlightenment, namely, mindfulness, investigation of Dhamma, etc.). The Co. states that in addition there is a seventh way according to M. 2 (Discourse on all the cankers): they are to be abandoned by insight (dassana). The Co then returns to the threefold classification. The intoxicant of sense desire is attachment to the five strands of sense pleasure. The intoxicant of becoming is eternity belief, or it is clinging to rebirth. As to the intoxicant of ignorance, this is not knowing the truth of dukkha, etc. Thus, not understanding the four noble Truths. ----------- The subco explains that kusala kamma and akusala kamma are saasava, with aasava. This means: they can be objects of the aasavas. The aasavas do not arise together with kusala citta but kusala dhamma can be the object of the aasavas when there is clinging to kusala or clinging to an idea of “my kusala”. In the Dhgs 1108, in the translation of U Kyaw Khine, we read under saasavas: “What are the dhammaa which are objects of aasavas?”. Then are mentioned kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma of the three planes of citta (of the sense-sphere, of the planes of ruupajhaana and aruupajhaana), included in the five khandhas. Dhgs 1109 states that only the nine lokuttara dhammas (nibbaana and the eight lokuttara cittas that experience it) are not objects of aasavas. ------- Remark: The beginning of the aasavas cannot be discerned, as we read, and this points to the fact that they are deeply rooted and have been accumulated for countless times. They cannot be eradicated soon, but when they appear they can be understood as conditioned dhammas. They do not belong to a self, they have no owner. They are ‘flowing from unguarded sensedoors”. But they can be eliminated by the guarding of the doorways, that is, by mindfulness and understanding of whatever appears through one of the six doorways. ******* Nina. #92216 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 9:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, The Eedjit, back for more ;-), regarding: TG: "I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say 'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.'" Scott: To start, while beginning a search through the suttas for ruupa, I'd be interested in how the view you hold comments in relation to an Abhidhamma source, Dhammasa"nga.ni (pp. 155-156): "All form is that which is...void of mental objects (anaaramma.na.m), not a mental property (acetasika.m), disconnected with thought..." Sincerely, Scott. #92217 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 11/1/2008 3:57:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Well I'm afraid I can't speak for others. As I said in my message to Howard just now, I'm interested in ideas rather than mere terminology. Jon .............................................................................. .. TG: All the conditions that involve experience have effect. The mind guides terminology but 'terminology' also 'skews' the mind. This seems like 'common sense' conditionality understanding and I'm a bit taken aback that you are sounding like you 'don't get it.' But be that as it may. The terminology becomes hyper-critical in a group like this there is very deep discussion of very subtle points involving various minds that don't seem to understand each other much of the time. I am constantly harangued by the terminology I use in here that doesn't "fit" with the terminology that is more comfortable to folks following KS. On the other hand, I constantly harangue those using "own characteristic" and "ultimate realities" because those terms reflect the antithesis of the Buddha's teaching IMO. Terms have HUGE IMPACT. TG OUT #92218 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 11/1/2008 3:59:52 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Howard: > Then why does every other ordinary-language utterance by a meditator on > DSG meet with a variant of "Oh, but that implies self-view!!" DSG meet with a > v > it would seem, if anyone should ever speak of willing something or doing > anything at all for that matter unless it is quoting KS! > Now, Jon, you know darn well that how we think is affected by the > terminology we use! There is no *doubt* that you know that! In fact, you and > others > here who share your interpretation of the Dhamma, when it suits you stand on > your head to resist others using "personal" terminology. your head to resi > introspection might show you that you are not always "playing fair." > ............ .... .... .... .... .... > > TG: Hallelujah!! TG: Hall TG: Hall I'm glad to have been the cause for you to have something to rejoice over, TG ;-)) .............................................................. TG: I'm glad too! As I said in a post earlier to you today...we are constantly harangued by the terminology we use by those who tend to argue on your side of the issues. Then we see a post like your that acts oblivious to this and oblivious to why terminology is that important. It just don't follow...its a non sequitur. There are double standards going on in here and Howard eloquently addresses that above. About 8 months ago, I was vehemently scolded for saying som ething like -- insight had various levels and grows as one pursues/develops it. I was told by a prominent KS contributor that this was 'definitely wrong' and that insight was ONLY one level of attainment and the "growing aspect" was not insight. (This with no objection from any KS follower.) Two months latter, you said essentially the exact thing I said and it was JUST FINE with those following KS. LOL The SAME THING happened with the term "conditionality." Some on the KS side acted like they couldn't understand what that term meant..."could I please explain it." A week later those on the KS side are using the exact same term to each other with no problem at all. LOL There are many many more examples but that's enough. So its frustrating and Howard's post was a great breath of fresh air!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact you don't seem to understand it or see it is a puzzle. TG OUT Now would you do me a favour and explain what Howard's point in the above is! Thanks. Jon #92219 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... HI Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 10:52:33 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: To start, while beginning a search through the suttas for ruupa, I'd be interested in how the view you hold comments in relation to an Abhidhamma source, Dhammasa"nga.to an Abhidhamma "All form is that which is...void of mental objects (anaaramma.na."Al not a mental property (acetasika.m)not a mental property (acet .............................................................................. TG: I'd say here is another example of a commentarial gaffe. To say that "All form is disconnected with thought" is way beyond the pale... I'd say the Buddha said this... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) I'd say your research revealed this... Scott: This sutta is used to support the idea that it is a 'unit' which experiences. It seems that the phrase 'this consciousness of mine is supported by and bound up with it' (vi~n~naa.na.mine is suppor ettha pa.tibaddha.ettha pa.tibaddha.m) is most particularly sal 'sita.m' and 'bound up with' is 'pa.tibaddha.'sita.m' and 'bound up the PTS PED as: "Ettha (adv.)...here, in this place; also temporal 'now', & modal 'in this case, in this matter'..." "Sita...1. (lit.) stuck in or to 2...(fig.) reclining, resting, depending on, attached, clinging to..." "Pa.tibaddha (adj.)...bound to, in fetters or bonds, attracted to or by, dependent on..." Scott: It would seem, given the term 'support', that there is emphasis on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.naa.na). Th more correctly stated) is, as you say Dhamma 101. TG OUT #92220 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Further haranguing regarding: TG: "I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say 'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.'" Scott: Consider the Mahaaatthipadopamasutta.m, MN 28: "And what is the material form aggregate affected by clinging? It is the four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements. And what are the four great elements? They are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, and the air element. "What, friends is the earth element...the water element...the fire element...the air element?...Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element...the internal water element and the external water element...the internal fire element and the external fire element...and the internal air element and the external air element are simply earth...water...fire...and air element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself'..." (Yaa ceva kho pana ajjhattikaa pathaviidhaatu ...aapodhaatu ...tejodhaatu... vaayodhaatu, yaa ca baahiraa pathaviidhaatu, pathaviidhaaturevesaa ... aapodhaatu, aapodhaaturevesaa...tejodhaatu, tejodhaaturevesaa... vaayodhaatu, vaayodhaaturevesaa...) Scott: The Commentarial exegesis of, 'Now both internal and external earth element are simply earth element': MA: "This statement is made to underscore the insentient nature (acetanaabhaava) of the internal earth element by yoking it to the external earth element, the insentient nature of which is much more easily discerned." Scott: What say you? I say that the sutta states that the elements are just the elements. Does this mean 'insentient', as suggested by the Commentary, according to the view you propose? Sincerely, Scott. #92221 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "I'd say here is another example of a commentarial gaffe. To say that 'All form is disconnected with thought' is way beyond the pale..." Scott: One, Dhammasa"nga.ni is the first book of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, and not of the commentarial literature. Two, might you explain why you suggest that to say the form is disconnect with thought is 'way beyond the pale'? Sincerely, Scott. #92222 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott Aren't our conversations more often than not very one-sided where you're usually asking me to comment on this and that ... yet very seldom do you comment on pertinent points that I address? How about some comment on my last post to you. Don't the commentaries seem to go overboard when compared to Sutta and the analysis you did on it? In fact, isn't there good reason to see a contradiction there? Now, there is also a "procedural problem." You keep using commentaries to rebut what I am considering incorrect outlooks of the commentaries!!! LOL Do you see the problem with that? LOL No my friend. THAT will not do. You need to use the Suttas to rebut what I think are the incorrect outlooks of the commentaries...or you are just restating more incorrect outlooks IMO. In other words...clarifications from what I consider to be a fallible source are useless. TG OUT In a message dated 11/1/2008 12:07:51 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Further haranguing regarding: TG: "I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say 'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.'" Scott: Consider the MahaaatthipadopamasScott: Conside #92223 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "I'd say the Buddha said this..."This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it."...I'd say your research revealed this...Scott: This sutta is used to support the idea that it is a 'unit' which experiences. It seems that the phrase 'this consciousness of mine is supported by and bound up with it'..." Scott: I might need to point out, to clarify because I think you might have become confused here by my poor grammar, that the phrase used in the above, that is: 'This sutta is used to support the idea that it is a 'unit' which experiences...' is not mine, but intended to represent the view I see you as representing. I do not attribute 'experience' to the 'unit', as I think you do, but only to naama. Does this fit? Did you attribute agreement to me when I was just paraphrasing the view you advocate? Sincerely, Scott. #92224 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 12:12:40 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: One, Dhammasa"nga.Scott: One, Dhammasa"nga.ni i Pi.taka, and not of the commentarial literature. Two, might you explain why you suggest that to say the form is disconnect with thought is 'way beyond the pale'? ............................................................... TG: I quoted the Sutta and your analysis of it and it is loaded with the idea that Consciousness is fully connected with form, dependent on it, related to it. That was my explanation. Anything else would merely be "my opinion" right? Aren't you opposed to that? But now you want it? Oh, and BTW, You are right in that the Abhidhamma is not the "commentarial literature" per se. Yet it is a work that IMO, and pretty much any serious historians, is not the Buddha's personal teaching, so for all practical purposes, it is still a commentary. TG OUT #92225 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 12:34:02 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Does this fit? Did you attribute agreement to me when I was just paraphrasing the view you advocate? ...................................................... TG: Feel free to disregard that aspect. It is of no importance. The rest of the post of the meat of the matter. TG OUT #92226 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Aren't our conversations more often than not very one-sided where you're usually asking me to comment on this and that ... yet very seldom do you comment on pertinent points that I address? How about some comment on my last post to you. Don't the commentaries seem to go overboard when compared to Sutta and the analysis you did on it? In fact, isn't there good reason to see a contradiction there?" Scott: As far as 'one-sided' goes, I consider the view you present to be divergent and expect that the onus is on you to demonstrate to me how it may not be. Consider the recent post concerning the Mahaahatthipadopamasutta.m., TG. I think I'm using suttas, discussing things, making my own points. Just continue to do the same - its a discussion. I am, as you are, participating on a list dedicated to the study of the commentaries as well as the suttas and the abhidhamma. Just please discuss and stop being surprised when the commentarial view seems well-considered by some and comes up from time to time. TG: "Now, there is also a 'procedural problem.' You keep using commentaries to rebut what I am considering incorrect outlooks of the commentaries!!! LOL Do you see the problem with that? LOL No my friend. THAT will not do. You need to use the Suttas to rebut what I think are the incorrect outlooks of the commentaries...or you are just restating more incorrect outlooks IMO. In other words...clarifications from what I consider to be a fallible source are useless." Scott: As the tenability of the view you present fails to be demonstrated, I'll keep referencing what I wish to, and please feel free yourself to do so as well. You'd not run into any problem with a commentarial analysis were you interacting on a sutta-only list, and, since you prefer to be here, why not relax about the commentaries already? Now, if you would, please consider the sutta I've referenced in the other post, the Mahaapatthipadopama. I enjoy looking at the suttas with you, man, so come on, just discuss like a man already. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #92227 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:46 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Phil and all, >- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > I found another one, in MN, somewhere in the 60s (I'm at work >now) that uses quite a different wording, with "teaching of the >Buddhas", The same one, translated differently. MN Then the Blessed One gave the householder Upali the gradual Teaching starting with giving gifts, becoming virtuous, about the heavenly states, the dangers of sensuality, the vileness of defiling things, and benefits of giving up. Then the Blessed One knew that the mind of the householder Upali was ready, malleable, free of hindrances, lofty and pleased and the Blessed One gave the special message of the Enlightened Ones: Unpleasantness, its arising, its cessation and the path to the cessation of unpleasantness. Like a pure, clean cloth would take a dye evenly. In that same manner, the dustless, stainless eye of the Teaching arose to the householder Upali, seated there itself. Whatever rises has the nature of ceasing. The householder Upaali, then and there mastered that Teaching, knew and penetrated it. Doubts dispelled become self confident attained that state where he did not want a teacher, any more, in the Dispensation of the Blessed One (* 1). http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/056-upali-e1.htm However the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to reach Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana. Ananda, this is the path and method, to overcome the lower bonds of the sensual world. It is not possible that one could, knowing and seeing overcome the lower bonds of the sensual world without coming to this path and method. It is like one come to a huge standing tree with heartwood, would cut the heartwood without removing the bark and sapwood. That is not possible, in the same manner, it is not possible that one could know, see and overcome the lower bonds of the sensual world, without coming to this path and method. Ananda, what is the path and method, to dispel the lower bonds of the sensual world? Ananda, the bhikkhu secluding the mind thoroughly, by dispelling things of demerit, removes all bodily transgressions that bring remorse. Then secluding the mind, from sensual thoughts and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction (* 1). With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things. He arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five lower bonds, of the sensual world, not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds of the sensual world.. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.htm Best Wishes, #92228 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 12:45:54 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: As far as 'one-sided' goes, I consider the view you present to be divergent and expect that the onus is on you to demonstrate to me how it may not be. ................................................. TG: I feel I have already demonstrated it in quite convincing fashion, through the Suttas. Since I think the commentaries are divergent, I think the onus is on you to show otherwise. So there. LOL I'll let the Suttas speak for themselves. If the commentaries can't make a compelling comment to explain the Suttas content, then so be it. So far, in the material you've used as relevant, they are not only not making a compelling case, they seem in significant contradiction. ............................................................ Consider the recent post concerning the MahaahatthipadopamaMahaahatthipadopamasutta.m., TG. I think I'm usin things, making my own points. Just continue to do the same - its a discussion. I am, as you are, participating on a list dedicated to the study of the commentaries as well as the suttas and the abhidhamma. Just please discuss and stop being surprised when the commentarial view seems well-considered by some and comes up from time to time. ........................................................ TG: I'm not surprised in the slightest. I'm discussing at length. Sorry you don't like the content of that discussion. ............................................ TG: "Now, there is also a 'procedural problem.' You keep using commentaries to rebut what I am considering incorrect outlooks of the commentaries!commentaries!!! LOL Do you see the problem my friend. THAT will not do. You need to use the Suttas to rebut what I think are the incorrect outlooks of the commentaries.what I t are just restating more incorrect outlooks IMO. In other words...clarificatiwords...clarifications from what I consider are useless." Scott: As the tenability of the view you present fails to be demonstrated, ........................................................ TG: Merely your opinion. I think its been well demonstrated ... and your own research "wreaked" of "relativity." But you don't seem to want to get to the nitty-gritty of that. ........................................................... I'll keep referencing what I wish to, and please feel free yourself to do so as well. ....................................................... TG: I will, thanks. ................................................. You'd not run into any problem with a commentarial analysis were you interacting on a sutta-only list, and, since you prefer to be here, why not relax about the commentaries already? ...................................................... TG: Some people may not be interested in following a tradition and blindly accepting ALL of the traditions tenets. Some people can grow with diverse outlooks and interactions. That's the point of a discussion group. I'm certainly not in here trying to convert everyone to Christianity. ............................................................. Now, if you would, please consider the sutta I've referenced in the other post, the Mahaapatthipadopamain the other post, t suttas with you, man, so come on, just discuss like a man already. ;-) .................................................................. TG: "Just discuss like a man"??? LOL Is that a new "low" for this group? LOL As usual, you don't address the issues that I posted. TG OUT #92229 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Feel free to disregard that aspect. It is of no importance. The rest of the post of the meat of the matter." Scott: Rather than simply re-posting something, would you please state your disagreement. I say that only naama is 'experience'. What is your rebuttal? Sincerely, Scott. #92230 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:02:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Rather than simply re-posting something, would you please state your disagreement. I say that only naama is 'experience'your your rebuttal? .......................................................... TG: Nama is comprised of rupa and cannot "experience" on its own. There are no "independent absolutes" in Samsara. TG OUT #92231 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 11/1/2008 3:06:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:02:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Rather than simply re-posting something, would you please state your disagreement. I say that only naama is 'experience'your your rebuttal? .......................................................... TG: Nama is comprised of rupa and cannot "experience" on its own. There are no "independent absolutes" in Samsara. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: COMPRISED??! Unless you are using language differently from me, I disagree completely. I go along with "dependent on" (either directly or indirectly), at least outside of formless realms, but I sure don't get what you mean by mentality being *comprised* of materiality at all. -------------------------------------------- TG OUT ======================== With metta, Howard P. S. Scott, I thought that your attempt at providing sutta examples to counter TG's "I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say 'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.'" was as unsuccessful as can be. For me, it is way more than "a stretch" to see that as an adequate example. Actually, I would find a sutta quote that does characterize rupas as dhammas that are not types of experiencing to be interesting, because I happen to think that is a good characterization. #92232 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 12:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Nama is comprised of rupa and cannot 'experience' on its own. There are no 'independent absolutes' in Samsara." Scott: Thank you. My thesis: Me: "I say that only naama is 'experience.'" Scott: We are polarised, still, despite all of the backing-and-forthing. Now, I say that the view: "Naama is comprised of ruupa cannot 'experience' on its own," is some version of modern quasi-materialism. 'Comprised of' is a real problem, TG. This is muddled up neuropsychology for sure. Sincerely, Scott. #92233 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 12:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: "P. S. Scott, I thought that your attempt at providing sutta examples to counter TG's 'I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say 'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.' was as unsuccessful as can be. For me, it is way more than 'a stretch' to see that as an adequate example. Actually, I would find a sutta quote that does characterize rupas as dhammas that are not types of experiencing to be interesting, because I happen to think that is a good characterization." Scott: A little patience, Howard, if you would. ;-) I've just started looking at the question. It is a good one. I've given one sutta, and you may feel free to consider it as well. Why do you think it is insufficient to the cause? Sincerely, Scott. #92234 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott Following up... In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:07:20 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:02:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, _scduncan@..._ (mailto:scduncan@...) writes: Scott: Rather than simply re-posting something, would you please state your disagreement. I say that only naama is 'experience'your your rebuttal? .......................................................... TG: Nama is comprised of rupa and cannot "experience" on its own. There are no "independent absolutes" in Samsara. .................................................................. New TG: "Nama is experience" is OK as far as that statement goes. With no additions, no "own characteristics" or "ultimate realities," I can let this statement go as a correct, yet somewhat sloppy outlook. This statement is far more constrictive than what I usually get from you and others. Also note, I removed the "only" from your statement so it is not in full acquiescence to your statement. TG OUT #92235 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:20:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: COMPRISED??! Unless you are using language differently from me, I disagree completely. I go along with "dependent on" (either directly or indirectly), at least outside of formless realms, but I sure don't get what you mean by mentality being *comprised* of materiality at all. ................................................................... TG: What...now I got to deal with you too??? LOL Hey, remember, Jon said terms aren't that important. LOL OK, Websters first definition of "comprised" is "to include or contain." So, do you want to say that an experience does not include or contain aspects of rupa??? TG OUT #92236 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:22:46 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: "Naama is comprised of ruupa cannot 'experience' on its own," is some version of modern quasi-materialism. 'Comprised of' is a real problem, TG. This is muddled up neuropsychology for sure. TG: And here is the Buddha's statement yet again.... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) CONSCIOUSNESS IS ""BOUND UP WITH"" AND SUPPORTED BY THE FOUR GREAT ELEMENTS. Consciousness is NOT separate from rupa. TG OUT #92237 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and TG) - In a message dated 11/1/2008 3:27:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: "P. S. Scott, I thought that your attempt at providing sutta examples to counter TG's 'I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say 'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.' was as unsuccessful as can be. For me, it is way more than 'a stretch' to see that as an adequate example. Actually, I would find a sutta quote that does characterize rupas as dhammas that are not types of experiencing to be interesting, because I happen to think that is a good characterization." Scott: A little patience, Howard, if you would. ;-) I've just started looking at the question. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent. :-) ----------------------------------------- It is a good one. I've given one sutta, and you may feel free to consider it as well. Why do you think it is insufficient to the cause? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I simply see nothing at all there should be considered an example. I see no basis at all. There's just no way it says what we're looking for unless one *imposes* that reading - for it is not in the material itself. ------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. ========================== With metta, Howard #92238 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 12:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, "Only naama is 'experience.'" Versus: "Nama is comprised of rupa and cannot 'experience' on its own." .................................................................. New TG: "'Nama is experience' is OK as far as that statement goes. With no additions, no 'own characteristics' or 'ultimate realities,' I can let this statement go as a correct, yet somewhat sloppy outlook." Scott: Ah, but the above is not on, TG, because the view I represent is always founded on the basis that paramattha dhammaa are the bottom line and that each has characteristics. You are hung-up on 'own' and must disengage from this. You must disagree with me given what I have said. ;-) TG: "This statement is far more constrictive than what I usually get from you and others. Also note, I removed the 'only' from your statement so it is not in full acquiescence to your statement." Scott: Yes, this is why we disagree. You can't force agreement by amending the view I present. Sincerely, Scott. #92239 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:22:46 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: "Naama is comprised of ruupa cannot 'experience' on its own," is some version of modern quasi-materialism. 'Comprised of' is a real problem, TG. This is muddled up neuropsychology for sure. ............................................. TG: Never studied the stuff in my life. Maybe they're on to something!!!!! Is this the "discussion" you were looking for, or is this the "mud slinging" you were hoping to arrive at? LOL Does the word "insincerity" mean anything to you? LOL TG OUT #92240 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 12:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "And here is the Buddha's statement yet again...CONSCIOUSNESS IS ""BOUND UP WITH"" AND SUPPORTED BY THE FOUR GREAT ELEMENTS. Consciousness is NOT separate from rupa." Scott: Repeating yourself, presenting suttas as if they say the same thing as you do, and writing with upper-case letters does not an argument make. Convince me with a well-reasoned argument. I say again, you are simply presening an elementary version of the neuropsychological premise that 'mind' and 'matter' are some sort of seemless unit out of which experience arises. Your view comes close to that of Herman, who presents the materialist/epiphenomenalist position very clearly. Neither is Dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. #92241 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:42:45 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Ah, but the above is not on, TG, because the view I represent is always founded on the basis that paramattha dhammaa are the bottom line and that each has characteristics. .............................................................. TG: This is the problem. "Paramattha dhamma" is a view unfound in the Suttas. So the heart of your beliefs is a view alien to the Suttas. I'm glad to see your dropping the "own" from "own characteristics." However, the word "each" is probably even worse. Oh well. TG OUT #92242 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 12:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...I'm glad to see your dropping the 'own' from 'own characteristics.' However, the word 'each' is probably even worse. Oh well." Scott: Yes. I do so because, even though it is a conventional designation, it is a bone of contention for you. I don't understand the 'own' of 'own characteristic' to imply, as I've said, that some little leprechaun of a homunculus has this or that characteristic. 'Seeing consciousness' differs from 'hearing consciousness.' Agree or disagree? Sincerely, Scott. #92243 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:48:44 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "And here is the Buddha's statement yet again...CONSCIOUSNETG: " ""BOUND UP WITH"" AND SUPPORTED BY THE FOUR GREAT ELEMENTS. Consciousness is NOT separate from rupa." Scott: Repeating yourself, presenting suttas as if they say the same thing as you do, and writing with upper-case letters does not an argument make. Convince me with a well-reasoned argument. ..................................... TG: This is not only a well reasoned argument, its quoting the Suttas. (You removed the quote so as not to keep things straight apparently.) Its amazing how much your are involved in turning a blind eye to Suttas that don't support a commentarial view. I think most anyone would consider my point highly justified. I think the Sutta quote and my statement, which is a regurgitation of that quote, is a very compelling argument indeed. You don't want to deal with facts. OK. You want to put down an argument and not address it by merely saying an argument is no good. OK. I can repeat all I want cause you have never FACED the issue. TG OUT #92244 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 8:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:56:21 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: 'Seeing consciousness' differs from 'hearing consciousness.' ................................................... TG: It is a different formation of multifaceted factors. TG #92245 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear Tg, Me:"'Seeing consciousness' differs from 'hearing consciousness.'" ................................................... TG: "It is a different formation of multifaceted factors." Scott: Do you agree or disagree with my statement? Its not clear. How do you understand 'seeing consciousness' to differ from 'hearing consciousness?' What are the 'multifaceted factors' of which the 'formation' is comprised? Sincerely, Scott. #92246 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: This is not only a well reasoned argument, its quoting the Suttas. (You removed the quote so as not to keep things straight apparently.)..." Scott: Nope, just keeping to the trimming rules. We know which sutta we are dealing with. TG: "...I think the Sutta quote and my statement, which is a regurgitation of that quote, is a very compelling argument indeed." Scott: Not when you suggest thereby, and you do, that you are saying exactly the same thing as the sutta does. You don't convince me, that's all. I'll keep presenting you with the questions I have and see how we go. I think its a good discussion. Sincerely, Scott. #92247 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:14 pm Subject: Re: Present moment szmicio Dear Nina > > L: What is a diffrence between moments of magga, and moments of pala? > -------- > N: Lokuttara maggacittas are lokuttara kusala cittas experiencing > nibbaana and eradicating defilements in accordance with the stage of > enlightenment that is reached. Phalacittas are the results of the > magga-cittas, lokuttara vipaakacittas, experiencing nibbaana. They > arise immediately in the same process. > ------- L: So we are talking about ariya, but whats with present moment. I used to think that magga cittas arises in our daily life, the same as phala cittas. I like to think about magga cittas which cultivates the magga, not me. When citta which speaks in the right way arises, isnt it a real magga citta? > > L:Which parts of eightfold-path are cetasikas? > ------ > N: all of them are cetasikas, and that means: arising because of > conditions, not self, beyond control. L: Yeah that's true. But can you tell more? When we speak in the right way, what kind of citta arises, what kind of cetasikas? Now I can see the real benefit of listening, reading and considering Dhamma. That's my only chance for bhavana. I am glad I have such good friends in Dhamma. Best wishes Lukas #92248 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 9:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Ho Howard Follow up.... In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:31:43 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: but I sure don't get what you mean by mentality being *comprised* of materiality at all. ..................................... TG: To clarify, I did not say "materiality." I don't even support that there is such a thing. Rupa is the Four Great Elements as I understand it. I don't call that or consider it "materiality." Do the 4GE's combine to form the things "we think of" as materiality? Yes. Do the 4GE's combine to form the things we think of as consciousness? Well, the Buddha said "Consciousness was BOUND UP WITH and supported by the Four Great Elements." So you decide. But what does it mean to be BOUND UP WITH the 4GE's? Sounds like an equal structural partnership to me. TG OUT #92249 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:15 pm Subject: Re: Present moment szmicio Dear Nina > > L: What is a diffrence between moments of magga, and moments of pala? > -------- > N: Lokuttara maggacittas are lokuttara kusala cittas experiencing > nibbaana and eradicating defilements in accordance with the stage of > enlightenment that is reached. Phalacittas are the results of the > magga-cittas, lokuttara vipaakacittas, experiencing nibbaana. They > arise immediately in the same process. > ------- L: So we are talking about ariya, but whats with present moment. I used to think that magga cittas arises in our daily life, the same as phala cittas. I like to think about magga cittas which cultivates the magga, not me. When citta which speaks in the right way arises, isnt it a real magga citta? > > L:Which parts of eightfold-path are cetasikas? > ------ > N: all of them are cetasikas, and that means: arising because of > conditions, not self, beyond control. L: Yeah that's true. But can you tell more? When we speak in the right way, what kind of citta arises, what kind of cetasikas? Now I can see the real benefit of listening, reading and considering Dhamma. That's my only chance for bhavana. I am glad I have such good friends in Dhamma. Best wishes Lukas #92250 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/1/2008 3:31:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/1/2008 1:20:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: COMPRISED??! Unless you are using language differently from me, I disagree completely. I go along with "dependent on" (either directly or indirectly), at least outside of formless realms, but I sure don't get what you mean by mentality being *comprised* of materiality at all. ................................................................... TG: What...now I got to deal with you too??? LOL -------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) ------------------------------------------- Hey, remember, Jon said terms aren't that important. LOL ------------------------------------------ Howard: LOLOL! ------------------------------------------ OK, Websters first definition of "comprised" is "to include or contain." So, do you want to say that an experience does not include or contain aspects of rupa??? TG OUT =============================== The object-content of consciousness is often, though not always, rupa. But to have hardness, for example, as what one experiences is not to have that hardness as *part* of the knowing per se. There is no knowing of hardness without there being hardness, and there is no unknown hardness (in my opinion and the Buddha's - please see the Kalaka Sutta); so there is that interdependence and consequent lack of own-being, but neither is a component of the other. They are distinct but inseparable. With metta, Howard #92251 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:30 am Subject: Word Meanings VS Phenomenal Actuality TGrand458@... Hi All There is a big difference between what a word means and the 'actuality of phenomena.' A term like "nama" for example ... deals with "experiences." I have no problem with that. But just because the term "nama," as a distinguishable CONCEPT, deals with 'experience' ... that doesn't mean there are 'phenomenal actualities' that solely consist of something called "namas." This is confusing the 'concept' with 'actuality.' Of course the Buddha has to use words to communicate meanings. But it is in the way those words and meanings are 'combined' that reveals what he taught Not by an isolated view of terms. TG OUT. #92252 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/1/2008 4:17:35 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: The object-content of consciousness is often, though not always, rupa. But to have hardness, for example, as what one experiences is not to have that hardness as *part* of the knowing per se. There is no knowing of hardness without there being hardness, and there is no unknown hardness (in my opinion and the Buddha's - please see the Kalaka Sutta); so there is that interdependence and consequent lack of own-being, but neither is a component of the other. They are distinct but inseparable. With metta, Howard .......................................................... TG: I don't have this "vision" that you have about "distinct but unseparable" or "separate components" in terms of phenomenal actuality. I don't think nature works under this type of dichotomy. Can we "distinguish" phenomena? yes. Are the Phenomena in actually "separate components"? I'd say no. Are you claiming you know the Buddha's opinion now? LOL I don't really think you are. I'll take the hundreds or thousands of Suttas where the Buddha discusses all sorts of natural unconscious phenomena without reserve. Any statement of the Buddha's that goes along the lines of -- "rupa doesn't appears without nama ... to me ... simply means it doesn't "appear" in consciousness. Not that it "doesn't appear period." That's my take and I'm sticking sticking sticking LOL TG OUT #92253 From: "connie" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Survey Quote nichiconn dear howard, we're not altogether at completely opposite ends of the spectrum! egad. connie TG: Nama is comprised of rupa and cannot "experience" on its own. There are no "independent absolutes" in Samsara. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: COMPRISED??! Unless you are using language differently from me, I disagree completely. I go along with "dependent on" (either directly or indirectly), at least outside of formless realms, but I sure don't get what you mean by mentality being *comprised* of materiality at all. -------------------------------------------- #92254 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi all, esp. Pali experts I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote to me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no beings." I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually want to learn rather than espouse my views! This morning I was reading the description of the nutriments, and found it very hard not to believe in beings after reading it: "There are these 4 kinds of nutriments for the maintenance of beings that have already come to be and for those seeking a new existence. What four? They are: physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle; contact as the second; mental volition as the third; and consciousness as the fourth." Also, that post on seeing the blotchy, hairless old wrinkled person or whatever the wording is...it is hard to believe that the Buddha isn't describe a being there. Also, if there are no beings, why is there killing? (That's an obvious question that must have an easy answer for those who say "there are no beings." A question, as the title indicates. I know that according to a BB note there was a school of thought called the personalists that sounded like puggili something or other. They were called "personalists", I think. It is clearly said that the mainstream was against that kind of thinking. Is there any difference between "no persons" and "no beings"in the Dhamma? Pali analysis very welcome. Sarah, pls. consider this as an intro to our talk. Thanks. Talk to you later. metta, phil I #92255 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:08 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Dear Phil, Sarah and all, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > Hi all, esp. Pali experts > > I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote >to > me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no >beings." > I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually > want to learn rather than espouse my views! > That is a heretical view that can justify full scale slaughter. No beings = Pakudha Kaccayana's view NOT BUDDHA's!!! "there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Best wishes, #92256 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Phil In a message dated 11/1/2008 6:37:34 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote to me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no beings." I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually want to learn rather than espouse my views! ................................................... TG: It all depends on how you define a "being." If you define it as "selves" with "their own control" then there is no such thing in actuality. If you define it as a "system of interacting conditions" then there is such a thing. With this view, its acceptable to see that there is a "being," but that "being" is a group of interacting conditions...it is not a "self." For all practical purposes, we function as if we were "selves" as long as delusion guides our thinking. The Buddha speaks for what's best for both the deluded group of folks, and the enlightened group of folks. Since the vast majority of folks he spoke to were not arahats, he would need to guide their ethical actions from a view they could understand. So he must speak about people, etc. in this regard. TG #92257 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:45 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi all Thanks Alex and TG, haven't read your posts yet. I just got to work and I want to jot down some thoughts I had while walking to the station. I wonder if it could be said "There is no Nina, but there is a being that has arisen due to the playing out of conditions (such as the 4 nutriments I listed earlier) and that being has come to be known as Nina due to the playing out of other conditions that are of a different sort that gave rise to the being." It seems hard to say "there are no beings" but "there are no persons" might be more understandable, since "persons" might imply that playing out of vipallasa, mistaken perceptions etc. I don't know. Just thought I'd get that down... metta, phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi all, esp. Pali experts > > I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote to > me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no beings." > I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually > want to learn rather than espouse my views! > #92258 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 7:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear Howard and TG. Regarding: TG: To clarify, I did not say 'materiality.' I don't even support that there is such a thing. Rupa is the Four Great Elements as I understand it. I don't call that or consider it 'materiality.' Do the 4GE's combine to form the things 'we think of' as materiality? Yes. Do the 4GE's combine to form the things we think of as consciousness? Well, the Buddha said 'Consciousness was BOUND UP WITH and supported by the Four Great Elements.' So you decide. But what does it mean to be BOUND UP WITH the 4GE's? Sounds like an equal structural partnership to me." Scott: This is quite misinformed, I think. 'Bound up with' does not mean 'inside of', as one might mean were one to say that consciousness hides amidst the intricate neuronal activity of the brain. This is materialism. I can't really fathom how it is stated that there is no 'materiality' since I've seen this term throughout the suttas. I don't understand that statement. And 'equal structural partnership' is proof that this is a materialistic theory, since naama has no structure whatsoever. Here's the sutta excerpt again: "...'This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by and bound up with it'..." "...Puna capara.m, udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa, yathaapa.tipannaa me saavakaa eva.m pajaananti - 'aya.m kho me caatumahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhavo odanakummaasuupacayo aniccucchaadanaparimaddanabhedanaviddha.msanadhammo; ida~nca pana me vi~n~naa.na.m ettha sita.m ettha pa.tibaddha.m'..." Scott: And the Paa.li for the words in question (PTS PED): "Ettha (adv.)...here, in this place; also temporal 'now', & modal 'in this case, in this matter'..." "Sita [pp. of sayati2]...1. (lit.) stuck in or to 2...(fig.) reclining, resting, depending on, attached, clinging to..." "Sayati2...to lean on; to be supported etc.: only in pp. sita, and in prep. cpd. nissayati." "Pa.tibaddha (adj.)...bound to, in fetters or bonds, attracted to or by, dependent on..." Scott: 'Sita' and 'pa.tibaddha' seem synonymous, in some senses. The fact that 'sita' is the past participle of 'sayati' is helpful, since this clarifies that we are dealing with the sense of 'leaning on' and 'support'. Now we have to wonder in what sense 'pa.tibhaddha' is meant. We see (PTS PED) that this word is an adjective and a compound made up of 'pa.ti' and 'baddha,' and is a past participle of 'bandh.' The term 'bandhati' means, '1. to bind...combine, unite...2. to tie on, bind or put on to...to apply to, put to, settle on...3. to fix, prepare, get up, put together...4. to acquire, get...5. to compose... In another related sense, 'bandhaapeti' means 'to cause to be bound (or fettered).' 'Bandha,' a related adjective, means '1. bond, fetter...2. one who binds or ties together...3. a sort of binding...4. a halter, tether...' It starts to come together that 'supported by' is meant in the sense that, say the eye-base is the material support for the arising of eye-consciousness. This reminds me of the way in which 'aayatana' seems to be meant. And since 'bound up with' seems to refer, at least to my reading of the sense of these inter-related definitions, to something that is a function of naama in general, and in particular, lobha-cetasika. In this way, taking the sutta to mean that consciousness exists somehow inside of matter, misses the point. This is, as I mentioned above, just like saying that the mind is in the brain somewhere. And that is armchair neuropsychology. Sincerely, Scott. #92259 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 11/1/2008 7:19:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: dear howard, we're not altogether at completely opposite ends of the spectrum! egad. connie ==================== Egad, indeed! :-)) With metta, Howard #92260 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott (and Howard) In a message dated 11/1/2008 8:02:43 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: This is quite misinformed, I think. 'Bound up with' does not mean 'inside of', as one might mean were one to say that consciousness hides amidst the intricate neuronal activity of the brain. This is materialism. ................................................. TG: I'm glad you added at the end what you were talking about. Up till then I hadn't the slightest idea what you were talking about...and even after the end I don't. Is this another example of ... Scott: "Creating a straw man - a caricature of another's argument - and then arguing against it?" Oh yea. A key question is -- What does "bound up with" mean? I would say -- "tied up with and connected." If you'd like to add, that's fine. "Inside of" is not my idea. Remember, you don't have the scope to understand what I'm saying...so you should be reading as a student, not a neuroscientist. ;-) But I'll continue on and try to "discuss it as a man." LOL ................................................... I can't really fathom how it is stated that there is no 'materiality' .................................................... TG: Exactly my point above!!! ................................................... since I've seen this term throughout the suttas. I don't understand that statement. ...................................................... TG: You say the term "materiality" is in the Suttas??? Damn, you mean the Buddha was able to speak English? Cool. I thought the Suttas were in Pali and that's why you are so diligent about Pali. Seriously though... Are you using a different word for "materiality" than "rupa"? In this case, Pali knowledge, I haven't your scope. .................................................................. And 'equal structural partnership' is proof that this is a materialistic theory, since naama has no structure whatsoever. Here's the sutta excerpt again: "...'This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by and bound up with it'..." "...Puna capara.m, udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa, yathaapa.tipannaa me saavakaa eva.m pajaananti - 'aya.m kho me caatumahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhacaatumahaabhuutiko maataapc aniccucchaadanaparianiccucchaadanapaniccucchaadanapaniccucchaadanaparim ettha sita.m etthavi~n~n Scott: And the Paa.li for the words in question (PTS PED): "Ettha (adv.)...here, in this place; also temporal 'now', & modal 'in this case, in this matter'..." "Sita [pp. of sayati2]...1. (lit.) stuck in or to 2...(fig.) reclining, resting, depending on, attached, clinging to..." "Sayati2...to lean on; to be supported etc.: only in pp. sita, and in prep. cpd. nissayati." "Pa.tibaddha (adj.)...bound to, in fetters or bonds, attracted to or by, dependent on..." Scott: 'Sita' and 'pa.tibaddha' seem synonymous, in some senses. The fact that 'sita' is the past participle of 'sayati' is helpful, since this clarifies that we are dealing with the sense of 'leaning on' and 'support'. Now we have to wonder in what sense 'pa.tibhaddha' is meant. We see (PTS PED) that this word is an adjective and a compound made up of 'pa.ti' and 'baddha,' and is a past participle of 'bandh.' The term 'bandhati' means, '1. to bind...combine, unite...2. to tie on, bind or put on to...to apply to, put to, settle on...3. to fix, prepare, get up, put together...4. to acquire, get...5. to compose... ................................................................. TG: Argue what you will. The above certainly makes my point. Even got "tie" in there which I used above....before seeing this. OMG...Do I see the word "COMPOSE"? Gee Wiz...that's sort of like "COMPRISE"!!! Just as I suspected. Red Alert....TG has nailed it on the head!!!! HOWARD, are you listening? ;-) I sure hope we see the same "tizzy" about the PTS Dictionary definitions. ............................................................... In another related sense, 'bandhaapeti' means 'to cause to be bound (or fettered).' 'Bandha,' a related adjective, means '1. bond, fetter...2. one who binds or ties together...3. a sort of binding...4. a halter, tether...' It starts to come together that 'supported by' is meant in the sense that, say the eye-base is the material support for the arising of eye-consciousness. This reminds me of the way in which 'aayatana' seems to be meant. And since 'bound up with' seems to refer, at least to my reading of the sense of these inter-related definitions, to something that is a function of naama in general, and in particular, lobha-cetasika. In this way, taking the sutta to mean that consciousness exists somehow inside of matter, misses the point. ........................................................... TG: It certainly would. Have you heard anyone making that case lately? I haven't seen it. Or are we back to the old "Straw Man"? In this case, actually altering words in the extreme and then arguing that it is my case. And then accusing me of some scientific positions that I am totally unfamiliar with. Naughty naughty. .......................................................... This is, as I mentioned above, just like saying that the mind is in the brain somewhere. And that is armchair neuropsychology. .......................................................... TG: Straw man....Straw man. LOL Everything about your above scholarship (not your off pointed intended put-downs which calumniate my position) backs up what I've been saying 100%. I have a feeling someone's not going to be man enough to admit it though. Oh well. Some wish to learn, others want attachment to tradition. Thanks for the continued, if unwitting, support of my position ... through honest scholarship, though less honest commentary. You see, commentary tends to go astray...but usually not this far astray! TG OUT #92261 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/1/2008 2:03:17 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Tg, Me:"'Seeing consciousness' differs from 'hearing consciousness.Me ................................................... TG: "It is a different formation of multifaceted factors." Scott: Do you agree or disagree with my statement? Its not clear. How do you understand 'seeing consciousness' to differ from 'hearing consciousness?consciousness?' What are the 'multifaceted factor 'formation' is comprised? Sincerely, Scott. .................................................................... TG: TG: Its not incumbent on me to agree or disagree with you. I made my statement. I can't "understand it for you." No further explanation will be proffered at this time. TG OUT #92262 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 11:07 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi Alex and all > No beings = Pakudha Kaccayana's view NOT BUDDHA's!!! > > "there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who > causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one > cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's > life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword > passes.'" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Wow. This looks very important. I don't have time to study this DN sutta, however. Could Alex or someone tell me more about the context of the above? Thanks! metta, phil #92263 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:47 am Subject: 2 questions reverendagga... Hi everybody! i need help with 2 questions. #1 The sutta where the Ven. Gotama tells his deciples; "Go forth each and evry one of you expond the Dhamma that is perfect in its begining perfect in its middle and perfect in its completion not two of you go the same path..." Where is this in the Pali canon? #2 In the Kama loka (Prince)Mara is in the 11th realm while the Bodisatta are in the 9th realm of Kama Loka prior to rebirth. Would this indicate that Mara is of a higher and superior position than the Bodisatta? If not than why are the hellish realms lower and the hevenly realms higher? Thank you all so VERY much! May the Buddhas Deva and Angels bless you all! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #92264 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:18 am Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35 jonoabb Hi Han > Han: Yes, Jon, your observation is correct in my case. My recollections are superficial and there will always be my thoughts turning to myself and loved ones. I only admire you and Sarah, and Nina for being able to go deeper. I think Nina's point, and I agree with her, was that it's the same for everyone ;-)) But there can also be moments of kusala reflection in between the "me and my story" ones. Jon #92265 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote jonoabb Hi Howard > Howard: > Perhaps I'm unfairly > generalizing in including you. But this does happen a lot. In particular, any time > a meditator writes of intentionally doing something, be it meditating, > guarding the senses, or abstaining from wrong speech or action, unless it is > "studying the ancient texts," the atta-view accusation is trotted out. > ---------------------------------------------------- The question we're discussing is whether a person's choice of terminology influences that person's views (rather than it being the other way round). I cannot see the relevance to this of the question of whether the Buddha taught intentional guarding of the senses as a practice to be undertaken. And while we're on the topic of intentional actions, it has been made clear any number of times that this applies to *any* intentional action - including studying the ancient texts - undertaken as a form of "practice". In fact, the factor for insight development mentioned in the teachings is "hearing the true Dhamma". As I think you'll agree, this quite clearly does not refer to an (intentional) action, but to a (resultant) occurrence. Anyway, to repeat, nobody here (to my knowledge) has ever put forward the studying of the ancient texts as fulfilling one of the prerequisites for developing insight. What *has* been said is (a) that intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for direct experience, and this on a continuing basis, and (b) that any ideas we have about the development of the path must be in accordance with the teachings as found in the ancient texts (and of course studying those texts could be helpful in finding out just what that is; could be but not *necessarily* so). > Am I allowed to say I disagree? ;-)) > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, Jon! I forbid it! LOL! > ----------------------------------------- OK, Howard. What you say goes around here ;-)) > Howard: > Yes, I would mind. It is so common that I wouldn't even begin with > example giving. How one speaks and how one thinks are mutually conditioning, and > this is a fact. Concept and word are the interior and exterior faces of the > same phenomenon. Mind (i.e., point of view, conceptual outlook and intention) > is the leader. Look at the beginning of the Dhammapada. > ----------------------------------------- Well if mind is the leader, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that how a person expresses him/her-self is affected by how he/she thinks? > Thanks, Howard. The point being urged is clear enough, but I'd like > to hear the explanation as to why it is so ;-)) > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What more is there to be said than what one hears affects how one > thinks? It is too trivially true to discuss any further. > ------------------------------------------------- The proposition that "what one hears affects how one thinks" just mentioned is not where we started. What we've been discussing is: "Agent terminology should be avoided - it expresses and leads to atta- view". I'm saying that no amount of deliberate avoiding of certain terms when speaking/writing about dhammas purely because, in that person's view, those terms connote a 'self' and so should be avoided, will help that person develop right view. Jon #92266 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote jonoabb Hi TG > TG: All the conditions that involve experience have effect. The mind > guides terminology but 'terminology' also 'skews' the mind. This seems like > 'common sense' conditionality understanding ... It might seem like common sense to you, but it doesn't sound like the Buddha's teaching to me ;-)) > I am constantly harangued by the terminology I use in here that doesn't > "fit" with the terminology that is more comfortable to folks following KS. On > the other hand, I constantly harangue those using "own characteristic" and > "ultimate realities" because those terms reflect the antithesis of the Buddha's > teaching IMO. ;-)), ;-)) > Terms have HUGE IMPACT. But you haven't suggested any basis for this view, even at a conventional level. Jon #92267 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote jonoabb Hi TG > TG: As I said in a post earlier to you today...we are > constantly harangued by the terminology we use by those who tend to argue on your > side of the issues. Then we see a post like your that acts oblivious to this > and oblivious to why terminology is that important. It just don't > follow...its a non sequitur. Do you distinguish between being 'harangued' about the terminology you use and being 'harangued' about the views you express? From my perspective, it is views that matter, not terminology, and I think most would agree with me on this (with you and Howard being the notable exceptions). > There are double standards going on in here and Howard eloquently addresses > that above. About 8 months ago, I was vehemently scolded for saying som > ething like -- ... So its frustrating and Howard's > post was a great breath of fresh air!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact you don't > seem to understand it or see it is a puzzle. Whatever, the discussion was surely about the way the teachings are understood, rather than about the way that understanding is being expressed. And I still don't see how any of this is relevant!! Jon #92268 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:42 am Subject: A nice talk with Sarah philofillet Hi all Just off Skype with Sarah. I was tired just after getting home from work but caffeine got me perky. I think my voice was a little bit belligerent at times, I interruped Sarah quite often, I could hear my voice was louder than it had ever been when discussing Dhamma live before. That is speech intimation, I think, the way cittas that objected where conditioning loud speech. But it was pleasant. Some point I can recall. *I talked about hostility towards people, and how (as Sarah said) dosa always has to find an object and how one can get caught up in too many considerations about what people do. Sarah pointed out that as teachers who have spent years working for people we get more easily caught up. Yes, but on the other hand I emphasized how an approach that says that growing insight into awareness makes every moment "perfectly instructive" and more important that consideration of akusala or kusala could be dangerous in my view, that certain kinds of bad behaviour could be excused because of it. As always I said that I think the Buddha stresses the value of human rebirth and encourages us to aim for it. I noted that the emphasis I hear at DSG about how it is any patisandhi citta that decides rebirth and it could be one from any past lifetime that could do it is not stressed in the suttanta, there is more emphasis from what I can see on *this*lifetime. *Most of what we talked about had to just end with me saying "yes, I do know what you mean" when Sarah talked aboout what has to be considered is the reality now, seeing, hearing, tasting etc. I do know what she means, but since I am still blocked by considerations about "how is it possible for people like me to have that kind of awareness" that kind of awareness feels more theoretical. But I did say towards the end that, yes, there are moments when I can understand it in a kind of fleeting, real way that comes and goes... * I asked about what I asked on the list today, any difference between "people" and "beings" and she said no. I am no closer to an answer on the "do people exist" thing and I won't worry about it, they do as far as *I* know but I will keep studying and listening and reflecting and get deeper into the teaching, perhaps, and we'll see where understanding goes. *I think I made a good point about the value of meditation and how following instructions can lead to conditions for kusala. I told about a case where I was meditating on the train after having meditated earlier in the day. I opened my eyes and there was a lovely cleavage right in front of me (crowded train) and there wasn't a moment of "I shouldn't look at that, I should return to the breath" it just happened. A good "distraction", Sarah said, from looking at sexy teenagers but no, I said, it wasn't that, it was a safeguarding, it was a guarding of the sense doors, it was a very good example of the sutta in which the Buddha says that by setting up mindfulness in the body the six animals of the senses are trained to lie down at the post. The value in it is that there is protection and resilience to objects built in to that. What is the connection there to understanding of dhammas? That is somewhere where we didn't agree and I won't bother going into it now. I don't want to talk about meditation any more here. *What else...hmm. One point where I came to agree for sure is all the insistence I was making to have nimitta explained to me. Sarah convinced me why it wasn't necessary and how my insisting and wondering about how there can be awareness when cittas are so fleeting is not helpful, whether it is nimitta or not, there is a characteristic that can be object of awareness. I will let go of concerns about nimitta now, thank you for your patience as well, Nina. (I must say, though, that the only reason I brough it up is that having been prodded by Sarah to listen to that recorded talk and I did and the first 5 minutes of the 10 minutes I listened to was K.S talking about nimitta! So there.) *Umm....there may have been more, but Naomi's been patient and I have to go. Thanks Sarah, add anything you'd like. If I don't respond for a few days, don't assume I'm...pissed off. :) metta, phil #92269 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:47 am Subject: Re: A nice talk with Sarah philofillet Hi again A couple afterthoughts. *Sarah brought up something I'd heard in one of the recorded talks, a trichotomy that is taught somewhere. (Commentaries? Suttanta?) Do we study the Dhamma for ourselves, for others, or for the purer sense of just studying Dhamma for the Dhamma. I am comfortable, personally, with the sense that I am mostly studying for myself and sometimes for others, and I don't have a sense of "studying Dhamma for Dhamma." I pointed out that in the recorded talk, Azita (I think) speculated that she was mostly studying for herself, and A.S said that no, she thought that anyone who was there that day listening was studying Dhamma for Dhamma. I remember thinking that was wrong when I heard it, and if I'm not mistaken Sarah agreed....could that be???? :) *I think the point where my voice raised the most is when I expressed frustration with the idea that the instructions in Vism or not instruction for people do do conventional activities. I just don't get this notion that I have heard from Ken and Nina and which I assume all students of A.S share that the "clansman who is a beginner" who follows the breathing instructions (counting between 5 and 10 breaths) and attends to the gross aspects of breath like the gross sounds of the gongs somehow already has conditions for some refined understanding of sati or something, that there are special conditions for that person the way (as Sarah said) someone who is an expert in piano by conditions hears instructions in a far subtler and more immediate way than a beginner. There is nothing about that in the text. I still the idea that there is something inherently wrong about people doing activities related to Dhamma, that the Buddha never taught in this way, is a touch absurd. This is somewhere where I'll have to keep listening and see if something sinks in, but for now I just don't get it. *Sarah, I said at what point "I'm not serious about meditation" as if I was writing it off, but I take that point.I'm serious about meditation. There are limits to my expectations about it because of my lifestyle, there are obstructions as laid out in Vism. because of lifestyle and environment, but it is helpful and yes, the meditation I am doing is in line with the Dhamma, in case I gave the impression I said otherwise. (I think the particular teacher I listen to takes too many liberties with details, but it is basically in line with meditation as taught in Vism.) *Something that occured to me as I went to get ice cream for dessert. I wrote in the first part of this report that "I noticed my voice was getting louder." That is an example of awareness of present dhammas, I think. No need to worry whether it was nimitta or characteristic of realities or what. It was a moment of awareness of something that was happening due to conditions. metta, phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi all > > Just off Skype with Sarah. #92270 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A nice talk with Sarah sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, Yes, it was a good talk - pretty much straight dhamma for the hour and you're very easy to talk to and were very well prepared topic-wise. [Actually the 'agenda' had been changed half a dozen times during the week and then yesterday or the day before, Phil had tried to 'chicken out' of the arrangement altogether, but I'd cried 'foul' and so out of a sense of 'fairness', it occurred as scheduled:-)]. I certainly had no sense of any 'belligerance' or even loudness. Lively, yes. Perhaps that just goes to show how we really don't know each other's cittas. My voice is very soft, so perhaps that was why you heard your voice louder than usual. Actually, you were very polite with your "yes, I do know what you mean" sceptical responses. There was nothing new, but helpful to discuss the topics you referred to. I enjoyed it after I got passed the first difficult question along the lines of 'what guilty pleasures do you have while Jon's away?' LOL! Of course, I knew anything interesting would be skyped round the world, put onto any of Phil's lists and probably used by a character in one of his books, so I was pretty circumspect:-)) Also, we discussed (please elaborate further if you care to): - U Silananda - highly recommended by you (Phil) to listen to. Do you have a link? Perhaps we could all listen to a short segment and discuss it. - lapses of behaviour, Rahula sutta. Confidence or conceit? Dangers in just looking at anatta and the 'perfect moment/reality (?)' - 'caritas', characters - those in the Vism & all kinds for us all. - roots, an Abhidhamma point about 2 or 3 roots only at birth vs 6 roots arising with various javana cittas - I suggested all the 'problems', such as the 'hostility towards people', concern with character, kusala, akusala and so on came down to the taking of 'person' to exist - the clinging and expectations to oneself and others. - Dhamma for oneself (e.g to have a happy rebirth), Dhamma for others (e.g generosity to make other family members happy) or Dhamma for the sake of Dhamma. Had KS made a mistake? - Doubt about characteristics of dhammas - natural, but not useful - ideas, dreams, pannatti - moving away from the reality now - killing living beings: I quoted from the comy to the Samma Ditthi sutta; "...the phrase killing living beings means the slaughter of a living being, the destruction of a living being. And here a living being (paa.na) is, according to ordinary usage, a being (satta); in the ultimate sense it is the life factulty...." [A sotapanna has no more idea of a being/person existing and no further inclination to kill.] Later I said something along the lines that actually it doesn't matter what is written in any text, it's all about what can be known now - back to presently appearing namas and rupas. - Your (Phil's) 'on the fence' position. We had a bit of a laugh about how he probably talks namas and rupas and present dhammas to others and you sort of agreed. - the comfort question - thinking about namas and rupas. I referred to lessening the burden as a kind of comfort by understanding namas and rupas gradually a little more. - lots on 'a person doing something', the Vism instructions, people, going to the roots of trees. I kept stressing conditioned namas and rupas, as at this moment. At least he agrees there's NO CONTROL!! - kasinas, counting breaths. If we hold our breath and count to ten now, where's the kusala involved? The breath on the train - another kind of attachment, surely? - Awareness while distracted, comments Eric had made on take about this. Wow, you certainly remember all the details of the recordings:-)) - Porn imagery, meditating, pannatti and dream worlds - The 4 nutriments 'for the maintenance of beings...those seeking a new existence' - again the nutriments of dhammas, including patisandhi citta. Again, lots more in the comy to the Samma Ditthi Sutta, transl by Nanamoli. This could be a separate thread. Back to the first question and being on my own - of course, this is another illusion we have, that we're with our spouse or family or friends or living alone. In fact we're alone with seeing, hearing or other experiences all the time. No one ever shares this moment of seeing or thinking. Still, conventionally speaking, conditions for me to make more effort (partly due to having more time) to associate with others and discuss the Dhamma 'in person' when Jon's away like this or with Jessica or Cindy, and yes, that's a pleasure, if not a very guilty one;-). Thanks Phil - let's do it again when Jon next goes to Fiji! Metta, Sarah ======= #92271 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 11/1/2008 11:53:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: Argue what you will. The above certainly makes my point. Even got "tie" in there which I used above....before seeing this. OMG...Do I see the word "COMPOSE"? Gee Wiz...that's sort of like "COMPRISE"!!! Just as I suspected. Red Alert....TG has nailed it on the head!!!! HOWARD, are you listening? ;-) ========================== Yeah, listening! ;-)) My opinion: Drop the 'comprise', TG, it's misleading and a poor choice (IMHO ;-) With metta, Howard #92272 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:48 pm Subject: "What goes up must come down, What must rise will fall" Alan Parsons Project ksheri3 Hi Group, I'm lucky enough to be getting into some real good stuff that gives the mind something to do other than view that ignorant CAUSE & EFFECT pathe What exactly is the "Awakening of faith in the Mahayana", I mean this in spirit that there are countless scholars spending their lives searching to disprove things by means of dates, by means of locations, by means of arifacts, ect. and what they have all failed to do is to recognize that position they are in. A.C. Muller thank you, "Since the 'essence' being discussed here is not an eternal, unchanging enitity, but is instead contigent upon situations, the relationship of essense and function is fluid[I didn't make that typo that's how it's printed] and conceviable to identify each prior stage as the 'essence' of that which comes after it, and each subsequent stage as the 'function' of the stage that come before it." This is EVOLUTION is it not? <...> Don't go off here, since Buddhism is a far reaching psychology and philosophy yet is continually turned over as if it was nothing more than the top soil that farming conglomerets use to industrialize the USA. <...> This kind of paradox of simultaneous distance and immediacy of ren can also be seen as something that prefigures the much late Zen Buddhist notion of sudden enlightenment." Is there no such thing as sudden enlightenment? Is there no such thing as an epipheny? What causes a person to INSTANTLY CHANGE THEIR LIVES? A friend of mine was struck by a truck a few years ago and almost died. When he finally made it home where I could see him and talk with him, he was a completely different person. How can measure this change and devotion that he had to or even with the person he was before the accident? What is a sudden enlightenment? Howard, and Dick Meniiger (sorry about the mispselling) of the Kagyu, even "Jimpa the monk" How are you going to explain this? I experienced this type of thing, a Near Death Experience, and since I do not maintain the religious and political status quo of my own personal experience, I have had the pleasure of experiencing many more near death experiences from the gracisiousness and generosity of the Middle Class, SO I KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN A PERSON THAT HAS THIS EXPERIENCE. <...> toodles, colette #92273 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Phil & Alex - In a message dated 11/2/2008 1:07:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Alex and all > No beings = Pakudha Kaccayana's view NOT BUDDHA's!!! > > "there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who > causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one > cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's > life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword > passes.'" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Wow. This looks very important. I don't have time to study this DN sutta, however. Could Alex or someone tell me more about the context of the above? Thanks! metta, phil ============================ In the past I had mentioned a sutta which involved a group of folks who took exactly the position expressed above, though I couldn't recall the sutta. I pointed this out as a warning of what an extreme reductive view can lead to. I am so pleased that this sutta has been identified. It really is an important one, especially with regard to showing a variety of wrong view that I think some DSG members may be vulnerable to. (There are also other forms of wrong view, going in the opposite direction and equally harmful, of course.) One important part of this sutta is the following: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Another time I approached Ajita Kesakambalin and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there I asked him: 'Venerable Ajita, there are these common craftsmen... They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now... Is it possible, venerable sir, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?' "When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.' "Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation. Just as if a person, when asked about a mango, were to answer with a breadfruit; or, when asked about a breadfruit, were to answer with a mango. In the same way, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation. The thought occurred to me: 'How can anyone like me think of disparaging a priest or contemplative living in his realm?' Yet I neither delighted in Ajita Kesakambalin's words nor did I protest against them. Neither delighting nor protesting, I was dissatisfied. Without expressing dissatisfaction, without accepting his teaching, without adopting it, I got up from my seat and left. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ With metta, Howard #92274 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape sarahprocter... Dear Han,(& Tep), --- On Sun, 26/10/08, han tun wrote: >My question was a yes-or-no question. [Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not?] Tep’s answer was a direct one: yes, they would. Nina’s answer was a two-way answer depending on the kusala cittas and akusala cittas that arise alternately very quickly. At one moment it is kusala, and another moment akusala. But at the same time, Nina also said akusala can condition kusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya. So, if I am not mistaken, the answer was a yes-and-no. .... S: Can I answer too? I'd say the kusala involved in observing the precepts in this case is very weak and therefore any benefit (by way of viapaka) will also be very weak. ... H:>For me, I would like the answer to be: yes, they would. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel. ... S: It's a good example of how we can't tell by the deeds....it all comes back to the cetana involved. Btw, I'm reminded that Tep has suddenly gone very quiet. Is anything wrong, Tep? I'm missing your discussions and tough questions already! Metta, Sarah ======= #92275 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/2/2008 4:19:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > Howard: > Perhaps I'm unfairly > generalizing in including you. But this does happen a lot. In particular, any time > a meditator writes of intentionally doing something, be it meditating, > guarding the senses, or abstaining from wrong speech or action, unless it is > "studying the ancient texts," the atta-view accusation is trotted out. > ---------------------------------------------------- The question we're discussing is whether a person's choice of terminology influences that person's views (rather than it being the other way round). I cannot see the relevance to this of the question of whether the Buddha taught intentional guarding of the senses as a practice to be undertaken. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know, Jon - it came up in the course of our conversation. ------------------------------------------- And while we're on the topic of intentional actions, it has been made clear any number of times that this applies to *any* intentional action - including studying the ancient texts - undertaken as a form of "practice". In fact, the factor for insight development mentioned in the teachings is "hearing the true Dhamma". As I think you'll agree, this quite clearly does not refer to an (intentional) action, but to a (resultant) occurrence. Anyway, to repeat, nobody here (to my knowledge) has ever put forward the studying of the ancient texts as fulfilling one of the prerequisites for developing insight. What *has* been said is (a) that intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for direct experience, and this on a continuing basis, and (b) that any ideas we have about the development of the path must be in accordance with the teachings as found in the ancient texts (and of course studying those texts could be helpful in finding out just what that is; could be but not *necessarily* so). > Am I allowed to say I disagree? ;-)) > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, Jon! I forbid it! LOL! > ----------------------------------------- OK, Howard. What you say goes around here ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Whew, thank goodness! Finally I see you expressing right view! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I would mind. It is so common that I wouldn't even begin with > example giving. How one speaks and how one thinks are mutually conditioning, and > this is a fact. Concept and word are the interior and exterior faces of the > same phenomenon. Mind (i.e., point of view, conceptual outlook and intention) > is the leader. Look at the beginning of the Dhammapada. > ----------------------------------------- Well if mind is the leader, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that how a person expresses him/her-self is affected by how he/she thinks? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: But it also (clearly) goes the other way as well. But, hey, if you don't see that, so be it! -------------------------------------------- > Thanks, Howard. The point being urged is clear enough, but I'd like > to hear the explanation as to why it is so ;-)) > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What more is there to be said than what one hears affects how one > thinks? It is too trivially true to discuss any further. > ------------------------------------------------- The proposition that "what one hears affects how one thinks" just mentioned is not where we started. What we've been discussing is: "Agent terminology should be avoided - it expresses and leads to atta- view". I'm saying that no amount of deliberate avoiding of certain terms when speaking/writing about dhammas purely because, in that person's view, those terms connote a 'self' and so should be avoided, will help that person develop right view. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's more the opposite, Jon: Repeated use of wrong language feeds wrong view. It is harmful, like spoiled food. ------------------------------------------------ Jon ========================= With metta, Howard #92276 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 5:41 am Subject: Pali Passage For Question One --- Re: 2 questions abhidhammika Dear reverend aggacitto, Nina, Scott, Sarah, Jon and all How are you? The answer to reverend aggacitto's first question can be found in the following passage in Mahaavaggapaa.li in Vinayapi.taka. "….. Caratha, bhikkhave, caarikam bahujanahitaaya bahujanasukhaaya lokaanukampaaya atthaaya hitaaya sukhaaya devamanussaanam. Maa ekena, dve agamittha. Desetha, bhikkhave, dhammam aadikalyaa.nam majjhekalyaa.nam pariyosaanakalyaa.nam saattham sabyańjanam kevala paripu.n.nam parisuddham brahmacariyam pakaasetha…" The above statement comes from the following full passage. "32. Atha kho bhagavaa te bhikkhuu aamantesi‚– "muttaaham, bhikkhave, sabbapaasehi, ye dibbaa ye ca maanusaa. Tumhepi, bhikkhave, muttaa sabbapaasehi, ye dibbaa ye ca maanusaa. Caratha, bhikkhave, caarikam bahujanahitaaya bahujanasukhaaya lokaanukampaaya atthaaya hitaaya sukhaaya devamanu ssaanam. Maa ekena, dve agamittha. Desetha, bhikkhave, dhammam aadikalyaa.nam majjhekalyaa.nam pariyosaanakalyaa.nam saattham sabyańjanam kevala paripu.n.nam parisuddham brahmacariyam pakaasetha. Santi sattaa apparajakkhajaatikaa, assavanataa dhammassa parihaayanti, bhavissanti dhammassa ańńaataaro. Ahampi, bhikkhave, yena uruvelaa senaanigamo tenupasankamissaami dhammadesanaayaa"ti. Section 32, Maarakathaa, Mahaavaggapaa.li, Vinayapi.taka Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: Hi everybody! i need help with 2 questions. #1 The sutta where the Ven. Gotama tells his deciples; "Go forth each and evry one of you expond the Dhamma that is perfect in its begining perfect in its middle and perfect in its completion not two of you go the same path..." Where is this in the Pali canon? #2 In the Kama loka (Prince)Mara is in the 11th realm while the Bodisatta are in the 9th realm of Kama Loka prior to rebirth. Would this indicate that Mara is of a higher and superior position than the Bodisatta? If not than why are the hellish realms lower and the hevenly realms higher? #92277 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 5:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries sarahprocter... Hi Alex, You wrote to Scott what has become a familiar retort: --- On Sun, 26/10/08, Alex wrote: >The Buddha was the best, none of the best Arahants could match him in teaching ability. He didn't even allow Ven. Sariputta to be the leader. It is insulting to every Buddhist to claim that such and such a monk can explain Buddha't teaching better than the Man Himself. No wonder some Buddhist are offended and are compassionate enough toward those unlucky fellow who hurt themselves and others when it comes to Buddhas teaching. >It is very slanderous to Bhagavat to imply that he couldn't explain it in a clearest possible manner and that it would need commentary. Buddha himself in DN16 has stated that whatever monk or group of monks say, it must be checked with the Suttas. .... S: Firstly, no one has ever suggested on DSG (that I recall) that anyone can explain the Teachings better than the Buddha. Secondly, the Buddha himself encouraged such commentaries by his disciples. Thirdly, we have to understand what is meant by 'Suttas', 'Dhamma-Vinaya' and other such phrases in context. Fourthly, you, yourself, refer (usually by way of others interpretations) to the ancient commentaries when it suits your argument. This is what I wrote once before to Victor (#33311) who had also referred to such 'slander of the Tathagata'. *** S:> Those with wrong view who suggest the Buddha taught anything other than the anattaness of paramattha dhammas slander the Tathagata and the Dhamma.In other words, these brief suttas are about the understanding of the Dhamma which can only be developed by vipassana. >On another thread you stress (rightly) the importance of appreciating MahaKaccayana’s elaboration of the Buddha’s words in MN18, Madhupindika Sutta. The Buddha praised such elaborations by key disciples. Do you agree? Those elaborations in conformity with the Buddha’s teachings came to be known as the Buddha’s word. Do you agree? Even during the Buddha’s time, such assistance was necessary for many. Thus we have extensive amounts of commentary included in the Pali Canon and further commentaries (inc. those by Maha Kaccayana) and the Abhidhamma included for elucidation since the First council. Any disagreement? >So, the further question is, without the assistance of MahaKaccayana and the other key disciples like Sariputta, Ananda and so on, can we really appreciate what is a slandering of the Tathagata and what is not? Without the Abhidhamma and vipassana, is it possible to know what right view and wrong view are? **** Metta, Sarah ======== #92278 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:40 am Subject: Re: Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape hantun1 Dear Sarah, > > Han: [Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not?] Tep’s answer was a direct one: yes, they would. Nina’s answer was a two-way answer depending on the kusala cittas and akusala cittas that arise alternately very quickly. At one moment it is kusala, and another moment akusala. But at the same time, Nina also said akusala can condition kusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya. So, if I am not mistaken, the answer was a yes-and-no. > Sarah: Can I answer too? I'd say the kusala involved in observing the precepts in this case is very weak and therefore any benefit (by way of viapaka) will also be very weak. Han: You are always welcome, Sarah. Weak benefit will be fine! I was talking about the children, not adults like you and me. -------------------- > > Han: For me, I would like the answer to be: yes, they would. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel. > Sarah: It's a good example of how we can't tell by the deeds....it all comes back to the cetana involved. Han: Again, it will be the same reponse from me. One cannot expect much cetanaa from the children. If they observe the precepts, even if it is without cetanaa, or without knowledge, it will be better than hurting other children or stealing from others. After all, even upekkhaa-sahagata.m ~naana-vippayutta.m sasankharika.m eka.m (citta accompanied by equanimity, dissociated from knowledge, prompted) is one of the mahaa kusala cittas. Respectfully, Han #92279 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:46 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Dear Phil and all, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi all > > Thanks Alex and TG, haven't read your posts yet. I just got to >work and I want to jot down some thoughts I had while walking to the > station. > > I wonder if it could be said "There is no Nina, but there is a >being > that has arisen due to the playing out of conditions (such as the 4 > nutriments I listed earlier) and that being has come to be known as > Nina due to the playing out of other conditions that are of a >different sort that gave rise to the being." It seems hard to >say "there are no > beings" but "there are no persons" might be more understandable, > since "persons" might imply that playing out of vipallasa, mistaken > perceptions etc. I don't know. Just thought I'd get that down... > > metta, > > phil Did you read the quote re: heretical teaching? As I understand it, the Tathagata is not found here and now. See Yamaka sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html However that applies only to Arahants, they have no self-personality (brought on by craving and delusion). There is however difference regarding ordinary people. Tom, Dick and Harry certainly do exist (in a deluded sense), their defilements that make them established in this or that aggregate as I, I AM, do exist. Of course if by "being" we speculate on what is transcendent to 5 aggregates, then it is pointless to talk about that which isn't given in experience. IMHO. Best wishes, #92280 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Re: A nice talk with Sarah philofillet Hi Sarah Wow, thanks for the amazingly detailed report. No complaints! I enjoyed it after I got passed the first difficult question along the lines of 'what guilty pleasures do you have while Jon's away?' LOL! > Ph: I was planning to ask you "what are you wearing?" but abstained. > I suggested all the 'problems', such as the 'hostility towards people', concern with character, kusala, akusala and so on came down to the taking of 'person' to exist - the clinging and expectations to oneself and others. ph: yes this was one other point I forgot to mention, the way all my hostility has been funneled down into people related to Dhamma. When I was an AS student, I felt hostility towards some people who criticized her, now I often feel hostility towards people who respect her or worship her as I see it when I feel hostility. But it's amazing how all the hostility I feel in life, well, the hostility that doesn't fade away quickly is related to people I discuss Dhamma with. This indicates to me how much clinging there is to my Dhamma beliefs, but where but I take that as very, very good news! I welcome cliging to Dhamma and Dhamma related practices, welcome it with open arms! And I'm confident as always that the hostility will be outgrown. ok, that's all for now. Thanks again Sarah. metta, phil #92281 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi Howard and Alex and all > In the past I had mentioned a sutta which involved a group of folks who > took exactly the position expressed above, though I couldn't recall the > sutta. I pointed this out as a warning of what an extreme reductive view can lead > to. I am so pleased that this sutta has been identified. Yes, thanks Alex. Please follow up on it guys. I have to sit on the fence on this whole question, am happy to do so. metta, phil #92282 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, Thanks for the reply. Regarding: Me: "This is quite misinformed, I think. 'Bound up with' does not mean 'inside of', as one might mean were one to say that consciousness hides amidst the intricate neuronal activity of the brain. This is materialism." TG: "...A key question is -- What does 'bound up with' mean? I would say -- 'tied up with and connected.' If you'd like to add, that's fine. 'Inside of' is not my idea. Me: "I can't really fathom how it is stated that there is no 'materiality' since I've seen this term throughout the suttas. I don't understand that statement." TG: "...You say the term 'materiality' is in the Suttas?...Are you using a different word for 'materiality' than 'rupa'? In this case, Pali knowledge, I haven't your scope." Scott: No, its 'ruupa' - the English seems always to be 'materiality' and the Paa.li is 'ruupa'. I don't have much 'scope' in Paa.li. We can hope that a real Paa.li scholar sets me straight if I'm going wrong in my studies. Here's the sutta excerpt again: "...'This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by and bound up with it'..." "..."...Puna capara.m, udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa, yathaapa.tipannaa me saavakaa eva.m pajaananti - 'aya.m kho me caatumahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhavo odanakummaasuupacayo aniccucchaadanaparimaddanabhedanaviddha.msanadhammo; ida~nca pana me vi~n~naa.na.m ettha sita.m ettha pa.tibaddha.m'..." Me: "...The term 'bandhati' means, '1. to bind...combine, unite...2. to tie on, bind or put on to...to apply to, put to, settle on...3. to fix, prepare, get up, put together...4. to acquire, get...5. to compose..." TG: "...The above certainly makes my point. Even got 'tie' in there which I used above..." Scott: The English word 'tie' has a special sense when one considers the Paa.li 'gantha'. This is also translated as 'knots'. SN 45 174(4) Ganthasutta.m: "Bhikkhus, there are four knots (ganthaa). What four? The bodily knot of covetousness (abhijjhaa kaayagantho), the bodily knot of ill-will (byaapaado kaayagantho), the bodily knot of distorted grasp of rules and vows (siilabbataparaamaaso kaayagantho), the bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of the truth (ida.msaccaabhiniveso kaayagantho). These are the four knots (cattaaro ganthaa). This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these four knots, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning." In Dhammasa"nga.ni (p.155) it is noted that, "[a]ll form is that which is...of the Ties." The 'Ties' are (Vibha"nga, The Second Book of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, p. 485): "The attachment of desire, the attachment of wrong view, the attachment of (wrong) habits and practices, the attachment of soul theory." Scott: Nyanatiloka suggest that "[t]hese things are ties, since they tie this mental and material body." Me: "It starts to come together that 'supported by' is meant in the sense that, say the eye-base is the material support for the arising of eye-consciousness. This reminds me of the way in which 'aayatana' seems to be meant. And since 'bound up with' seems to refer, at least to my reading of the sense of these inter-related definitions, to something that is a function of naama in general, and in particular, lobha-cetasika..." TG: "...Everything about your...scholarship...backs up what I've been saying 100%..." Scott: First of all, what I'm saying is always with the primary assumption that we are dealing with paramattha dhammas. And that means, to be specific, that a given conditioned dhamma, while it *is* it's characteristic, differs from another conditioned dhamma according to characteristic and function. I'm saying that conditionality is the way in which dhammas with characteristics influence each other in various ways and from various points over time. I'm saying that, while naama and ruupa are 'tied' or 'knotted' together (e.g., vi~n~naa.na-paccayaa naama-ruupa.m), due to conditions (the 24 modes of conditionality given in the Pa.t.thaana), they are separate realities. I'm saying that naama is supported by ruupa, that, say, seeing results from the confluence of visible object (a separate reality), a physical base (a separate reality), and seeing consciousness (a separate reality). That 'seeing' arises out of this confluence is not to say that ruuupa is somehow 'imbued' with naama. I'm saying that it is naama, and not ruupa, that is 'experience'. I'm never sure, as I study, that I'm correct but this is what I'm saying. That you see the view you represent reflected in the research I present would be, I'd suggest, more a function of di.t.thi (seeing the world through a certain lens) than a function of 'agreement.' Are you saying you agree with all that? Sincerely, Scott. #92283 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 2:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/2/2008 10:01:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex and all > In the past I had mentioned a sutta which involved a group of folks who > took exactly the position expressed above, though I couldn't recall the > sutta. I pointed this out as a warning of what an extreme reductive view can lead > to. I am so pleased that this sutta has been identified. Yes, thanks Alex. Please follow up on it guys. I have to sit on the fence on this whole question, am happy to do so. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I suppose some folks might think that fence sitting is "the middle way" (LOL!), but doesn't that get painful? ;-)) As for following up, I'm not sure as to what more might be said except the following: Individual fleeting, impersonal qualities and operations are not things for which metta, karuna, or mudita are felt, and if there is an ignoring of the fact that these cluster together in relationally integrated systems we call "people," then not only might good will not be felt, but also total disregard for the welfare of beings could be the norm. ---------------------------------------------- metta, phil ========================= With metta, Howard #92284 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 8:13 am Subject: Pali Passage For Question One --- Re: 2 questions truth_aerator Dear Bhante, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" > wrote: > > > Hi everybody! > > #2 In the Kama loka (Prince)Mara is in the 11th realm while > the Bodisatta are in the 9th realm of Kama Loka prior to rebirth. > Would this indicate that Mara is of a higher and superior > position than the Bodisatta? > If not than why are the hellish realms lower and the hevenly > realms higher? > > > > Thank you all so VERY much! Longer lifespan and more pleasurable feelings aren't by themself the criteria for superior position. Age, mundane power, and being endowed with 5 strands of sensual happiness isn't a decisive factor in this issue. Buddha was superior to all, even though he lived 80 years, not quadrillions. In some suttas he had even more power than Brahma. So we should take the 31 realm chart as a "ranking chart of superiority. Best wishes, #92285 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali Passage For Question One --- Re: 2 questions upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Bhante) - In a message dated 11/2/2008 11:13:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Buddha was superior to all, even though he lived 80 years, not quadrillions. In some suttas he had even more power than Brahma. So we should take the 31 realm chart as a "ranking chart of superiority. =========================== I presume had a typo, and you meant to say "should NOT take," right? With metta, Howard #92286 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/2/2008 6:06:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: TG: Argue what you will. The above certainly makes my point. Even got "tie" in there which I used above....before seeing this. OMG...Do I see the word "COMPOSE"? Gee Wiz...that's sort of like "COMPRISE"!!word "COMPOSE"? suspected. Red Alert....TG has nailed it on the head!!!! HOWARD, are you listening? ;-) ========================== Yeah, listening! ;-)) My opinion: Drop the 'comprise', TG, it's misleading and a poor choice (IMHO ;-) ............................................................. TG: My opinion...spend some serious time contemplating why the SUTTAS, in defining HOW consciousness fundamentally relates to the 4GE's, would suggest that the 4GE's "compose" consciousness. This may not meet with your opinions, but it was Scott's scholarship, (Scott... a person who would want anything other than to support any contention of mine), who presented translations from the PTS dictionary, I believe, for the pertinent terms. Even if you remove the one word "compose," virtually all the other descriptions of the pertinent terms are pointing in that direction anyway. But the word 'compose' is there...so it needs to be dealt with seriously. Please at least address the Sutta relevant issue rather than a dismissive "brush off." Not only is it NOT misleading, it is leading in the right direction. Because these things, these phenomena, are all related and inter-related. There is nothing here standing on "its own." I don't see phenomena as "separately" as you do and I see it way way less "separately" than the Abhidhammikas. Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves"? Very very very unlikely. They are all outgrowths of the 'same stuff' IMO. And Scott has provided clear Sutta evidence to back that up. I was satisfied with "bound up with." But "compose" really hammers it home. But, if you'd care to go into WHY its misleading, I'd sure read what you had to say. TG #92287 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Scott I have to say to begin I much more appreciate the tone of this post. Most of which is not included in my response here. In a message dated 11/2/2008 8:12:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "...Everything about your...scholarship.TG: "...Everything about saying 100%..." ............................................................ TG: To clarify, what I meant by "your scholarship" was the research you did on the Sutta terms and the PTS definitions/translations. For it is the "Sutta material" that backs up what I say IMO. .............................................................. Scott: First of all, what I'm saying is always with the primary assumption that we are dealing with paramattha dhammas. ............................................................... TG: I don't proceed on a quest to know what is true with "assumptions." That, IMO, will skew whatever one comes across. That's a point I've made several times...in that by relying on the "Commentarial view," one is likely to "skew" the Suttas to fit that view. Almost certainly. And it seems odd that a Buddhist Scholar/student would have a "primary assumption" that is about something not stated in the Suttas. ........................................................................... And that means, to be specific, that a given conditioned dhamma, while it *is* it's characteristic, differs from another conditioned dhamma according to characteristic and function. I'm saying that conditionality is the way in which dhammas with characteristics influence each other in various ways and from various points over time. ....................................................................... TG: For me, this type of view is likely the result of relying too heavily on the "word concepts" and taking them as directly correlating to actual phenomena. As the Dhamma passed down from generation to generation, the commentators got more and more "bold" as to the 'words' they used to describe phenomena. The end result, IMO, is a view about "ultimate realities" that the Buddha never even mentioned. Its a slippery slope. ........................................................................... I'm saying that, while naama and ruupa are 'tied' or 'knotted' together (e.g., vi~n~naa.na-together (e.g., vi~n~together (e.g., vi~n~naa. (the 24 modes of conditionality given in the Pa.t.thaana)(the 24 mo separate realities. I'm saying that naama is supported by ruupa, that, say, seeing results from the confluence of visible object (a separate reality), a physical base (a separate reality), and seeing consciousness (a separate reality). That 'seeing' arises out of this confluence is not to say that ruuupa is somehow 'imbued' with naama. .............................................................. TG: Actually, not my words, but it would be primarily the other way around... but it flows back and forth and the 12 Fold Chain connotes.. ** But all these "separate realities" you talk about, that's an extrapolation above and beyond what the Suttas say. Its a constructed view based on assumptions about the Suttas. The things the Buddha taught were really just for the purpose of convincing folks of the futility of being attached to phenomena and to "turn away" from phenomena. One needs to know the "reality of suffering" to escape samsara. Not ontological reality. But I admit the latter is compelling....due to attachment. ........................................................... I'm saying that it is naama, and not ruupa, that is 'experience'I'm s never sure, as I study, that I'm correct but this is what I'm saying. That you see the view you represent reflected in the research I present would be, I'd suggest, more a function of di.t.thi (seeing the world through a certain lens) than a function of 'agreement.' Are you saying you agree with all that? ................................................ TG: Nama is the "term" that describes experience!!! Rupa is the "word" that describes the 4GE's. These are just words we use to put together meanings. They do not represent "separate realities" in an ontological sense IMO. As I wrote to Howard earlier today -- "Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves" Do these phenomena have som Some Abhidhammist's (to simplify) have done a great job in getting away from being deceived...from the process of taking conventional concepts as an expression of actual realities. But they have fallen into a trap of taking the expressions of elements and aggregates as actual realities. That's why I keep saying...its the same delusion, its just been transferred onto/into different concepts. I know you don't agree, but that's OK. If we exactly agreed, we'd have little to discuss. TG OUT #92288 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard I'd like you to read the last post I made to Scott just a minute ago, on this subject, as well. I forgot to put your name on it. Thanks. #92289 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/2/2008 11:54:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/2/2008 6:06:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: TG: Argue what you will. The above certainly makes my point. Even got "tie" in there which I used above....before seeing this. OMG...Do I see the word "COMPOSE"? Gee Wiz...that's sort of like "COMPRISE"!!word "COMPOSE"? suspected. Red Alert....TG has nailed it on the head!!!! HOWARD, are you listening? ;-) ========================== Yeah, listening! ;-)) My opinion: Drop the 'comprise', TG, it's misleading and a poor choice (IMHO ;-) ............................................................. TG: My opinion...spend some serious time contemplating why the SUTTAS, in defining HOW consciousness fundamentally relates to the 4GE's, would suggest that the 4GE's "compose" consciousness. This may not meet with your opinions, but it was Scott's scholarship, (Scott... a person who would want anything other than to support any contention of mine), who presented translations from the PTS dictionary, I believe, for the pertinent terms. Even if you remove the one word "compose," virtually all the other descriptions of the pertinent terms are pointing in that direction anyway. But the word 'compose' is there...so it needs to be dealt with seriously. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard I take the meaning in this case to simply mean "bound to" or "tied to." In any language, words have multiple meanings, and not all apply in all cases. Think of the English word 'cleave'. It has two meanings that are near-opposites, one being "to split from" and the other "to cling to"! ---------------------------------------------------- Please at least address the Sutta relevant issue rather than a dismissive "brush off." Not only is it NOT misleading, it is leading in the right direction. Because these things, these phenomena, are all related and inter-related. There is nothing here standing on "its own." ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course! Do you think for a second that I question that? I just don't get what you even MEAN by nama "comprising" rupa. It doesn't *consist* of rupa or *contain* it. I just don't get what you mean. In a couple suttas, the Buddha taught that namarupa and vi~n~nana are mutually dependent, like two mutually supporting sheaves of reeds. Does either *include* the other? Of course not! The consciousness of warmth isn't the warmth nor is the warmth a part of that consciousness, else the consciousness knows itself. And warmth knows nothing - it is merely experienced. At the same time, for me at least, there is no unknown warmth, independent of consciousness - in fact, warmth has no mode of existence other than as object of consciousness. The Buddha said the same in the Kalaka Sutta. It seems to me that you tend to identify inseparable, indistinguishable, and interdependent. I identify only the first and the third. ------------------------------------------------- I don't see phenomena as "separately" as you do and I see it way way less "separately" than the Abhidhammikas. Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: If they are distinguishable, then they are not identical nor does one comprise the other. Mutual dependency is another matter entirely. There is no vi~n~nana apart from namarupa, and no namarupa apart from vi~n~nana. They are inseparable in exactly that sense. But inclusion is another issue entirely. ------------------------------------------------- Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves"? Very very very unlikely. They are all outgrowths of the 'same stuff' IMO. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know what you mean here, but that "same stuff" stuff has a ring of substantialism to me. My hearing must be "off." ;-) --------------------------------------------------- And Scott has provided clear Sutta evidence to back that up. I was satisfied with "bound up with." But "compose" really hammers it home. But, if you'd care to go into WHY its misleading, I'd sure read what you had to say. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know what to say. For me, distinguishing knowing from known while yet recognizing their interdependency is basic. Each is nothing at all in-and-of-itself, yet they are not one and the same, and neither contains the other. Using "containing" or "comprising" as a substitute for "depending on" strikes me as poetic license that misleads. It strikes me as pretty but misleading metaphor. ----------------------------------------------- TG =========================== With metta, Howard #92290 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/2/2008 11:03:53 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard I take the meaning in this case to simply mean "bound to" or "tied to." In any language, words have multiple meanings, and not all apply in all cases. Think of the English word 'cleave'. It has two meanings that are near-opposites, one being "to split from" and the other "to cling to"! ---------------------------------------------------- ...................................................... TG: I agree with what you say here. But what the hell would "bound to" or "tied to" mean? Tied with rope? Nope. LOL Are they engaged in S&M? Probably. ;-) So in these cases, we're going to HAVE to go deeper or further to really understand. The words themselves are not showing clearly enough what is happening in reality. They are only indicating. ....................................................... Please at least address the Sutta relevant issue rather than a dismissive "brush off." Not only is it NOT misleading, it is leading in the right direction. Because these things, these phenomena, are all related and inter-related. There is nothing here standing on "its own." ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course! Do you think for a second that I question that? I just don't get what you even MEAN by nama "comprising" rupa. It doesn't *consist* of rupa or *contain* it. ........................................................ TG: How do you know? What exactly is rupa? What exactly is nama? Sure we can define it as it appears in texts and indicate experiential qualities with words. But what is it really? What's "tying it together"? How are they "bound up" with each other? ................................................................ I just don't get what you mean. In a couple suttas, the Buddha taught that namarupa and vi~n~nana are mutually dependent, like two mutually supporting sheaves of reeds. Does either *include* the other? Of course not! The consciousness of warmth isn't the warmth nor is the warmth a part of that consciousness, else the consciousness knows itself. ............................................................ TG: Hummmmm Is the butter the milk, or the milk the butter? Yes and no. It depends on how you want to think about it. ........................................................ And warmth knows nothing - it is merely experienced. ........................................................... TG: Is it experienced by an entity called "consciousness"? Who or what is experiencing? A separate consciousness? Is "warmth consciousness" a mere outgrowth of conditions, and like the butter, is "composed/comprised" of the milk/warmth...given the necessary "mixing"? ......................................................... At the same time, for me at least, there is no unknown warmth, independent of consciousness - in fact, warmth has no mode of existence other than as object of consciousness. The Buddha said the same in the Kalaka Sutta. It seems to me that you tend to identify inseparable, indistinguishable, and interdependent. I identify only the first and the third. ------------------------------------------------- ........................................................ TG: Why would you write the above in response to a post where I wrote this?.... TG: "Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves" "Are there distinguishable ............................................................ I don't see phenomena as "separately" as you do and I see it way way less "separately" than the Abhidhammikas. Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: If they are distinguishable, then they are not identical nor does one comprise the other. ....................................................... TG: Phenomenal formations are distinguishable, yes. They appear not identical, yes. Does the milk comprise the butter? Along with other conditions, yes. So I disagree with your last conclusion as possibly being too arbitrary. Now, just to possibly prevent materialistic charges being thrown my way, LOL, it is possible you will object to the nature of my analogy...but keep in mind the Buddha used this type of analogy all the time. Also, apply it, the "nature" fits. ............................................................... Mutual dependency is another matter entirely. There is no vi~n~nana apart from namarupa, and no namarupa apart from vi~n~nana. They are inseparable in exactly that sense. But inclusion is another issue entirely. ------------------------------------------------- .................................................... TG: The milk and butter. Remember the milk and butter. LOL .................................................. Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves"separate basis of reality u They are all outgrowths of the 'same stuff' IMO. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know what you mean here, but that "same stuff" stuff has a ring of substantialism to me. My hearing must be "off." ;-) --------------------------------------------------- ................................................... TG: Stuff = 4GE's <-> consciousness interaction. .......................................................... And Scott has provided clear Sutta evidence to back that up. I was satisfied with "bound up with." But "compose" really hammers it home. But, if you'd care to go into WHY its misleading, I'd sure read what you had to say. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know what to say. For me, distinguishing knowing from known while yet recognizing their interdependency is basic. Each is nothing at all in-and-of-itself, yet they are not one and the same, and neither contains the other. Using "containing" or "comprising" as a substitute for "depending on" strikes me as poetic license that misleads. It strikes me as pretty but misleading metaphor. ----------------------------------------------- ...................................................... TG: Got it. So in terms of "actuality," you see things as "separate phenomena" that are "interdependent." The "interdependent" throws a bit of a monkey wrench on the "separate." And vice versa IMO. In my view, to be accurate, we cannot see phenomena as the same or separate. That is part of the middle way. The term "comprised" takes into account both "diversity" of conditional activities and the current status of any formation as the sum total of that "diversity." Any word is a "compromise." That word is the best I have come up with for specific uses. Of course, "no word" is better yet, but unedifying to others. TG OUT #92291 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 1-nov-2008, om 21:14 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: So we are talking about ariya, but whats with present moment. I > used to think that magga cittas arises in our daily life, the same as > phala cittas. I like to think about magga cittas which cultivates the > magga, not me. When citta which speaks in the right way arises, isnt > it a real magga citta? ------- N: You are thinking of the development of the Path, magga, but the term maggacittas and phalacittas is reserved for lokuttara cittas experiencing nibbaana. My Abh. in Daily Life, Ch 23 may help. THis is the end of a long, long development, many lives. -------- > > > > L:Which parts of eightfold-path are cetasikas? > > ------ > > N: all of them are cetasikas, and that means: arising because of > > conditions, not self, beyond control. > > L: Yeah that's true. > But can you tell more? -------- N: Let me sum them up first; Wisdom (paññÄ) III. 1. Right view (sammÄ-diáą­áą­hi) 2. Right thought (sammÄ-saáą…kappa) Morality (sÄ«la) I. 3. Right speech (sammÄ-vÄcÄ) 4. Right bodily action (sammÄ-kammanta) 5. Right livelihood (sammÄ-ÄjÄ«va) Concentration (samÄdhi) II. 6. Right effort (sammÄ-vÄyÄma) 7. Right mindfulness (sammÄ-sati) 8. Right concentration (sammÄ-samÄdhi > -------- 1 and 2 are the wisdom of the eightfold Path. Right thinking 'touches' the nama and rupa so that pa~n~naa can investigate it. It assists pa~n~naa in this way. As to 3,4,5, these can only arise one at a time, when there is an opportunity for abstinence of wrong speech, action, livelihood. Only when the citta is lokuttara citta all three arise, eradicating the base of these kinds of akusala, in accordance with the stage of enlightenment that is reached. 6,7,8, arise together with right view which is pa~n~naa and each assists pa~n~naa in their own way. If they do not accompany right understanding of the eightfold Path they are not Path factors. Right effort is needed, in order to persevere, even though one sees not much progress. Not becoming downhearted and discouraged. Not regretting one's busiy life and wishing for other surroundings. Not delaying the development of understanding to some other time, at another occasion. --------- It is important to know the difference between ultimate realities and concepts, because only ultimate realities, nama and rupa, are the object of the cetasikas of the eightfold Path. Also, the diference between a moment with sati and a moment without sati has to be known. -------- > L: When we speak in the right way, what kind of citta arises, what > kind > of cetasikas? --------- N: When you are impatient with your brother and about to speak harshly, sati may be non-forgetful of kusala and then you do not speak such words, you abstain, and that is virati cetasika. But we are bound to take such moments for my abstention from wrong speech. Then it is not realized as a kind of naama that is conditioned. It is kusala but not right speech of the eightfold Path. When the citta is kusala citta there are many sobhana cetasikas assisting it, such as saddhaa, confidence in kusala, alobha, adosa, sati (there are many levels of it, not only of the level of satipatthaana), hiri, ottappa and many others. -------- > > L:Now I can see the real benefit of listening, reading and considering > Dhamma. That's my only chance for bhavana. I am glad I have such good > friends in Dhamma. ------ N: This morning I listened to a Thai recording and heard Kh Sujin say again and again: listen, consider, understand a little more, listen, consider, understand a little more, etc. Very good. She said; little by little there will be understanding, little by little. We have to deeply consider anatta: there is not I or the world, as we used to think, but there are nama and rupa. We are seeing all the time, but we learn that seeing is the element, the dhaatu that sees, thus not as we understood before: I see. Personality view, sakkaya di.t.thi, there may be a slight degree but we do not see it until pa~n~naa arises. ----- Nina. #92292 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 11:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A nice talk with Sarah nilovg Dear Sarah and Phil, I am glad you had such a good Dhamma talk. You covered a lot of topics. Op 2-nov-2008, om 13:54 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Dhamma for oneself (e.g to have a happy rebirth), Dhamma for others > (e.g generosity to make other family members happy) or Dhamma for > the sake of Dhamma. Had KS made a mistake? ----- N: There are always more aspects, and this morning I listened to a Thai recording: kusala for oneself, one takes it for my kusala. and for the world: you want to be praised by others for your kusala, and this motive is not pure. There is clinging and you will not become liberated from samsara. The third way is pure, for the sake of Dhamma. No other motives. One understands kusala as kusala. Nina. #92293 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/2/2008 2:09:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@ao l.com writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/2/2008 11:03:53 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard I take the meaning in this case to simply mean "bound to" or "tied to." In any language, words have multiple meanings, and not all apply in all cases. Think of the English word 'cleave'. It has two meanings that are near-opposites, one being "to split from" and the other "to cling to"! ---------------------------------------------------- ...................................................... TG: I agree with what you say here. But what the hell would "bound to" or "tied to" mean? Tied with rope? Nope. LOL Are they engaged in S&M? Probably. ;-) So in these cases, we're going to HAVE to go deeper or further to really understand. The words themselves are not showing clearly enough what is happening in reality. They are only indicating. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mutually dependent is good enough for me. ----------------------------------------------------- ....................................................... Please at least address the Sutta relevant issue rather than a dismissive "brush off." Not only is it NOT misleading, it is leading in the right direction. Because these things, these phenomena, are all related and inter-related. There is nothing here standing on "its own." ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course! Do you think for a second that I question that? I just don't get what you even MEAN by nama "comprising" rupa. It doesn't *consist* of rupa or *contain* it. ........................................................ TG: How do you know? What exactly is rupa? What exactly is nama? Sure we can define it as it appears in texts and indicate experiential qualities with words. But what is it really? What's "tying it together"? How are they "bound up" with each other? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I've told you what I think. What I don't get is what you think. ;-) --------------------------------------------------- ................................................................ I just don't get what you mean. In a couple suttas, the Buddha taught that namarupa and vi~n~nana are mutually dependent, like two mutually supporting sheaves of reeds. Does either *include* the other? Of course not! The consciousness of warmth isn't the warmth nor is the warmth a part of that consciousness, else the consciousness knows itself. ............................................................ TG: Hummmmm Is the butter the milk, or the milk the butter? Yes and no. It depends on how you want to think about it. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Right now I'm thinking about baking a cake - or maybe just pancakes, 'cause you didn't mention icing. -------------------------------------------------------- ........................................................ And warmth knows nothing - it is merely experienced. ........................................................... TG: Is it experienced by an entity called "consciousness"? Who or what is experiencing? A separate consciousness? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Did I say "entity". Consciousness is a mental operation - specifically knowing or experiencing. What else? --------------------------------------------- Is "warmth consciousness" a mere outgrowth of conditions, and like the butter, is "composed/comprised" of the milk/warmth...given the necessary "mixing"? -------------------------------------------- Howard: What's warmth consciousness? Consciousness of warmth? We both know what consciousness of warmth is, don't we? It's a knowing of a specific content. That content doesn't occur except as the object of the knowing, and that knowing is, exactly, a knowing of that object-content. I don't confuse them, nor do I separate them. Man! I'm just getting dizzy from going in these circles! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- ......................................................... At the same time, for me at least, there is no unknown warmth, independent of consciousness - in fact, warmth has no mode of existence other than as object of consciousness. The Buddha said the same in the Kalaka Sutta. It seems to me that you tend to identify inseparable, indistinguishable, and interdependent. I identify only the first and the third. ------------------------------------------------- ........................................................ TG: Why would you write the above in response to a post where I wrote this?.... TG: "Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves" "Are there distinguishable -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I can't get the drift from this quoting, TG. If I misunderstood you, great! -------------------------------------------------- ............................................................ I don't see phenomena as "separately" as you do and I see it way way less "separately" than the Abhidhammikas. Are there distinguishable qualities? Certainly. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: If they are distinguishable, then they are not identical nor does one comprise the other. ....................................................... TG: Phenomenal formations are distinguishable, yes. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: What is a phenomenal formation, please? Are these the same as phenomena?;-) ------------------------------------------------- They appear not identical, yes. Does the milk comprise the butter? Along with other conditions, yes. So I disagree with your last conclusion as possibly being too arbitrary. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think I may be getting lactic-acid intolerant! LOL! --------------------------------------------------- Now, just to possibly prevent materialistic charges being thrown my way, LOL, it is possible you will object to the nature of my analogy...but keep in mind the Buddha used this type of analogy all the time. Also, apply it, the "nature" fits. ............................................................... Mutual dependency is another matter entirely. There is no vi~n~nana apart from namarupa, and no namarupa apart from vi~n~nana. They are inseparable in exactly that sense. But inclusion is another issue entirely. ------------------------------------------------- .................................................... TG: The milk and butter. Remember the milk and butter. LOL ----------------------------------------------- Howard: How could I possibly forget? LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------ .................................................. Are there different formational manifestations? Yep. Do these phenomena have some sort of separate basis of reality unique to "themselves"separate basis of reality u They are all outgrowths of the 'same stuff' IMO. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know what you mean here, but that "same stuff" stuff has a ring of substantialism to me. My hearing must be "off." ;-) --------------------------------------------------- ................................................... TG: Stuff = 4GE's <-> consciousness interaction. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whew! It seems that you view the 4GE's as some sort of cosmic principles or substances. That is VERY far fro my perspective, TG - probaly too far to span the gap. ------------------------------------------------ .......................................................... And Scott has provided clear Sutta evidence to back that up. I was satisfied with "bound up with." But "compose" really hammers it home. But, if you'd care to go into WHY its misleading, I'd sure read what you had to say. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know what to say. For me, distinguishing knowing from known while yet recognizing their interdependency is basic. Each is nothing at all in-and-of-itself, yet they are not one and the same, and neither contains the other. Using "containing" or "comprising" as a substitute for "depending on" strikes me as poetic license that misleads. It strikes me as pretty but misleading metaphor. ----------------------------------------------- ...................................................... TG: Got it. So in terms of "actuality," you see things as "separate phenomena" that are "interdependent." --------------------------------------------- Howard: I object to the 'separate'. There are no entities and nothing separate. There is a dynamic, flowing, multifaceted but seamless net. The facets are distinguishable. ----------------------------------------------- The "interdependent" throws a bit of a monkey wrench on the "separate." And vice versa IMO. In my view, to be accurate, we cannot see phenomena as the same or separate. That is part of the middle way. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Neither same nor separate, for without identity and own being, these are impossible. Yet not all the same - not a homogeneous porridge. ---------------------------------------------- The term "comprised" takes into account both "diversity" of conditional activities and the current status of any formation as the sum total of that "diversity." ---------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it does not. It means "consisting of," and that's just wrong. It is NOT a middle way, but one of the extremes. ---------------------------------------------- Any word is a "compromise." That word is the best I have come up with for specific uses. Of course, "no word" is better yet, but unedifying to others. TG OUT TG ============================= With metta, Howard #92294 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard (and Scott) In a message dated 11/2/2008 12:09:56 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: Hummmmm Is the butter the milk, or the milk the butter? Yes and no. It depends on how you want to think about it. .............................................. NEW TG: Another way to look at the above -- "Is the butter the milk, or is the butter something other than milk? Possible Answers: 1) The butter is the milk. 2) The butter is not the milk. 3) The butter neither is or is not the milk...but is comprised of the milk, along with churning and various other conditions The first answer sees "one-ness" (a single identity view). The second answer sees "separate-ness" (a multiple identity view). The last answers sees neither one-ness or separate-ness, but sees conditions. IMO, a correct view of conditionality eliminates the view of 'separates' or 'oneness.' It transcends and surmounts these 'artificial isolations.' TG OUT #92295 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/2/2008 12:59:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: What is a phenomenal formation, please? Are these the same as phenomena?;-p ...................... TG: I speak of a formation as what appears as a distinguishable quality. It is what we identify. "Phenomena in general" may or may not be "identifyable" by us. It depends how it "forms." All phenomena is in some sort of a formation whether we are aware of it or not, true enough. But, I mean formation like the elements, aggregates, a glass, a tree, etc. It is the fodder we use to analyze the world. TG #92296 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 12:45 pm Subject: Re: Present moment szmicio Dear Nina Can we do anything to feel less concepts during the day? #92297 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 12:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Pali Passage For Question One --- Re: 2 questions truth_aerator Yes, a typo. 31 plans chart is mostly arranged by lifespan (from human level, up) not by "enlightment" level. And even though some higher level deities are more powerful (in a wordly way) than lower level beings, the Buddha is on the top of the chart. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Bhante) - > > In a message dated 11/2/2008 11:13:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Buddha was superior to all, even though he lived 80 years, not > quadrillions. In some suttas he had even more power than Brahma. So > we should take the 31 realm chart as a "ranking chart of superiority. > =========================== > I presume superiority.> had a typo, and you meant to say "should NOT take," right? > > With metta, > Howard > > > > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > #92298 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote scottduncan2 Dear TG, This has been an interesting discussion: TG: "I don't proceed on a quest to know what is true with 'assumptions.' That, IMO, will skew whatever one comes across. That's a point I've made several times...in that by relying on the 'Commentarial view,' one is likely to 'skew' the Suttas to fit that view. Almost certainly. And it seems odd that a Buddhist Scholar/student would have a 'primary assumption' that is about something not stated in the Suttas..." Scott: No one, TG, approaches anything without assumptions. For sure I don't and for sure you don't. There is no such thing as objectivity. To say, 'I don't proceed on a quest to know what is true with 'assumptions' is, as I see it, to state an impossibility. No neo-commentator, no matter how thoughtful, can claim to be able to understand the suttas properly let alone 'without assumptions.' I don't think you've got the market cornered. I am clear that I want to learn the meaning of the suttas and the Abhidhamma as it is clarified by the nuances of the commentarial view. That's it. TG: "I know you don't agree, but that's OK. If we exactly agreed, we'd have little to discuss." Scott: True, true. Which is why I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks, TG. Last words, if any, to you. Sincerely, Scott. #92299 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 8:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/2/2008 3:18:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/2/2008 12:59:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: What is a phenomenal formation, please? Are these the same as phenomena?;-p ...................... TG: I speak of a formation as what appears as a distinguishable quality. It is what we identify. "Phenomena in general" may or may not be "identifyable" by us. It depends how it "forms." All phenomena is in some sort of a formation whether we are aware of it or not, true enough. But, I mean formation like the elements, aggregates, a glass, a tree, etc. It is the fodder we use to analyze the world. TG ================================ I'm starting to see that we are operating out of very different conceptual frameworks, frameworks which may or may not be interchangeable coordinate systems - I suspect not. What IS true is that we see many things the same way, and to avoid confusion it might be best if we didn't stray too far from them in our discussions. :-) With metta, Howard #92300 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:31 pm Subject: Re: A nice talk with Sarah philofillet Hi Nina Yes, it was a nice talk. There is something very different about talking "live." > > > Dhamma for oneself (e.g to have a happy rebirth), Dhamma for others > > (e.g generosity to make other family members happy) or Dhamma for > > the sake of Dhamma. Had KS made a mistake? Actually, you (unintentionally I'm sure) misquoted me and missed the point of my mentionning that mistake. It wsan't the trichotomy that I was suggesting was a mistake, it was KS's attitude towards Dhamma discussion. I pointed out that KS said in that talk that all the people who were there listening to here were doing it for the latter, purer purpose. That was clearly a mistake. It would be so reassuring if you folks could just say "yes, that was wrong" once! That would make it possible for me to listen to her again... metta, phil #92301 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:36 pm Subject: Re: A nice talk with Sarah philofillet Hi again Nina Sorry about that. Now I see that the below comes from Sarah's summary rather than mine. So it wasn't you who misquoted me or missed the point of my mentionning a "mistake" - it was Sarah. No big deal. But K.S definitely was wrong to speculate that everyone who was listening to her was doing so for the higher, purer purpose. K.S doesn' know the other's citta. metta, phil > > > Dhamma for oneself (e.g to have a happy rebirth), Dhamma for > others > > > (e.g generosity to make other family members happy) or Dhamma > for > > > the sake of Dhamma. Had KS made a mistake? > #92302 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi Howard > As for following up, I'm not sure as to what more might be said except > the following: Individual fleeting, impersonal qualities and operations are > not things for which metta, karuna, or mudita are felt, Ph: But the concept of a person is something for which metta could be felt. For example, even if one rejects the notion that the person sitting in front of one is a concept, the person one thinks about, relfects on later is, I think. That mental recreation of the person is a concept, and one can feel metta etc based on it, right? and if there is an > ignoring of the fact that these cluster together in relationally integrated > systems we call "people," then not only might good will not be felt, but also > total disregard for the welfare of beings could be the norm. Ph: Concepts as object of awarenss could also prevent that kind of disregard, I think. But I'm big on concepts. As a would be novelist I am always creating people. I think to some extent we create people in "reality" too but I don't know how far that can be taken. I think a lot of the metta we feel, for a person, comes not from something intrinsically "real" in the person but as a product of our own needs. So that would again be something akin to concept conditioning metta. I don't know. OK, we'll see what happens, but this *might* be my last post for quite a while. ha. you never know. metta, phil > Today's Hot > 5 Travel Deals! God Howard, you are really shameless with this sort of thing! #92303 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hello Phil, Howard and all, "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html Now if there isn't any "desire, passion & delight for any aggregate" then being isn't trully found here and now (Yamaka sutta). I hope that those people who understand, will undertand very subtle and profound teachings of the Buddha. Best wishes, #92304 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Alex, All I think Alex's post proves beyond doubt that the Buddha taught "there is a being." This is not to say that this "being" is in actuality a "self." It is just a set of interacting conditions...as the Buddha's lays out. TG In a message dated 11/2/2008 7:05:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception.."A fabrications.fa "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html) Now if there isn't any "desire, passion & delight for any aggregate" then being isn't trully found here and now (Yamaka sutta). I hope that those people who understand, will undertand very subtle and profound teachings of the Buddha. Best wishes, #92305 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/2/2008 6:49:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard > As for following up, I'm not sure as to what more might be said except > the following: Individual fleeting, impersonal qualities and operations are > not things for which metta, karuna, or mudita are felt, Ph: But the concept of a person is something for which metta could be felt. For example, even if one rejects the notion that the person sitting in front of one is a concept, the person one thinks about, relfects on later is, I think. That mental recreation of the person is a concept, and one can feel metta etc based on it, right? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Feeling of friendship and good will for an illusion is not something to be construed as positive, but the Buddha DID construe metta to be positive. Moreover, the Buddha was himself loving and compassionate towards people, and he was free of illusion and not fooled by concept. So I just don't buy the position you're considering, Phil. ------------------------------------------------- and if there is an > ignoring of the fact that these cluster together in relationally integrated > systems we call "people," then not only might good will not be felt, but also > total disregard for the welfare of beings could be the norm. Ph: Concepts as object of awarenss could also prevent that kind of disregard, I think. -------------------------------------------- Howard: So, loving kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy must rely on illusion and ignorance? Something's mighty wrong there, Phil! --------------------------------------------- But I'm big on concepts. As a would be novelist I am always creating people. I think to some extent we create people in "reality" too but I don't know how far that can be taken. I think a lot of the metta we feel, for a person, comes not from something intrinsically "real" in the person but as a product of our own needs. ------------------------------------------- Howard: That sounds like something other than metta to me. ------------------------------------------- So that would again be something akin to concept conditioning metta. I don't know. OK, we'll see what happens, but this *might* be my last post for quite a while. ha. you never know. ---------------------------------------- Howard: ;-) --------------------------------------- metta, phil ========================= With metta, Howard #92306 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 8:03 pm Subject: The Grace of Goodwill! bhikkhu0 Friends: How to Beam & Extend Amity Universally: The Grace of Goodwill: A Meditation on Friendliness: May my mind be filled with the thought of Kind Friendliness & open Amity. May the minds of my good teachers be filled with the thought of Friendliness. May the minds of my parents and dear ones be filled with the thought of Friendliness. May the minds of all unfriendly persons be filled with the thought of Friendliness. May the minds of all living beings be filled with the thought of Friendliness. May the minds of all strangers be filled with the thought of Friendliness. May we be free from fear, tension, anxiety, worry, and restlessness. May our hearts become soft. May our words be pleasing to others. May we be generous. May we be gentle. May we be relaxed. May we be happy and peaceful. May we be healthy. May we be a source of pure peace and happiness. May the minds of everyone in this room be free from greed, anger, hatred, jealousy, and fear. May the peace and tranquillity of tender Friendliness pervade their entire bodies and minds. May they have good fortune. May they be prosperous. May they have really good friends May the minds of everyone in this building, in this street, in this city, in this nation on this continent, on this planet & in this universe be free from greed, anger, & doubt. May these thoughts of Friendliness embrace them, charge them and envelope them. May every cell, every drop of blood, every atom, be charged with kind amity. May the peace & tranquillity of goodwill pervade their entire bodies & minds. May they be happy-hearted. May they be free from worries and troubles. May all beings in all directions throughout this multiverse be happy. May they be filled with Friendliness, abundant, exalted, & infinite! May they be free from enmity affliction, and anxiety. May they live happily. May all beings in all directions, all around the universe be happy. May they have good fortune. May they be prosperous. May they be famous. May they have good friends. May they be reborn in a happy destination. May they be reborn in the heavens. May all beings Awaken swiftly! May they become thus Happy! Inspired by 2 really good friends. More on this shining, radiating through all & everywhere beaming Friendliness: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Infinite_Friendliness.htm The Grace of Goodwill! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #92307 From: "colette" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 8:31 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" ksheri3 Hi Phil, > Also, if there are no beings, why is there killing? (That's an > obvious question that must have an easy answer for those who say "there > are no beings." colette: That is an easy question to answer eventhough I am not up on this topic. Killing is just a body thing. The Body is being exstinguished not the consciousness! Of course once the consciousness losses the body then it cannot have more experiences and is stuck with only the experiences it has. Taking another person's body from them is stealing and is a theft. Not very nice either! toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi all, esp. Pali experts > > I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote to > me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no beings." > I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually > want to learn rather than espouse my views! <....> #92308 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A nice talk with Sarah sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Nina), --- On Mon, 3/11/08, Phil wrote: >Now I see that the below comes from Sarah's summary rather than mine. So it wasn't you who misquoted me or missed the point of my mentionning a "mistake" - it was Sarah. ... S: No, I hadn't missed the point of the 'mistake', it was just my comment below was too cryptic - I was relying on you to elaborate on the points:-) ... >No big deal. But K.S definitely was wrong to speculate that everyone who was listening to her was doing so for the higher, purer purpose. K.S doesn' know the other's citta. .... S: I agree with this comment and I think KS would too. I'd have to listen to her comment on the recording again. I remember being a little surprised too, but we may have misunderstood her. She may have been referring to what is the 'right' or 'proper' way to study and how the more interest in and understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the less interest there is in study and awareness 'for oneself' or 'others' which was what I was getting at in our chat. When we cling to 'me', we're concerned about 'doing good' for a happy rebirth, but when we appreciate more that dhammas are anatta, there is less tendency to think in this kind of way. As you suggest, we can never know the others' cittas or how 'pure' they are at any given moment. Thx also for your other further comments. Metta Sarah > > > Dhamma for oneself (e.g to have a happy rebirth), Dhamma for > others > > > (e.g generosity to make other family members happy) or Dhamma > for > > > the sake of Dhamma. Had KS made a mistake? #92309 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 10:25 pm Subject: kama loka reverendagga... Regarding my question of the 2 realns of kama loka, (prince) Mara in the 11th and the Bodisatta in the 9th what would seem like an issue of spiritual superiority (hellish realms down low heavenly realms up high), How could this indicate " no chart of superior ranking"? i believe the real difference lies in the difference between a Bodhisatta and a Buddha. certainly there is a difference between the Bodisatta (as Ven.Gotama refers to himself pre enlightenment as "Bodisatta Gotama") and an enlightened Buddha. The Spiritual potential WHEN made manifest has the potential to be something FAR superior therefore than ANYTHING (prince)Mara could POSSIBLY hope for. Thanks Everybody! May the Buddhas Deva and Angels bless you all! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #92310 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 2, 2008 11:57 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 6 nilovg Dear friends, How can we develop loving kindness and compassion when there are in reality no people? We can still think of people as usual, but right understanding of realities conditions more wholesomeness in our life. If right understanding is not developed we are absorbed in the world of conventional truth and this is not beneficial. We often look at people with attachment, with aversion, with ignorance and wrong view. When people are objects of clinging we think only of our own happiness. We are expecting nice things from others and at such moments there is no opportunity for loving kindness and compassion. When we cling to others we actually cling to ourselves. When we develop right understanding it does not prevent us from thinking of people, but we realize that there is at that moment thinking of concepts. At such moments we are not absorbed in concepts with akusala citta. Right understanding can condition thinking with loving kindness or compassion. When we begin to realize the difference between the moments we are living in the world of the conventional truth and the moments of development of understanding of the ultimate truth, we shall see the extent of our clinging to concepts. After I returned to Holland I was looking at windmills and I was lost in my dreams. But I remembered what Bhante Dhammadhara had said about visible object: “We can only look at it, we cannot derive any benefit from it. We cannot take it with us.” These words become more meaningful when we begin to understand that seeing sees only visible object, that which appears through the eyes, nothing else. We cling to visible object and after that we cling to concepts we can merely think about, but we make our experiences into something very important; we enjoy ourselves with what is only a dream. We have not eradicated clinging and thus we still continue enjoying ourselves, but, when there is a short moment of right understanding we begin to see that kusala is more beneficial than akusala. We read in the “Mĺgandiyasutta” (Middle Length Sayings II, no. 75) that the Buddha taught the wanderer Mĺgandiya the danger of sensepleasures by way of a simile: a man, blind from birth, was deceived by someone who gave him a greasy, grimy, coarse robe and told him that it was a lovely, unstained, pure white cloth. But after he had received treatments for his eyes and regained vision he saw that he had been deceived. The Buddha told Mĺgandiya that evenso, after having been taught Dhamma he would have vision: “... With the arising of your vision, you might get rid of that desire and attachment to the five khandhas of grasping, and this might occur to you: ‘For a long time indeed I have been defrauded, deceived and cheated by this mind, for, grasping, I grasped after rúpa itself... after feeling itself... after perception (sańńĺ) itself... after the habitual tendencies (saňkhĺrakkhandha) themselves; grasping, I grasped after consciousness itself. Conditioned by grasping after this, there was becoming for me; conditioned by becoming, birth; conditioned by birth, old age and dying, grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair came into being. Thus is the origin of this whole mass of dukkha.’ ” Mĺgandiya wished to be ordained and afterwards he became an arahat. ****** Nina. #92311 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:01 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, The development of satipatthĺna should not discourage us. The realities which appear can be penetrated and realized as they are: they arise and fall away, they are not self, not a being or person. One should not worry about it that one cannot know today realities as they are. Sati can arise today and begin to be aware, and then the characteristics of realities will surely one day be wholly penetrated and clearly known as they are. If people understand the great value of the Dhamma, if they see that the truth of the Dhamma is to their benefit and that they can attain it one day, although not today, they will not be discouraged. They will continue to listen and to study the realities the Buddha taught in detail, and then there will not be forgetfulness of realities, there will be conditions for the arising of sati. ------------ Realities arise and fall away and succeed one another all the time, but it seems as if they do not arise and fall away and thus they are taken for "something". We cling to a concept of things as a mass, a conglomeration or whole (ga.na pa~n~natti). We may do this even when we don't know yet the conventional terms of things. Even small children, who cannot talk yet and do not know the meanings of things as expressed in language, and also animals, know concepts of a "whole". When a child grows up it learns the correct meaning of the words used in language which denote concepts. Thus, the child becomes familiar with conventional truth. ******* Nina. #92312 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:10 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 309, 310 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 309, 310 Intro: In the following sections it has been explained that by seeing the Dependent Origination wrongly, one adopts different kinds of wrong views, such as annihilation belief, eternity belief, the wrong view of inaction, no kamma that produces result. In seeing the Dependent Origination rightly, one abandons such wrong views. Text Vis. 309: [As to methods:] Then there are four methods of treating the meaning here. They are (a) the method of identity, (b) the method of diversity, (c) the method of uninterest, and (d) the method of ineluctable regularity. So this Wheel of Becoming should also be known accordingly 'as to the kinds of method'. --------- N: The Tiika elaborates on the term nayo, method, derived from nayaati, to lead. One is rightly or wrongly led by the method of identity and the other methods. ----------- Text Vis. 310: (a) Herein, the non-interruption of the continuity in this way, 'With ignorance as condition there are formations; with formations as condition, consciousness', just like a seed's reaching the state of a tree through the state of a shoot, etc., is called the method of identity'. --------- N: The Tiika elaborates on the seed becoming a shoot, and then acquiring stalks, branches, sprouts of leaf and foliage. There is an unbroken continuity of the constituents in the development from seed to tree. Evenso the method of identity is taught with regard to the Dependent Origination: 'With ignorance as condition there are formations...’ There is an unbroken continuity of the causes and their fruits that arise. ------- Text Vis.: One who sees this rightly abandons the annihilation view by understanding the unbrokenness of the continuity that occurs through the linking of cause and fruit. And one who sees it wrongly clings to the eternity view by apprehending identity in the non-interruption of the continuity that occurs through the linking of cause and fruit. ------- N: Without cause there would not be any fruit, thus, they are connected. But, as the Tiika explains, by not considering cause and fruit as different and seeing them as one state one clings to the eternity view, thinking, “ consciousness transmigrates in the cycle of birth and death.” --------- Conclusion: We should remember Vis.165: An echo, or its like, supplies The figures here; connectedness By continuity denies Identity and otherness. The Tiika (to Vis. 166) states that sound is the cause of the echo. Sound is the condition, paccaya, for the echo which is the conditioned dhamma, paccayuppanna dhamma. The echo has not come here from the past, but its arising is due to a condition of the past (atiitahetusamuppaada). The Tiika states that all things that arise because of conditions where absent before and after their arising they do not go elsewhere. It is the same with rebirth-consciousness. It was absent before and after it has arisen because of conditions it falls away and does not go elsewhere. And this is also true for the citta arising at this moment: there are conditions for its arising, but it did not come from anywhere nor does it go anywhere. It arises just for a moment and then it falls away to be succeeded by a following citta. If we do not study and be aware of the reality arising at this moment we shall not understand the meaning of the method of identity. When taking this in the wrong way, one may continue to cling to an idea of self who exists. **** Nina. #92313 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 2-nov-2008, om 21:45 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Can we do anything to feel less concepts during the day? ------- N: When we think of doing anything, there is already the idea of a self who clings to changing a situation. Thinking of concepts is conditioned, and thus, it arises. There can be thinking of concepts with kusala citta or with akusala citta and also that is conditioned. When we think of another person with metta or compassion, it is kusala citta thinking of the concept of a person. It is not a matter of trying to change whatever arises, but to develop more understanding of it. It is good to know the difference between citta that has a concept as object and citta that has a paramattha dhamma as object. We have to remember that it is citta that thinks or experiences, not "I". Nina. #92314 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being. was: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi Alex, TG and all, Op 3-nov-2008, om 3:15 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > 'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to > be 'a being'?" > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is > caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception.."A > fabrications.fa > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > _ --------- N: We have to go to the Pali to get the deep meaning: there is a word association here. Satta means being, but satta derived from sajjati means: hanging, clinging or to be attached. Actually the D.O. is being taught here: so long as there is clinging one will be a being going around in the cycle. Nina. #92315 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Re: A nice talk with Sarah philofillet Hi Sarah S: No, I hadn't missed the point of the 'mistake', it was just my comment below was too cryptic - I was relying on you to elaborate on the points:-) Right re the below. I should have stopped at being grateful for your detailed notes without criticizing them for fleshing things out. Sorry about that. But you can take out the quotation marks on the mistake. It was a mistake. Get comfortable with her mistakes, as rare as they might be. They're good for you! Good for understanding! One more point came up today while I was reading an AN sutta that talks about modes of progress for different people depending on whether their "nature" is lustful, hating or deluded and whether the indriyas are "tender" or not. This use of "nature" made me wish I had been a wee bit forceful in questioning what you said about the caritas, how A.S says that it is the same for all of us, at different times this or that. But no, I think that is not right. As this sutta says, there are "natures." I really find that is consistent with my experince re myself and others. Your insistence that there are no "natures" or predominant characters must surely come from fear of sakkaya ditthi - if there are different "natures" for different people, doesn't that hint of belief in self. Well, this might be a valid concern but a more important concern I think is whether one misses out on the further implication of teaching of "natures", that there are different approaches suitable for different people with different natures. I think if one misses out on this one misses out on the amazing breadth of the Dhamma, which is an aspect of its depth...if you know what I mean. Ok, just wanted to get that down cuz it's a point we have consistently disagreed on and I have come to see that it is a key factor in what makes up the Sujinist approach. (Another verykey one is failure to put mindfulness in the body up at the forefront where the Buddha put it and where it belongs." OK, thanks again Sarah. I think my comments are done for now.I don't expect to be posting any further in the thread about our talk. I hope other people will feel free to pick up on anything of interest to them. metta, phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil (& Nina), > > --- On Mon, 3/11/08, Phil wrote: > >Now I see that the below comes from Sarah's > summary rather than mine. So it wasn't you who misquoted me or > missed the point of my mentionning a "mistake" - it was Sarah. > ... > #92316 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 2:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi Howard > Howard: > Feeling of friendship and good will for an illusion is not something to > be construed as positive, but the Buddha DID construe metta to be positive. > Moreover, the Buddha was himself loving and compassionate towards people, and > he was free of illusion and not fooled by concept. So I just don't buy the > position you're considering, Phil. Ok, fair enough. I think having read Joseph Goldstein, hardly a paramttha extremist, write that people are concepts formed by vipallasas has made me more suspicious that it might be a deep teaching of the Buddha. And I would certainly say that when we remember someone any mental states that arise are conditioned by a concept, not a reality. But it's not important, really. For me, it's just speculating on deep teachings and is quite distanced from the way I go through life and the way understanding is developing. (*Through* many layers of wrong view and distorted perception, not leaping over them by an act of mental will!) Not that this is a debate, but I'll put the "last word to you" thing here. metta, phil #92317 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 2:33 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi Colette > Killing is just a body thing. The Body is being exstinguished not the > consciousness! Of course once the consciousness losses the body then > it cannot have more experiences and is stuck with only the > experiences it has. Hmm. That's interesting. I guess the consciousness goes leaping to...another body? No...that sounds like atman. Anyways, interesting to reflect on... > Taking another person's body from them is stealing and is a theft. > Not very nice either! This is why I don't stare at cleavage anymore. No more titty nimitta theft. metta, phil > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, esp. Pali experts > > > > I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote > to > > me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no > beings." > > I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually > > want to learn rather than espouse my views! > <....> > #92318 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 3:07 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi again Howard I'm finding this topic compelling! :) Come to think of it, for me the question do people exist and objects of metta are quite different. Come to think of it, for me, *of course* the object of metta is a concept even though/if people exist. I mean, every day when I take my 20 mintue walk to the station (James thought it was a lot longer, eh buddy? ha ha) I have developed (the habit has developed) of feeling a lot of friendliness/metta towards the people I come across, more often than not. Now, obviously the mind puts together visual information to form a person that I think about, along with various judgements (looks unhealthy, poor fellow, for example.) Every person is seen filtered through all these judgements, perceptions. I mean, of course, *technically speaking* it is a concept that is conditioning metta, surely. Actually, come to think of it, I don't know how it could be elsewise...oh my god! Did I catch Sujinitis through that Skype call last night??? No, I don't think so. I think metta must surely be in response to a concept because it is all visual information, other information that is being processed into a picture of that person! Again, technically speaking. And all the more if we are remembering a person. But this post is just referring to our perception of people, not whether they ahve their own existence or not...if you can possibly see what I am babbling about. I'll drop it there. My break from the internet honestly is starting tomorrow, you'll see! metta, phil #92319 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 3:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt (Hi Sarah, In my msg #92123 I used the term vipaka citta rather carelessly, to refer to the dvipancavinnana only, which of course are just 10 of the 23 vipaka citta, sorry.) Distinguishing rupa from nama cannot occour before the first level of vipassana-nana, nama-rupa pariccheda, which means that until panna hasn't reached that level the two are mixed together (this of course does not apply if we take the screen we have in front as being rupa and/or the thoughts while writing or reading this as being nama, both are pannati, neither rupa nor nama). As I've mentioned earlier, there are 7 rupas only (visaya) that can be experienced through the corresponding 5 sense doors/dvara, which are the 5 pasada, 'triggering' (when all the required paccaya/conditions are fulfilled) a single process/vithi of citta through that sense door which in its turn 'triggers' a series of processes through the other door, the mind door. Of all the many mind processes after a sense door one, only the first experiences the same visaya rupa (its nimitta actually) that was actually seen, or heard etc., by the corresponding vipaka citta. Starting from the second mind door process, the cittas 'swaps' its rather boring object with something a bit more interesting, a concept/pannati, and of course this also is according to conditions/paccayas, pakatupannissaya being the most prominent. Alberto #92320 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 3:45 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" philofillet Hi again Still thinking. I have a feeling I might be on the verge of understanding something very, very important. Could all this talk of beings and people existing or not come down to this: there are beings, they exist, but each of us can only perceive them as concepts. So when the bhikkhuni tells Mara "here no being is found..." she means the meditator finds no being in meditation. How can a "being" enter one's meditation or through one's daily life perception? Through the "being?" door? No, phenomena can only be perceived through eye door, ear door....mind door. There is no way for a "being" to be "found" by that bhikkhuni or any of us except as product of mental fabrication, there is no way a being exists with a reality of its own through her experience even though it does have an existence of its own..the Dhamma is about the way we experience through the six doors, right? How can a "being" be experienced through the six doors? I guess this point is moot if one says that "form" ayatana that is seen is a person rather than visible information, visual object, that is put together to form an image...one could say that a person as object of awareness is the "form" ayatana. And if that is the case what I have written here is moot. But while I have trouble with the idea of content-less visible object being vipaka that is the result of kamma, I also have trouble with the idea of a "person" being eye door object that is vipaka. I don't know. Better go for a walk and ask some strangers if they exist or not. It will be something like "sumimasen, ikinari desuga, anata ni wa kyuukyoku teki na sakugen dekinai sonzai arimasuka" (Excuse me, but do you have an ultimate, irreducible existence?") Anyways, thanks for letting me think out loud here. Howard and anyone, could you send a copy of your response(s) to this to my e- mail, because I really am going to be trying to stay off the 'net starting tomorrow, but will of course be checking my e-mail. Thanks. phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi again Howard > > I'm finding this topic compelling! :) > #92321 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 4:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Mon, 3/11/08, Phil wrote: >How can a "being" be experienced through the six doors? ... S: And what is there other than the various experiences through the six doors apart from the bhavanga cittas in between them? Metta, Sarah p.s On mistakes, I have no problem admitting my own, KS's or anyone else's, but I do prefer to be sure before saying someone has made a mistake and if possible, raise it with them first for clarification. Put it down to my accumulations or predominant tendencies! On caritas, my point was simply that only the anagami has no more dosa, only the arahat has no more lobha or moha, so these are realities very, very common to all. Let's get to know the predominant tendency arising now as an impermanent conditioned dhamma! =============== =========== #92322 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anupubbasikkhaa sarahprocter... Dear Han, On the account of Yasa, his family and companions --- On Fri, 10/10/08, han tun wrote: > Sarah: Btw, do you have a reference to this in a sutta? I only recall having read about Yasa briefly in the Dhp commentary. >Han: I have not yet read about Yasa in a sutta. But you can find this story in any book on the Life of Buddha. ... S: I came across the full and very detailed account in Mahaavagga 1 of the Vinaya Pitaka (near the beginning of the text). Metta, Sarah ======= #92323 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 5:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I would want to avoid technical matters of Dhamma, as Phil has > indicated, and I would want to just "be with him," being friendly & caring, and > avoiding preachiness. I would mostly lovingly listen to what Nelson has to say, > observing his apparent emotion, and responding to that in the moment - being > naturally sympathetic and nonjudgmental. ... S: We had a very long, quiet chat over brunch in a garden setting, under a covered awning, just sheltered from the heavy rain. I think all your advice was good and it was the approach I followed, though I did make a few stronger comments at times, especially with regard to appreciating his wife's loyal support and care. Mostly I just listened to what had obviously been (and continue to be) very traumatic experiences. In one evening (or far less than that), our lives can truly be turned upside down.....a set of very unfortunate circumstances for all. Nelson seems to have not been involved in any of the fighting, but being at the wrong place at the wrong time means he was locked up with some of Hong Kong's most notorious murderers for 43 days and now faces lengthy and very expensive legal proceedings to clear his name on the far lesser charge. The dhamma points we touched on and which Nelson was receptive to (at a basic level)were: - Kamma and its results - Being a friend/friendly to all, no bitterness - considering the needs/wishes of family and wife, rather than just thinking of oneself (this was mainly with regard to personal problems). - dangers of drinking even small quantities, because of what it can lead to - consideration of the family of the deceased - conditions, no control, no choice, acceptance Actually, it was easy to be very sympathetic. Metta, Sarah ========= #92324 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Dear Alex, (Phil & all), --- On Sun, 2/11/08, Alex wrote: P:>> I'm going to be talking with Sarah later about the post she wrote >to > me about whether the Buddha actually taught that "there are no >beings." > I'm still divided on it, and happy to find a topic where I actually .... A:> That is a heretical view that can justify full scale slaughter. >No beings = Pakudha Kaccayana's view NOT BUDDHA's!!! >"there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.'" http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ dn/dn.02. 0.than.html ... S: Pakudha Kaccaayana believed in atomism of seven eternal, natural uncreated "substances" rejecting moral or wholesome behaviour of any kind. He was one of the Materialists, reducing everything to earth, water, fire, air, happiness, suffering and life principle (jiva). The Materialists in ancient India like him did not believe in any continuity of life after death or kamma-vipaka, hence the moral nihilism (natthikavaada). This is why they were referred to as the natthikavaadins. Here's the context from your source for the passage you quoted: "When this was said, Pakudha Kaccayana said to me, 'Great king, there are these seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar — that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain. Which seven? The earth-substance, the liquid-substance, the fire-substance, the wind-substance, pleasure, pain, and the soul as the seventh. These are the seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar — that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, and are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain. "'And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.'" .... S: The commentary to this last paragraph (for others interested) states (B.Bodhi transl.): Cy: "Just as, when one strikes a heap of beans with a sword, the sword enters in between the beans, so (in the apparent act of killing) the sword enters the space, the interstice, between the seven bodies. Therein he shows: (When one thinks) "I am taking his life," that is only a mere idea." Sub Cy: "Since the seven bodies are permanent and immutable, there can be no killing, and no causing of killing; thence there is no killer nor one who causes killing. Because the seven bodies are indestructible, there is, in the ultimate sense, no killing or causing of killing, etc." **** Metta, Sarah ========= #92325 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 6:39 am Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your tip. Yes, I found it in Vinaya Pitaka, Mahaavagga, First Khandhaka: http://mettanet.org/tipitaka/1Vinaya-Pitaka/3Mahavagga-Pali/38-mahakkhandhaka-01\ -e.html Respectfully, Han ===== 4. At that time the Blessed One, having arisen in the night, at dawn was walking up and down in the open air. And the Blessed One saw Yasa, the noble youth, coming from afar. And when He saw him, He left the place where He was walking, and sat down on a seat laid out (for Him). And Yasa, the noble youth, gave utterance near the Blessed One to that solemn exclamation: `Alas! What distress; alas! What danger!' and the Blessed One said to Yasa, the noble youth: `Here is no distress, Yasa, here is no danger. Come here, Yasa, sit down, I will teach you the Truth (Dhamma).' 5. And Yasa, the noble youth, when he heard that there was no distress, and that there was no danger, became glad and joyful; and he put off his gilt slippers, and went to the place where the Blessed One was; having approached Him and having respectfully saluted the Blessed One, he sat down near Him. When Yasa, the noble youth, was sitting near Him, the Blessed One preached to him in due course: that is to say, he talked about the merits obtained by alms-giving, about the duties of morality, about heaven, about the evils, the vanity, and the sinfulness of desires, and about the blessings of the abandonment of desire (46). 6. When the Blessed One saw that the mind of Yasa, the noble youth, was prepared, impressible, free from obstacles (to understanding the Truth), elated, and believing, then He preached what is the principal Doctrine of the Buddhas, namely, suffering, [\q 105/] the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering the path. Just as a clean cloth free from black specks properly takes the dye, thus Yasa, the noble youth, even while sitting there, obtained the pure and spotless eye of the Truth (that is, the knowledge): `Whatsoever is subject to the condition of origination is subject also to the condition of cessation.' #92326 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 3-nov-2008, om 12:42 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Starting from the second mind > door process, the cittas 'swaps' its rather boring object with > something a bit more interesting, a concept/pannati, and of course > this also is according to conditions/paccayas, pakatupannissaya being > the most prominent. ------- N: True, citta that thinks of concepts is either kusala citta or akusala citta and these arise due to accumulated conditions, natural decisive support-condition. I am not inclined to think of a boring object, since cittas are merely arising because of conditions just for an extremely short moment. No time to be bored, unless there are dosa-muulacittas. Moreover, citta with attachment likes all the sense objects, even in a sense-door process. But, usually there is attachment again and again when cittas arising in a mind-door process draw out long stories on account of the sense object that was experienced. Nina. #92327 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali Passage For Question One --- Re: 2 questions sarahprocter... Dear Suan and Ven Aggacitto (Han & all), --- On Sun, 2/11/08, abhidhammika wrote: >The answer to reverend aggacitto's first question can be found in the following passage in Mahaavaggapaa. li in Vinayapi.taka. >"….. Caratha, bhikkhave, caarikam bahujanahitaaya bahujanasukhaaya lokaanukampaaya atthaaya hitaaya sukhaaya devamanussaanam. Maa ekena, dve agamittha. Desetha, bhikkhave, dhammam aadikalyaa.nam majjhekalyaa. nam pariyosaanakalyaa. nam saattham sabyañjanam kevala paripu.n.nam parisuddham brahmacariyam pakaasetha…" The above statement comes from the following full passage. >"32. Atha kho bhagavaa te bhikkhuu aamantesi‚– "muttaaham, bhikkhave, sabbapaasehi, ye dibbaa ye ca maanusaa. Tumhepi, bhikkhave, muttaa sabbapaasehi, ye dibbaa ye ca maanusaa. Caratha, bhikkhave, caarikam bahujanahitaaya bahujanasukhaaya lokaanukampaaya atthaaya hitaaya sukhaaya devamanu ssaanam. Maa ekena, dve agamittha. Desetha, bhikkhave, dhammam aadikalyaa.nam majjhekalyaa. nam pariyosaanakalyaa. nam saattham sabyañjanam kevala paripu.n.nam parisuddham brahmacariyam pakaasetha. Santi sattaa apparajakkhajaatika a, assavanataa dhammassa parihaayanti, bhavissanti dhammassa aññaataaro. Ahampi, bhikkhave, yena uruvelaa senaanigamo tenupasankamissaami dhammadesanaayaa" ti. Section 32, Maarakathaa, Mahaavaggapaa. li, Vinayapi.taka ..... S: Thank you for finding the Pali. Here's the English: http://mettanet.org/tipitaka/1Vinaya-Pitaka/3Mahavagga-Pali/38-mahakkhandhaka-01\ -e.html "And the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus: `I am delivered, O bhikkhus, from all fetters, human and divine. You, O bhikkhus, are also delivered from all fetters, human and divine. Go ye now, O bhikkhus, and wander, for the gain of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, for the gain, and for the welfare of gods and men. Let not two of you go the same way (50). Preach, O bhikkhus, the Doctrine which is glorious in the beginning, glorious in the middle, glorious at the end, in the spirit and in the letter; proclaim a consummate, perfect, and pure life of holiness. There are beings whose mental eyes are covered by scarcely any dust, but if the Doctrine is not preached to them, they cannot attain salvation. They will understand the Doctrine. And I will go also, O bhikkhus, to Uruvelaa, to SenĂ ninigama (51), in order to preach the Doctrine.'" Suan or Han, do you have any suggestions for the Ven's second question? Metta, Sarah p.s Thx to Han for pointing to the on-line link so I didn't need to type it out as I'd intended. ========= #92328 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being. was: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and TG & Alex) - In a message dated 11/3/2008 3:30:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Alex, TG and all, Op 3-nov-2008, om 3:15 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > 'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to > be 'a being'?" > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is > caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception.."A > fabrications.fa > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > _ --------- N: We have to go to the Pali to get the deep meaning: there is a word association here. Satta means being, but satta derived from sajjati means: hanging, clinging or to be attached. Actually the D.O. is being taught here: so long as there is clinging one will be a being going around in the cycle. Nina. ============================== Nina, for me this is one of the finest things I've seen written by you! What you write of here, namely satta, as opposed to mere puggala, of which there are many sorts, is dealt with clearly, deeply, and, for me, persuasively. I very much like your bringing in the meaning of the Pali source, 'sajjati'. This piece that is being discussed doesn't hesitate to speak of "one," namely an empirical person. But it characterizes that puggala as a being when it includes attachment ("being caught up there, tied up there") involving "any desire, passion, delight, or craving" for any elements of any of the five constituent types of dhamma that constitute the mere person: rupa, vedana, sa~n~na, sankhara, or vi~n~nana Clinging conditions sense of self, and sense of self conditions clinging. By thought, speech, and emotion rooted in ignorance, one turns mere collections into beings, a work of black-magic transmogrification. Through our clinging we build our own prisons, readily lock ourselves in, and then wonder why we are not free. With metta, Howard #92329 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/3/2008 8:17:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I would want to avoid technical matters of Dhamma, as Phil has > indicated, and I would want to just "be with him," being friendly & caring, and > avoiding preachiness. I would mostly lovingly listen to what Nelson has to say, > observing his apparent emotion, and responding to that in the moment - being > naturally sympathetic and nonjudgmental. ... S: We had a very long, quiet chat over brunch in a garden setting, under a covered awning, just sheltered from the heavy rain. I think all your advice was good and it was the approach I followed, though I did make a few stronger comments at times, especially with regard to appreciating his wife's loyal support and care. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Strong but kindly delivered and useful comments, some even evaluating choices made and actions taken, can be very helpful. These don't constitute being judgmental. ------------------------------------------- Mostly I just listened to what had obviously been (and continue to be) very traumatic experiences. In one evening (or far less than that), our lives can truly be turned upside down.....a set of very unfortunate circumstances for all. Nelson seems to have not been involved in any of the fighting, but being at the wrong place at the wrong time means he was locked up with some of Hong Kong's most notorious murderers for 43 days and now faces lengthy and very expensive legal proceedings to clear his name on the far lesser charge. ------------------------------------------- Howard: So rough! Yes, such circumstances can arise when least expected, sometime s due to poor judgement, sometimes to unseen kamma, sometimes mainly to actions of others and to events largely beyond our control. --------------------------------------------- The dhamma points we touched on and which Nelson was receptive to (at a basic level)were: - Kamma and its results - Being a friend/friendly to all, no bitterness - considering the needs/wishes of family and wife, rather than just thinking of oneself (this was mainly with regard to personal problems). - dangers of drinking even small quantities, because of what it can lead to - consideration of the family of the deceased - conditions, no control, no choice, acceptance ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well done, Sarah! IMO, mostly excellent. Of course, as I view the matter, the no-control and no-choice parts are overblown. Much of what comes to us is due to our kamma, our intentions, our actions -------------------------------------------- Actually, it was easy to be very sympathetic. --------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) -------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard #92330 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 10:22 am Subject: Re: Present moment szmicio Dear Nina, > > Can we do anything to feel less concepts during the day? > ------- > N: When we think of doing anything, there is already the idea of a > self who clings to changing a situation. Thinking of concepts is > conditioned, and thus, it arises. There can be thinking of concepts > with kusala citta or with akusala citta and also that is conditioned. > When we think of another person with metta or compassion, it is > kusala citta thinking of the concept of a person. > It is not a matter of trying to change whatever arises, but to > develop more understanding of it. It is good to know the difference > between citta that has a concept as object and citta that has a > paramattha dhamma as object. We have to remember that it is citta > that thinks or experiences, not "I". but thinking about concepts arise all the day. if there is no conditions to listening and considering can right understandig be developed? I think with akusala citta and it's mostly really unplesant. Best Wishes Lukas #92331 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > I am not inclined to think of a boring object, since cittas are > merely arising because of conditions just for an extremely short > moment. No time to be bored, unless there are dosa-muulacittas. > Moreover, citta with attachment likes all the sense objects, even in > a sense-door process. But, usually there is attachment again and > again when cittas arising in a mind-door process draw out long > stories on account of the sense object that was experienced. Dear Nina Thanks for you feedback, I agree, even in the sense door process the object that citta experiences can't be boring, it has to be either a pleasant or unpleasant arammana. Alberto #92332 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 3-nov-2008, om 19:22 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > if there is no conditions to listening and considering can right > understandig be developed? ------- N: It is difficult. Have more listening!! It never is enough Kh Sujin said. She also listens. And reading is also listening. ------ > > L: I think with akusala citta and it's mostly really unplesant. ------- N: O.K. but while you write now such moments are past. You think of the Dhamma now and all that akusala thinking is gone. You said that you would translate into Polish Be here now, by Ven. Dhammadhara. you have very little time, but just a few lines a day may help you. It is all about the present moment. I do not know whether you read Sri Lanka Revisited, since I quote remarks of Ven. Dhammadhara in this series. Remember, the present moment, now, that is what counts. Here is a sutta: We read in the “Bhaddekaratta Sutta”, “A Single Excellent Night”(Middle Length Sayings,131, translated by the Ven. Bhikkhus Nyanamoli and Bodhi): "Let not a person revive the past Or on the future build his hopes; For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state; Let him know that and be sure of it, Invincibly, unshakeably. Today the effort must be made; Tomorrow Death may come, who knows? No bargain with Mortality Can keep him and his hordes away, But one who dwells thus ardently, Relentlessly, by day, by night - It is he, the Peaceful Sage has said, Who has had a single excellent night." -------- Nina. #92333 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Lukas) - In a message dated 11/3/2008 2:45:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Lukas, Op 3-nov-2008, om 19:22 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > if there is no conditions to listening and considering can right > understandig be developed? ------- N: It is difficult. Have more listening!! It never is enough Kh Sujin said. She also listens. And reading is also listening. ======================== Lukas considered the circumstance that "there is no conditions to listening and considering." And you have replied "It is difficult. Have more listening!!" Of course, your reply implies that there are conditions for listening. It also constitutes an advocacy of exercising useful willing. ("Have more listening!!" you advise. Yes, I agree - intentionally doing a good thing is a good idea!) With metta, Howard P. S. Listening and considering are not the only wholesome actions one can intentionally engage in. #92334 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A being. was: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, TG and all, > > Op 3-nov-2008, om 3:15 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > > > 'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said >to > > be 'a being'?" > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when >one is > > caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > > perception.."A > > fabrications.fa > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, >Radha: > > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > > being.' > > _ > --------- > N: We have to go to the Pali to get the deep meaning: there is a >word > association here. Satta means being, but satta derived from >sajjati > means: hanging, clinging or to be attached. > Actually the D.O. is being taught here: so long as there is >clinging > one will be a being going around in the cycle. > Nina. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > That does not change the meaning. When there is clinging, there is being. When there is no clinging to anything as "I, me, mine", when there are NO personal preferences, likes, dislikes, etc there is no "being" or "personality". It is just Tathagata - "thusness". Tathagata isn't found here and now due to that thing, an Arahant's path is traceless like the path of the flying birds in the sky. A worldling on other hand has preferences, likes, dislikes, and things by which s/he can be reckoned. Best wishes, #92335 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 3:06 pm Subject: Re: Pali Passage For Question One --- Re: 2 questions hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: Suan or Han, do you have any suggestions for the Ven's second question? Han: I have read the following messages. -------------------- bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto: #2 In the Kama loka (Prince)Mara is in the 11th realm while the Bodisatta are in the 9th realm of Kama Loka prior to rebirth. Would this indicate that Mara is of a higher and superior position than the Bodisatta? If not than why are the hellish realms lower and the heavenly realms higher? -------------------- Alex: Longer lifespan and more pleasurable feelings aren't by themselves the criteria for superior position. Age, mundane power, and being endowed with 5 strands of sensual happiness isn't a decisive factor in this issue. Buddha was superior to all, even though he lived 80 years, not quadrillions. In some suttas he had even more power than Brahma. So we should take the 31 realm chart as a "ranking chart of superiority. -------------------- Howard: I presume had a typo, and you meant to say "should NOT take," right? -------------------- Alex: Yes, a typo. 31 plans chart is mostly arranged by lifespan (from human level, up) not by "enlightenment" level. And even though some higher level deities are more powerful (in a worldly way) than lower level beings, the Buddha is on the top of the chart. -------------------- bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto: Regarding my question of the 2 realns of kama loka, (prince) Mara in the 11th and the Bodisatta in the 9th what would seem like an issue of spiritual superiority (hellish realms down low heavenly realms up high), How could this indicate "no chart of superior ranking"? i believe the real difference lies in the difference between a Bodhisatta and a Buddha. certainly there is a difference between the Bodisatta (as Ven.Gotama refers to himself pre enlightenment as "Bodisatta Gotama") and an enlightened Buddha. The Spiritual potential WHEN made manifest has the potential to be something FAR superior therefore than ANYTHING (prince) Mara could POSSIBLY hope for. -------------------- Han: I do not think I can explain better than Alex. Although I do not have a satisfactory answer to the question, I find the following article interesting. The Buddha's Encounters with Mara the Tempter: Their Representation in Literature and Art, by Ananda W.P. Guruge. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/guruge/wheel419.html Respectfully, Han #92336 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "Thanks for your helpful comments and all of you (and others?) for the interesting discussion." Scott: You're welcome, Sarah. I enjoyed the discussion. S: "In case it's of any assistance/interest, we had a little discussion on wrong mindfulness ages ago. You may like to take a look at these messages. I'm sure there were others, but this is what I found easily and of relevance..." Scott: Thanks, these are helpful. Sincerely, Scott. #92337 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 7:38 pm Subject: Mindfulness of Death (2) hantun1 Dear James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Tep, I am continuing the series on my attitude towards old age and death. Perhaps, to name the title as Mindfulness of Death might be a misnomer. Jon has rightly pointed out that the recollection on death should be on the fragility of life and the urgency of the development of insight. But my attitude towards old age and death will be more about what is going to happen to me, rather than the achievement of insight. Therefore, just consider my series as the writing of an ordinary puthujjana with all his fear and emotions, shortcomings and inadequacies. Having said that, I will take up DN 16 Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta, translated by Maurice Walshe. On page 245, the Buddha said to Aananda as follows: [Aananda, I am old, worn out, venerable, one who has traversed life’s path, I have reached the term of life, which is eighty. Just as an old cart is made to go by being held together with straps, so the Tathaagata’s body is kept going by being strapped up. It is only when the Tathaagata withdraws his attention from outward signs, and by the cessation of certain feelings, enters into the signless concentration of mind, that his body knows comfort.] Han: When I first read this passage, I was surprised. I thought the Buddha would be beyond the effects of old age. Then, I felt sad. If the Buddha felt like that what can I say about myself. I am also old, frail and disease-ridden. The Buddha could withdraw his attention from outward signs (sabba nimittaana.m amanasikaaraa), and by cessation of certain feelings (ekaccaana.m vedanaana.m nirodhaa) enter into the signless concentration (animitta.m ceto samaadhi.m). For me, I have no such capabilities. I have to rely on medicines to keep my body going. Even then, some medicines are having adverse effects which are almost as bad as the illness itself. In this way, I drew samvega about the effects of old age. -------------------- On page 252, the Buddha said: [3.48. Aananda, have I not told you before: All those things that are dear and pleasant to us must suffer change, separation and alteration? So how could this be possible? Whatever is born, become, compounded, is liable to decay – that it should not decay is impossible.] Han: Whatever is born, become, compounded, is liable to decay (ya.m ta.m jaata.m bhuuta.m sa”nkhata.m paloka dhamma.m). Very good reminder! It will help me to remember this when the time comes for me to go away leaving my loved ones behind. -------------------- On page 253, the Buddha said: [3.51. Then the Lord said to the monks: â€And now, monks, I declare to you – all conditioned things are of a nature to decay – strive on untiringly.’] Han: All conditioned things are of a nature to decay, strive on untiringly (vaya dhammaa sa”nkhaaraa appamaadena sampaadetha). The most important reminder of all! It is exactly what Jon has said. Thank you, Jon. ------------------- I compare the following two passages: On page 260, [Then the Lord adopted the lion-posture, lying on his right side, placing one foot on the other, mindfully and with clear awareness, bearing in mind the time of wakening.] And On page 262, [Then the Lord lay down on his right side in the lion-posture, placing one foot on the other, mindful and clearly aware.] I notice that the words [bearing in mind the time of awakening (u.t.thaana sa~n~n.m manasikaritvaa)] was missing on page 262. That was when the Buddha knew that he was laying down for the last time from which he would never wake up again. How sad! Would I know when I sleep for the last time that I will not wake up again? A friend of mine was near death in a Bangkok hospital. He could not speak because of the oxygen mask. So he motioned to his wife to come near him and hugged her for quite a long time and then let her go. The wife said her husband had never showed such emotions in front of other people. So she thought he was bidding fare-well to her. She was right. He died about an hour later. So I might know when I sleep for the last time. Who knows? -------------------- On page 271, it was described how the Buddha passed away. [6.9. Then the Lord, leaving the attainment of the Cessation of Feeling and Perception, entered the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception, from that he entered the Sphere of No-Nothingness, the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness, the sphere of Infinite Space. From the Sphere of Infinite Space, he entered the fourth jhaana, from there the third, the second and the first jhaana. Leaving the first jhaana, he entered the second, the third, the fourth jhaana. And, leaving the fourth jhaana, the Lord finally passed away.] Han: This paragraph shows how much jhaana is useful for the awakened ones, even after they are enlightened, throughout their entire life, and even in the final moments of their life. Therefore, although I cannot attain even the first jhaana, I really admire those who can attain jhaanas. -------------------- On pages 271-272, there are verses uttered by Brahmaaa Sahampati, the Sakka, Venerable Anuruddha, and Venerable Aananda, after the Lord had passed away. I like the verse by the Sakka the best. Impermanent are compounded things, prone to rise and fall, Having risen, they are destroyed, their passing truest bliss. Aniccaa vata sa”nkhaaraa uppaadavayadhammino, Uppajjitvaa nirujjhanti tesa.m vuupasamo sukho. I conclude this post with an article, Anicca Vata Sankhara by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_43.html Respectfully, Han #92338 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 5:00 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Dhamma friends, In the Syaamara.t.tha edition (Thai edition), vol. 14, p. 241, it reads: "na kho aananda arahati saavako satthaara.m anubandhitu.m yadida.m suttageyyaveyyaakara.nassa sotu.m, ta.m kissa hetu." The words are not confirmed yet from the Thai version. It could be wrong. Hopefully someone here can confirm the words from the Thai version. How do you translate the above Pali sentence correctly? Are there any big differences in meaning and content from the CSCD and Sinhala editions, which are not entirely the same words as the PTS edition (see below)? Thank you. Thomas Law P.S.: PTS edition: "na kho, aananda, arahati saavako satthaara.m anubandhitu.m yadida.m sutta.m geyya.m veyyaakara.nassa hetu." (MN vol. 111, p. 115) CSCD and Sinhala editions (page unknown), and the commentary (Papa~ncasuudanii)(page unknown): "na kho, ... yadida.m sutta.m geyya.m veyyaakara.na.m tassa hetu." ---------- #92339 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 8:49 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) szmicio Dear Han, I like your series very much, I find those wonderful words of Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. It helps me so much: "There is nobody there and nobody here. There is not Lodewijk all alone in the Hague and all of us here having a trip in Calcutta. There has only ever been, and only is, and can be, just different moments of experiencing an object, only for a moment, and then there is the next moment of experiencing another object. All alone, everybody completely alone, no matter how many other people we think there are around us the whole time. And if we think that we are surrounded by other people, nice or not nice, we are really deluding ourselves. We have to realize that in the absolute sense there is nothing comforting about thinking that there are people all around us. There is nothing comforting even about thinking, "I am happy all by myself’. There are just empty phenomena, one after another. It is either the phenomenon which experiences, nama, or it is the phenomenon which does not experience, rupa. Both of them are empty. There is nothing reliable there, there is nothing worthwhile there. It is just the same old thing, life after life, moment after moment. In every life, just like now. So, if while we are here, we have a lot of Dhamma talk but we don’t remember the truth about the phenomena of our life we are not doing the best we can. If you have not much chance for a Dhamma talk, but you are learning honestly to know the phenomena of your life as they are, then that is what really helps. We might not always like to learn about them, but that is what counts most. So I hope and trust that the fundamental understanding of the things I have just been talking about is there and that it is growing. I hope that based on this understanding there are now and will be more and more in the future moments of detachment from the reality which appears." Best wishes Lukas #92340 From: "www.atulasiriwardane.com" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment asiri57 Sampajano Sati Be aware of everyting inside and everything outside.. There can be No-mind and no concepts. Atula --- On Mon, 11/3/08, szmicio wrote: Dear Nina, > > Can we do anything to feel less concepts during the day? > ------- > N: When we think of doing anything, there is already the idea of a > self who clings to changing a situation. Thinking of concepts is > conditioned, and thus, it arises. There can be thinking of concepts > with kusala citta or with akusala citta and also that is conditioned. > When we think of another person with metta or compassion, it is > kusala citta thinking of the concept of a person. > It is not a matter of trying to change whatever arises, but to > develop more understanding of it. It is good to know the difference > between citta that has a concept as object and citta that has a > paramattha dhamma as object. We have to remember that it is citta > that thinks or experiences, not "I". but thinking about concepts arise all the day. if there is no conditions to listening and considering can right understandig be developed? I think with akusala citta and it's mostly really unplesant. Best Wishes Lukas #92341 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 10:41 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) buddhatrue Hi Han, I am very much enjoying your series on Mindfulness of Death and I am learning much from it. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Tep, > > I am continuing the series on my attitude towards old age and death. > Perhaps, to name the title as Mindfulness of Death might be a misnomer. Jon has rightly pointed out that the recollection on death should be on the fragility of life and the urgency of the development of insight. James: I don't think that Mindfulness of Death is just about cultivating samvega. It is also about cultivating mindfulness of impermanence which, in itself, generates insight. But my attitude towards old age and death will be more about what is going to happen to me, rather than the achievement of insight. Therefore, just consider my series as the writing of an ordinary puthujjana with all his fear and emotions, shortcomings and inadequacies. James: I disagree. I thing that what you wrote in this post is very insightful. Metta, James > > Han: When I first read this passage, I was surprised. I thought the Buddha would be beyond the effects of old age. Then, I felt sad. If the Buddha felt like that what can I say about myself. I am also old, frail and disease-ridden. The Buddha could withdraw his attention from outward signs (sabba nimittaana.m amanasikaaraa), and by cessation of certain feelings (ekaccaana.m vedanaana.m nirodhaa) enter into the signless concentration (animitta.m ceto samaadhi.m). For me, I have no such capabilities. I have to rely on medicines to keep my body going. Even then, some medicines are having adverse effects which are almost as bad as the illness itself. In this way, I drew samvega about the effects of old age. #92342 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 12:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, Yes, I particularly like this first part of the quote you gave too: --- On Tue, 4/11/08, szmicio wrote: L:>I find those wonderful words of Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. It helps me so much: "There is nobody there and nobody here. There is not Lodewijk all alone in the Hague and all of us here having a trip in Calcutta. There has only ever been, and only is, and can be, just different moments of experiencing an object, only for a moment, and then there is the next moment of experiencing another object. All alone, everybody completely alone, no matter how many other people we think there are around us the whole time. And if we think that we are surrounded by other people, nice or not nice, we are really deluding ourselves. We have to realize that in the absolute sense there is nothing comforting about thinking that there are people all around us." .... S: In my chat with Phil, 'finding comfort' came up and I said that I think there is real comfort in understanding namas and rupas - no people, nothing 'to be done' by any self. This is the comfort that comes with detachment and understanding only. I appreciate your comments, questions and good quotes. Metta, Sarah ======= #92343 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death (2) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, I appreciate your presentations very much - the combination of the quotes and your personal comments. --- On Tue, 4/11/08, han tun wrote: >On page 252, the Buddha said: [3.48. Aananda, have I not told you before: All those things that are dear and pleasant to us must suffer change, separation and alteration? So how could this be possible? Whatever is born, become, compounded, is liable to decay – that it should not decay is impossible.] >Han: Whatever is born, become, compounded, is liable to decay (ya.m ta.m jaata.m bhuuta.m sa”nkhata.m paloka dhamma.m). Very good reminder! It will help me to remember this when the time comes for me to go away leaving my loved ones behind. ------------ -------- S: "Whatever...", "ya.m ta.m....dhamma.m", whatever conditioned dhamma or reality, whatever nama (other than nibbana) or rupa... .... >On page 253, the Buddha said: [3.51. Then the Lord said to the monks: â€And now, monks, I declare to you – all conditioned things are of a nature to decay – strive on untiringly.’] >Han: All conditioned things are of a nature to decay, strive on untiringly (vaya dhammaa sa”nkhaaraa appamaadena sampaadetha) . The most important reminder of all! It is exactly what Jon has said. Thank you, Jon. ------------ ------- S: Yes, important reminders about conditioned "dhammaa", dhammas, realities. It doesn't matter what words we use, but the Buddha helped us to understand the nature of such dhammas. This is the only way we can appreciate the reminders. [I'm stressing these points because of other discussions in which friends object to the use of 'dhammas', or 'dhammas as having characteristics'.] Thanks, Han. Metta, Sarah ======= #92344 From: "colette" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 12:48 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) ksheri3 Hi Han Tun, Simply put, in death you have no equal. This is why the doctrine of Shunyata is so profound with myself. Surely you must be confident in the fact that you are part of something far greater, far older, far more of whatever it is you could think of, and so why would you be the intentional cause of suffering to yourself by trying to fit yourself into something that you could not possibly fit? I gave up comparing myself to others in my early twenties and I'm now 48 years old. They, the others, do what they do for themselves and that come with it's rewards, mainly financial rewards. I accepted my difference from the majority of society but never had the need to seek to be "that which is like them". Their strife and suffering never had any meaning for me and so I never saught it. I study and follow the path that I CHOOSE! I have chosen a path of esoteric enlightenment. Choosing this path comes with OPPORTUNITY COSTS, prices I must pay to obtain something "other". Fine, after 30 years, it's all nothing more than standard operating procedure. Don't try to fit yourself into the Suttas, let the Suttas fit into your life. Death dose not mean that you are going somewhere that the people you hold close to your heart chakra are not going to be. The body is part of the illusion that we call life. Do you cling to the body and have such negative thoughts of losing your body or having to know that the others in your life will lose your body as well? Is your body that valuable? What about your neighbors body? What about a body across the world? What is the value of each body? Why is a dollar bill made from a tree in the USA worth more or less money than a bill made from the same type of tree on the other side of the world? It's the same material going into the production, why is there a difference in the value? Don't feel bad nor have negative feelings concerning the eventuality of your body. In New Orleans, when I lived there in the early 80s, we celebrated a persons passing bu it wasn't until the early 90s when I was living in Chicago that I finally got the message as to why they celebrated the loss of a loved one: IMO we celebrated a death as a way of rejoicing with that person, a way in which we could express our single-minded, self-centered, appreciation that the person had finally been released and now can continue on without such needless burdens as a value structure, et al. Maybe we can speak of this at a time that I can be more focused. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Tep, > > I am continuing the series on my attitude towards old age and death. <....> #92345 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 1:27 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) hantun1 Dear Lukas, I thank you very much for quoting the words by Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. I would like to study more of his teachings. I searched for Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. But I could find only Bhikkhu Dhammadharo Can you kindly give me the correct web-link, please? With metta, Han #92346 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 1:28 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) hantun1 Dear James, I am very grateful to you for your kind comments and for thinking that my post is insightful. I always appreciate and respect your comments and it is a very big encouragement for me. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #92347 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 4-nov-2008, om 5:49 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I find those wonderful words of Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. It helps me so > much. ---------- N: I like your quote very much. I have a sermon of him that I shall post later on, in my S.L. Revisited, but I quote just some parts now: < The development of understanding must be very gradual and very natural, just at this moment. We cannot force right understanding to arise and perform its function. When the conditions are there, there can be a moment of right understanding. But there is no signal, no warning, nothing to tell you , “Now right understanding is going to arise and know something about the present moment.”... There is not enough understanding of the true nature of the present moment; in the beginning understanding is very weak. There can just be some moments of understanding from time to time. In between such moments anything can happen. Don’t fool yourself that, because you heard Dhamma and you are in good company, defilements, perhaps quite strong, can’t arise and surprise you, that you are beyond that. Anything can happen according to conditions, according to your accumulations, and it is a test of one’s understanding whether there can be some mindfulness even of those as it were surprising moments. When defilements arise there are conditions for them. It is of no use being disappointed or surprised about them. There is only one way to cope with them: have more understanding of whatever has arisen. There should not be forgetfulness of lobha. It is with us nearly all the time in some form or other.... Remind yourself again and again of what the goal is. Don’t be negligent. When it is time for dĺna, give! Even when it is not time for dĺna, perhaps it can be made into time for dĺna. Don’t be negligent as to síla. If one neglects síla, who knows what could happen. All sorts of bad deeds of the past might have an opportunity to give bad results, they might cause one to be in a situation where one cannot hear Dhamma anymore.... Above all, most important, don’t be negligent to study the present reality. Don’t forget to be aware of rúpa, of the different types of rúpa that arise and appear through the senses. Be aware of visible object that appears from morning to night, arising and passing away unnoticed. The present reality should be studied in order to get rid of ignorance which caused us to be born and which will cause us to go on being born again and again if there is no development of right understanding. ------------ Nina. #92348 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:02 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 6, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 6. The Objects of Pańńĺ Through the development of vipassanĺ we shall see all realities as anattĺ, not self. What does pańńĺ know so that the truth of anattĺ can be realized? We read in the “Discourse on the Six Sixes” (Middle Length Sayings III, no. 148) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Sĺvatthí, at the Jeta Grove, taught the monks about “Six Sixes”. He taught them that there are six internal sense-fields (ĺyatanas), six external sense-fields, six classes of consciousness, six classes of contact (phassa), six kinds of feeling and six kinds of craving. We read: “When it is said, ‘Six internal sense-fields are to be understood’, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the sense- field of eye, the sense-field of ear, the sense-field of nose, the sense-field of tongue, the sense-field of body, the sense-field of mind.... When it is said, ‘Six external sense-fields are to be understood’, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the sense-field of visible objects, the sense-field of of sounds, the sense-field of smells, the sense-field of tastes, the sense-field of touches, the sense-field of mental states.... When it is said, ‘ Six classes of consciousness are to be understood’, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the eye-consciousness that arises because of eye and visible objects; the ear-consciousness that arises because of ear and sounds; the nose- consciousness that arises because of nose and smells; the tongue- consciousness that arises because of tongue and tastes; the body- consciousness that arises because of body and tactile objects; the mind-consciousness that arises because of mind and mental states....” We then read that the Buddha taught that there are six classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body- contact and mind-contact. Eye-contact, for example, is a cetasika that conditions seeing to experience visible object through the eye- door. Contact arises together with each citta. The Buddha taught that the six kinds of contact condition six kinds of feeling, and that the six kinds of feeling condition six kinds of craving. All these realities occur now, at this moment, in daily life. Are there not eye, visible object and seeing? Are there not eye-contact, feeling and craving? ****** Nina. #92349 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:06 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, If we only know conventional truth, and do not develop right understanding of nama (mentality) and rupa (physical phenomena), realities appear as if they do not arise and fall away. It seems that we see things, beings, and people. We may touch a cup, a plate, a spoon or fork, but in reality it is just the element of earth or hardness that is touched. What do we see or touch in daily life? When we touch something we are not used to realizing that the reality of hardness can be touched. We have the feeling that we touch a spoon, a fork, a plate, a cup. Since realities arise and fall away and succeed one another very rapidly we cling to the shape and form of things, to a conglomeration or mass. It seems that the spoon is hard, the fork is hard, the cup is hard, the plate is hard. In reality, what is touched is only the rupa (physical phenomena) which is hardness, the element of hardness. Since we remember the different shapes and forms of things we know that a cup is not a dish, a spoon is not a fork. What is real in the absolute sense is rupa dhamma, which has the characteristic of hardness, but we remember only what is real in the conventional sense. We remember that a dish is for serving rice, a bowl for curry and a spoon for serving food. We know the concept of a whole or a mass (gana pannatti) because of the experience of visible object. Apart from this we know a concept of sound (sadda pannatti), we know the meaning of sounds. All this occurs in daily life. We should know precisely what is absolute truth and what is conventional truth. Conventional truth is not real in the absolute sense. We recognize the shape and form of things and they appear as a cup, a dish, a spoon, a radio, a car, or television. ******* Nina. #92350 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote jonoabb Hi Howard > Howard: > It's more the opposite, Jon: Repeated use of wrong language feeds wrong > view. It is harmful, like spoiled food. > ------------------------------------------------ It would seem to be a corollary of this view that careful choice of "right" language supports right view. Is this how you see it? I don't recall coming across anything like this in the teachings (there's that bumper sticker phrase again ;-)) Jon #92351 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi Howard > In the past I had mentioned a sutta which involved a group of folks who > took exactly the position expressed above, though I couldn't recall the > sutta. I pointed this out as a warning of what an extreme reductive view can lead > to. I am so pleased that this sutta has been identified. It really is an > important one, especially with regard to showing a variety of wrong view that I > think some DSG members may be vulnerable to. Not sure which part of the sutta you have in mind here. I don't recognise any of it as being close to anything said on DSG. Are you sure this is not another of those over-generalisations? ;-)) Regarding one of the wrong views in particular expressed in the sutta; "A person is a composite of four primary elements." As I see it, this view would be wrong on at least 2 grounds. The first and most obvious is that it makes no mention of the nama khandhas. The second is that, even if namas were included, it assumes a composite of a 'person'. As we saw in our recent discussion on the chariot simile, the connection between the khandhas and person is that when the 5 khandhas are present the idea/designation 'person' comes to be. The obverse of that, that a person is a composite of the 5 khandhas, does not hold and is not the teaching of the Buddha (another variation on the bumper-sticker theme;-)). Jon #92352 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: S: This is why it's so important to read, listen and consider more about dhammas as anatta -- no people, no things at all. Without the right theory, there will never be the patipatti, let alone the vipassana-nana stages as you say. Hi Sarah By giving priority to the study and considering of the Abhidhamma pitaka, where the dhammas are stripped down of all of their atta implications and are exposed as bare dhatus, khandas, ayatanas, etc, I think that Kh Sujin is pointing to an environment more conducive to that end than the Sutta pitaka, with its bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and lay people and brahmins, ariyans and putujjama puggala, indian villages, houses and streets, parks in the forest, inspiring metaphors etc., which a self would tend to take literally and as something different or apart or in contrast from what's in the Abhidhamma. Alberto #92353 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 2:38 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > However the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to reach > Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana. I've had a quick look at the sutta you cite here in support of the proposition that "the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to reach Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana" I think the first paragraph of the passage you've quoted, beginning "Ananda, this is the path and method, to overcome the lower bonds of the sensual world", refers to the passage before that paragraph (not the passage after it). That passage before begins: "Ananda, the learned noble disciple who has seen noble ones, and Great Men, clever in their Teaching and trained in their Teaching abides with a mind not overcome with the view of a self." The passage after it is *another* way of overcoming the lower bonds of the sensual world. That's why it ends "Ananda, *this too* is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds of the sensual world.." Jon > Ananda, this is the path and method, to overcome the lower bonds of > the sensual world. It is not possible that one could, knowing and > seeing overcome the lower bonds of the sensual world without coming > to this path and method. It is like one come to a huge standing tree > with heartwood, would cut the heartwood without removing the bark and > sapwood. That is not possible, in the same manner, it is not possible > that one could know, see and overcome the lower bonds of the sensual > world, without coming to this path and method. > > Ananda, what is the path and method, to dispel the lower bonds of the > sensual world? Ananda, the bhikkhu secluding the mind thoroughly, by > dispelling things of demerit, removes all bodily transgressions that > bring remorse. Then secluding the mind, from sensual thoughts and > thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with > joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. > Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, > all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are > impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a > misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, > and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless > element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement > of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the > destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction (* 1). > With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not > destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same > things. He arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five > lower bonds, of the sensual world, not to proceed. Ananda, this too > is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds of the sensual > world.. > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.htm #92354 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 3:00 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: Threes (19 - 23) and Co, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: 'Three kinds of becoming: [in the World] of Sense-Desires, of Form, in the Formless World. Tayo bhavaa - kaamabhavo, ruupabhavo, aruupabhavo. -------- The Co refers to what has been said before about kaamadhaatu, ruupadhaatu, aruupadhaatu. As we have seen (no 13), dhaatuu can be classified as the location of becoming or birth. In this classification there are: kaama-dhaatu, ruupa-dhaatu and aruupa-dhaatu. ---------- Co: Kaamabhavaadayo kaamadhaatuaadivasena vuttaayeva. ---------- Sutta: DN 33.1.10(22) 'Three quests: for sense-desires, for becoming, for the holy life. Tisso esanaa - kaamesanaa, bhavesanaa, brahmacariyesanaa. ------------- The Co explains that the quest for sense-desires is clinging and attachment to sense objects. It also mentions the word gavesanaa, searching for. Not only greed is ‘search’ but also kamma that goes together with it. The Co refers to the akusala kamma through body, speech and mind that goes together with this quest. N: Attachment to sense objects can motivate wrong action and speech. This shows the danger of accumulating evermore clinging. The quest for becoming is clinging to rebirth, bhava. The Co explains that not all quest for becoming is accompanied by wrong view. It can together with akusala kamma through body, speech and mind and in that case it must be very strong. The Dispeller of Delusion (II, p. 254) explains that akusala kamma going together with greed for existence is appropriate for the Great Brahmaas. N: Even those who have been so skillful in the first stage of ruupa- haana that it has produced rebirth as Mahaa-brahmaa in a brahmaplane may commit akusala kamma on account of it. If insight is not developed one takes jhĺnacitta for self and there will be no end to clinging. It can have the intensity of akusala kamma. As to brahmacariyesanaa, this is mentioned in the Book of Analysis (p. 366) and explained in its co, the Dispeller of Delusion (II, p. 253), which is similar to the relevant passage in the Co. to the Sangiitisutta. Brahmacariyesanaa is explained here as The Co. to the Sangiitisutta mentions also that one may wonder: does the Tathaagatha exist or does he not exist after death. It is wrong view that takes up extreme standpoints (antaggaahika). Also akusala kamma through body, speech and mind goes together with the wrong view which searches for the life of purity. The “Dispeller of Delusion” mentions that one may be walking up and down with such wrong views or utter them with speech, as explained with regard to clinging to rebirth. Or they go together with mental kamma. -------- Co: Kaamesanaadiisu ‘‘tattha katamaa kaamesanaa? Yo kaamesu kaamacchando kaamajjhosaana.m, aya.m vuccati kaamesanaa’’ti eva.m vutto kaamagavesanaraago kaamesanaa naama. ‘‘Tattha katamaa bhavesanaa? Yo bhavesu bhavacchando bhavajjhosaana.m, aya.m vuccati bhavesanaa’’ti eva.m vutto bhavagavesanaraago bhavesanaa naama. ‘‘Tattha katamaa brahmacariyesanaa? Sassato lokoti vaa…pe… neva hoti na nahoti tathaagato parammara.naati vaa, yaa evaruupaa di.t.thi di.t.thigata.m vipariyesaggaaho , aya.m vuccati brahmacariyesanaa’’ti eva.m vuttaa di.t.thigatikasammatassa brahmacariyassa gavesanadi.t.thi brahmacariyesanaa naama. ----------- Nina. #92355 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 3, 2008 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi Jon - In a message dated 11/4/2008 5:17:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > Howard: > It's more the opposite, Jon: Repeated use of wrong language feeds wrong > view. It is harmful, like spoiled food. > ------------------------------------------------ It would seem to be a corollary of this view that careful choice of "right" language supports right view. Is this how you see it? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It isn't a corollary, Jon, though I believe it also is true, but to a lesser extent. (That's why I said that it's MORE the opposite. I try to choose my words carefully, though I often fail in that.) ------------------------------------------------- I don't recall coming across anything like this in the teachings ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Even if that is so, that does NOT imply that it is false. There also are no remarks in the "texts" about Jonathan Abbott posting on DSG circa 2008. ------------------------------------------------ (there's that bumper sticker phrase again ;-)) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, carrying as message that you seem to think is an answer to every idea that you don't care for. ------------------------------------------------- Jon ========================== With metta, Howard P. S. I will say this, Jon: In MN 19, the Buddha taught "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness." Now, thinking is largely internal speech, and speech is externalized thinking. They are inseparable. #92356 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) szmicio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > >H: I thank you very much for quoting the words by Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. > I would like to study more of his teachings. > I searched for Bhikkhu Dhammandharo. > But I could find only Bhikkhu Dhammadharo > Can you kindly give me the correct web-link, please? Dear Han, sorry for my mistake,I do not notice that before. I mean Bhikkhu Dhammadaro. There is just one text I can find: http://www.dhammastudy.com/behere.html Best wishes Lukas P.s I will looking forward the next chapter. I am really glad that we have such good friend that reminds us about impermanence of our body. It's really important for me. #92357 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 5:23 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) hantun1 Dear Friend Lukas, Thank you very much. I have downloaded Be Here Now, by Bhikkhu Dhammadharo, edited and revised by Nina van Gorkom. I will study it carefully. You may also find the following article interesting. Using Meditation to Deal with Pain, Illness & Death by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/painhelp.html Kind regards, Han #92358 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 12:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/4/2008 5:21:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > In the past I had mentioned a sutta which involved a group of folks who > took exactly the position expressed above, though I couldn't recall the > sutta. I pointed this out as a warning of what an extreme reductive view can lead > to. I am so pleased that this sutta has been identified. It really is an > important one, especially with regard to showing a variety of wrong view that I > think some DSG members may be vulnerable to. Not sure which part of the sutta you have in mind here. I don't recognise any of it as being close to anything said on DSG. Are you sure this is not another of those over-generalisations? ;-)) -------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no Lodewijk, no Nina, no persons at all! Draw your own conclusions as to similarity. (Oh, and don't forget the Buddha's criticisms of "no father, no mother" etc. ------------------------------------------- Regarding one of the wrong views in particular expressed in the sutta; "A person is a composite of four primary elements." As I see it, this view would be wrong on at least 2 grounds. The first and most obvious is that it makes no mention of the nama khandhas. The second is that, even if namas were included, it assumes a composite of a 'person'. As we saw in our recent discussion on the chariot simile, the connection between the khandhas and person is that when the 5 khandhas are present the idea/designation 'person' comes to be. The obverse of that, that a person is a composite of the 5 khandhas, does not hold and is not the teaching of the Buddha (another variation on the bumper-sticker theme;-)). Jon ============================ With metta, Howard (the illusion you insanely converse with) #92359 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 8:23 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon, >"jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > However the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to reach > > Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana. > > I've had a !!!quick!!!! look at the sutta you cite here in support >f the > proposition that "the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to > reach Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana" > > I think the first paragraph of the passage you've quoted, beginning > "Ananda, this is the path and method, to overcome the lower bonds >f the sensual world", refers to the passage before that paragraph >not the passage after it). Jhana IS part of the teachings of the Noble Ones so none of what you've said in ANY way remove its importance. Infact it is strange how you seem to reject the importance of the Jhana from a sutta that DESCRIBES Jhana as a method. "This too" phrase may mean that there are many levels of Jhana & Aruppa from which awakening could happen. It would add a LOT of contradiction if you implied that Jhana is unneccesery as in MN36 the Buddha has stated that Jhana IS the path to Awakening. Best wishes, #92360 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 8:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hi Jon, Howard and all, > "jonoabb" wrote: > As we saw in our recent discussion on the chariot simile, the > connection between the khandhas and person is that when the 5 > khandhas are present the idea/designation 'person' comes to be. > > Jon > 5 Khandas are the material which craving, conceit and delusion wrongly considers as I, me,mine and adds idea/designation of self. 5 Khandas by themselves do NOT form a self view because if that was the case the Buddha would have a self view, since Khandas did exist that other wanderers called "Master Gotama, Buddha, Tathagata etc". For the Buddha there wasn't the "Buddha", not because there weren't 5 aggregates, but because there weren't craving, conceit & "delusionary" views. Best wishes, #92361 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Jon) - In a message dated 11/4/2008 11:23:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Jon, >"jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > However the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to reach > > Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana. > > I've had a !!!quick!!!! look at the sutta you cite here in support >f the > proposition that "the Buddha has said that it is *impossible* to > reach Anagamiship & Arahatship without Jhana" > > I think the first paragraph of the passage you've quoted, beginning > "Ananda, this is the path and method, to overcome the lower bonds >f the sensual world", refers to the passage before that paragraph >not the passage after it). Jhana IS part of the teachings of the Noble Ones so none of what you've said in ANY way remove its importance. Infact it is strange how you seem to reject the importance of the Jhana from a sutta that DESCRIBES Jhana as a method. "This too" phrase may mean that there are many levels of Jhana & Aruppa from which awakening could happen. It would add a LOT of contradiction if you implied that Jhana is unneccesery as in MN36 the Buddha has stated that Jhana IS the path to Awakening. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Howard: Yes. He taught the following as part of that discourse: _________________________ "I thought: 'Whatever priests or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever priests or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever priests or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?' "I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' _________________________ What could be clearer!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Best wishes, =========================== With metta, Howard #92362 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being. was: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Dear Alex, Op 3-nov-2008, om 21:03 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > That does not change the meaning. When there is clinging, there is > being. When there is no clinging to anything as "I, me, mine", when > there are NO personal preferences, likes, dislikes, etc there is no > "being" or "personality". It is just Tathagata - "thusness". ------- N: Shall we change the sentence just a little? So long as there is clinging there will be being. When clinging is completely eradicated and also all defilements, there will not be any being anymore in a next birth. As to Tathaataga this word has many meanings. See Ven. Bodhi in his translation of the Brahmajaalasutta. Nina. #92363 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 1:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A being. was: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 3-nov-2008, om 21:03 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > That does not change the meaning. When there is clinging, there is > > being. When there is no clinging to anything as "I, me, mine", >when > > there are NO personal preferences, likes, dislikes, etc there is >no > > "being" or "personality". It is just Tathagata - "thusness". > ------- > N: Shall we change the sentence just a little? So long as there is > clinging there will be being. When clinging is completely >eradicated > and also all defilements, there will not be any being anymore in a > next birth. > As to Tathaataga this word has many meanings. See Ven. Bodhi in >his > translation of the Brahmajaalasutta. > Nina. > When there is no clinging, ignorance, views and so on now, there is no delusion of "being" for Arahant even while "s/he" is alive. See Yamaka sutta. Best wishes, #92364 From: "colette" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 10:44 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) FOLLOW UP! ksheri3 Han Tun, Yama is the holder of the wheel of samsara (life, death, rebirth) I have just come into contact with the conception YAMATAKA. Okay, lets accept Yama as the deity of death. Lets accept all the hallucinations concerning this supposed deity's exisance and their control of the wheel of samsara. HOW DOES THIS CONCEPTUALIZATION FORM OR CHANGE YOUR LIFE? Why is it that you capitulate your nature to the conceptions of others when you have no idea who those others were/are? In the Golden Dawn some sects have recently given me recognition for keeping my distance and they validate their opinions on a foundation of what they conceive to be the truth. THEY FAIL! They fail to see that they are one with the people that they are condemning: <...> Is not DEATH LIFE? Sorry if my psychology and thought seems out of whack but I'm into a piece of magik at the moment and the elections are taking place in the USA so I have to follow through on what's goin' on. Whether any person likes it or not I do not abandon my sisters and bros that have kept me alive eventhough I am abandoned constantly and without question or hesitation. You would not believe the power(s) that you or I have felt when I am invisible and when all people can do is simply say how sick and poor I am but the only thing they can do to improve my status of life is imprisson me as a means of controling me. <...> toodles, colette <...> #92365 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 4:03 pm Subject: Buddha recomended Jhana MN107 truth_aerator Buddha has advised those that want to become Arahants to do Jhana: "Brahmin, this is our advice [do Jhana] to the trainer bhikkhu who is yet to attain the noble end of the yoke." http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/107-ganakamoggallana-e.htm as in: "Dispelling the five hindrances and wisely making the finer defilements of the mind weak, he secludes the mind from sensual and evil thoughts. With thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion he abides in the first jhaana.... second jhaana. ... third jhaana....attains to the fourth jhaana. Brahmin, this is our advice to the trainer bhikkhu who is yet to attain the noble end of the yoke. As for those bhikkhus, who are arahants, with desires destroyed, the holy life lived, done what should be done, the weight dismissed, attained to the highest good, the bond `to be' destroyed.are rightfully released. To them these things, become pleasant abidings here and now.with mindful awareness.' " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/107-ganakamoggallana-e.htm After this, is it possible to even say that "Jhana isn't required, or is dispensible, ???!" No way! And please don't try to say anything about "formal meditation" being "wrong". Above that sutta paragraph it says: "Come bhikkhu abound a secluded dwelling. Abound a forest, the root of a tree, a mountain grotto, a charnel ground, a jungle path, an open space or a leaves hut. Then he abounds a forest, the root of a tree, a mountain grotto, a charnel ground, a jungle path, an open space or a leaves hut. After the meal, he sits cross legged, with the body errect and mindfulness established in front of him. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/107-ganakamoggallana-e.htm It is simply impossible for the above to mean anything BUT development. Best wishes, #92366 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mindfulness of Death (2) FOLLOW UP! hantun1 Colette, I thank you for your interest and for your interesting contributions. I am writing *my* attitude towards old age and death, and it is refreshing to read *your* attitude towards life and death. As different persons have different opinions on any given topic, I am not in a position to offer any significant comments on your post. But I welcome your contributions. U Han Tun (or) Han #92367 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 7:51 pm Subject: Yes we Can indeed change to the better! bhikkhu0 Friends: Dear and Delightful is Dangerous..!: Whatsoever dear things, delighted in, gratified, that are pleasant to us, all these will undergo change and alteration... We will thereby loose them what they were before, and be separated from them, since now they have become otherwise, and are thus not anymore the same. They have become something different! Whatsoever is born, became, arisen, emerged, and having come into being as a compounded and constructed phenomenon; All that is liable to decay, is prone to fade away, and is bound to vanish... That a thing dependent on supporting conditions should not disintegrate, break up, fall apart, die, and cease to exist, that is indeed impossible... Thus renouncing, letting go, leaving behind, forsaking, abandoning and rejecting all these transient fabrications, is therefore the only true and safe escape from the sure suffering, misery, frustration and deprivation inherent in all this repeated & ever recurring loss, decay, demise, deficit, ageing, sickness and Death... This unconditional & eternal release from all Pain, Misery & Death is called Awakening into Enlightenment... The Noble 8-fold Way is the only real Way thereto. There is no other certain, safe & sound exit... Yes we Can indeed change to the better! Now is the time to realize that fact ... Now is the time to initiate that path ... Now is the time to complete that task ... May your journey be swift and sweet!!! .... Have a nice changing day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #92368 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 9:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Tep, I’ve not seen any of your posts lately, hope everything is fine. Sorry for the delay in responding. Actually, this post was written quite sometime back, but I thought at the time to send along with it at least one other post to DSG which I didn’t have time to do until now. ========= < > >Sukin: So let us talk first about "Experience". >Seeing, hearing and touching for example are experiences. Do you agree? Thinking, feeling, attachment, ignorance, kindness and aversion, these too are experiences. Do you agree? T: I agree that a person experiences objects through contact with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The items of the second group can be mental objects; so, yes, they can be experienced. S: In the above you have associated ‘experience’ with a ‘person’, but perhaps you are simply expressing agreement by way of convention? Anyway, since you agree with the idea of going one step at a time, I think it is better that we concentrate only on ‘experience’ for now, otherwise we may be drawn to also then try to define what ‘person’ means and how it is being used. With regard to ‘thinking’, ‘feeling’ and so on, I meant to express the idea that these also *are* experiences, and you have not commented on this yet. You go on however, to talk about them as being possible ‘objects’ of experience, which of course I agree with, but is not what we are discussing at this point. So do you agree that feeling, attachment, ignorance, kindness and so on are ‘experiences’? ========= >Suk: All the above are "realities". Do you agree? T: Yes, I do. Any experiences that can be shared with, related to, or repeated by other people are realities, that's my understanding. S: I think we need to be more accurate. The above is a conventional criterion applicable to conventional realities, this as we know is based on that which is agreed upon, where the reality / concept distinction is not needed. According to Dhamma however, realities are distinguished from concepts in that the one exhibit characteristics knowable by wisdom, whereas the other doesn’t. And it is the development of ‘wisdom’ which is what the study of Dhamma aims at. Would this not be more to the point? ========= Tep: Direct experiences through the six doors are realities without any question. All kusala & akusala dhammas are realities. S: Yes. ========= Tep: The thirty-two body parts and in-and-out breaths are realities too. S: The 32 body parts as I understand them to be, are concepts, a result of breaking down yet another concept, namely the ‘whole body’. This when reflected on with a level of wisdom is an instance of kusala or samatha. The understanding of the vipassana kind on the other hand, would be for example, when the ‘thinking’ is known for what it is or when seeing or touching, these and their corresponding objects are known by their characteristics, including as nama or as rupa. Clearly, the 32 body parts are neither nama nor are they rupa, don’t you think? Likewise the reference to ‘breath’, this too is convention but meant to point to the realities of hardness / softness, heat / cold and motion / pressure….? But Tep, in the spirit of going slow / one step at a time, we need not go into this at this point, would you agree? =========== >Suk: That was my first step. ;-) T: Thanks for the decision to do it; well-begin is half done. S: I hope we can go a long way in the positive direction with this. ;-) Metta, Sukin #92369 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 9:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sukinderpal Hi TG, Sorry for the delay in responding. ================= Suk: An exercise in “theory projection”, nothing more. When I consider such things as the DO, my reaction is a need to better understand the present moment, .................................................. TG: An impossibility. The present moment cannot be experienced. Experience requires a flow of conditions (time) as does understanding. The "present" also, cannot be understood without understanding the entire conditionality scheme. S: It sounds like you are giving weight to an idea, here â€conditionality scheme’, over what in fact may be the object of experience in the moment. The fact that a moment of seeing in conditioned variously, by a complexity of other conditions does not make the â€seeing’ itself unknowable by panna. In fact all those other conditions have come to be known to exist and to act as conditions precisely because they have at some point been object of insight *one at a time*. If ignorance and wrong view can take the present moment as object, so must panna arise to know one reality at a time for what it is. Indeed if we can state that consciousness and the various mental factors are mutually conditioning, this means that they must be different and their individual characteristics known directly, otherwise what would be the basis of your asserting conditionality at all? ========== TG: “Among the characteristic features of any object, physical or mental, there is often one characteristic we over look due to hasty or superficial attention, and which therefore needs to be treated separately. This is the relatedness of the object. The objects relatedness extends back to its past – to its origin, causes, reasons and logical precedents; it also extends outward to embrace the total context – its background, environment and presently active influences. We can never fully understand things if we view them in artificial isolation. We have to see them as part of a wider pattern, in their conditioned and conditioning nature; and this can be done only with the help of sustained attention.” (Nyanaponika Thera . . . The Vision of Dhamma, Pg. 101 - 102) S: I am not sure what the Venerable has in mind, and since he is the author of â€Abhidhamma Studies’ he must have the right Abhidhamma concepts. It is possible however that he is not applying those concepts correctly, i.e. with reference to the present moment and with firm understanding of the fact of there being only paramattha dhammas arising to perform their individual functions and falling away immediately. The fact that the Ven. judges something as being “superficial attention” which requires one to then consider conditionality in the way he states above, this seems to be due to not taking into account the fact of “panna” being a very specific kind of conditioned reality. Were he to consider sati and panna as arising by conditions beyond control and the fact about their function and cause, I think he would know not to assume a situation where sati and panna â€knows only superficially’, and needs then to be prompted by other considerations. True there are different levels of panna as in suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna, however these refer to conditioned realities which when arisen, perform their function and fall away instantly. However, the level of understanding be this the beginning pariyatti level or be it pativedha, the object is the same, namely a characteristic of a dhamma. And it is not like say, a nama is known for what it is, yet there may be a “misunderstanding” with regard other aspects, such as it being permanent or something. When panna knows a nama, it also knows this to be conditioned and impermanent. Perhaps this is the misunderstanding that you and also the Venerable have? Panna is of many levels, but when it arises, it performs its function as it must and it is only when this is accumulated, does the understanding become more clear and firm. But “understanding” it does if panna cetasika indeed is involved. And to suggest a particular kind of noting / observing as lacking and needing to be boosted by â€thinking’ about the paccaya, is to be in fact referring to something which is not even cintamaya panna, let alone bhavana. This is quite misleading, since in pointing out a particular limitation, it is on another level, encouraging what must necessarily then be wrong, and this makes the solution proposed just more fuel to the overall â€wrong practice’, such as when he suggests “sustained attention”. Does not a moment of satipatthana which has say, consciousness rooted in attachment as object, arisen by a totally different set of conditions from the lobhamula citta which it knows? So what is this “sustained attention” about and what is it expected to bring light to? Is it not in fact suggestive of the kind of observation in which the observer / observed duality is encouraged? Would this not lead to various illusions of result? Finally, I’d like to say that â€bhavanamaya panna’ or â€patipatti’, which you take as â€knowing characteristic’ but not â€really’ understanding, this I believe would never arise were there not a good deal of accumulated understanding at the level of â€suttamaya panna’ and â€cintamaya panna’ or â€pariyatti’ about conditionality! The effect of this, rather than a need for â€sustained attention’ as the Ven. suggests, is in fact turning away from the tendency to take dhammas for â€self’. Indeed it is due to not having the kind of understanding including what the Path is all about, that we end up following wrong practices which involve â€noting of concepts’. To not be moved to take the wrong path this is possible only with firm understanding about the Path and the fact of the present moment being conditioned and beyond control. Metta, Sukin #92370 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method sukinderpal Dear Rinze (& Sarah), It is a long time since you wrote this, but only now have I found time to respond. ========== > (Read the whole post please, do not skip a word) > > 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. > > 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 > > Rinze: > You (inside this vehicle) hear the train hooting away, just a short > distance from the vehicle, but have just enough time to escape from > the impending disasterous situation! What would you do? > > Sarah: > Hopefully escape….. > Sukin: > I don't want to die and would try to change the situation if there > was a threat to my life. > > Rinze: > Phew! Thank Goodness! I thought you would be trying to "Understand > the reality appearing now!" :-)) Suk: But still it would be up to conditions at that time, and any speculation now is just that. If there is any statement of Truth to be made, then it is that “dhammas arise and fall away by conditions and beyond control”. This makes “understanding the reality appearing now” the ideal, but because in fact there is “no control”, *trying* to “understand…” most likely is reflection of wrong understanding. But even this could arise given the vastly accumulated wrong view and attachment to ‘self’, and why not? ========== Rinze: > Perhaps, that's what this Bhikku was trying to do (True story, read > below)… > > The Tsunami struck the shores of Sri Lanka on 26TH Dec. 2005, a Poya > Day. A popular Bhikku (famous for his Dhamma sermons) from Colombo > was traveling down south in a car, with his driver, on that road to > one of the Buddhist temples, to deliver a sermon. The first set of > waves whiplashed the coastal belt of Sri Lanka (around 9 am I > think), from Trincomalee in the east coast, around the coastal belt > down south, to the outskirts of Colombo in the west coast. The waves > struck this vehicle, the driver stopped the vehicle and got out > first, suspecting danger, requesting earnestly for this Bhikku to > follow suit. But he refused asking him to go. The driver lived to > tell the tale but not this Bhikku! > > The point I'm trying to make is this; no matter how well we seem to > know and understand the Dhamma, when the time comes to put it to > the `test', or rather, when the occasion arises, we take the easy > way out! Why? Because of the underlying tendencies (attachment to > this Body), is so great! Quite unaware, we do make this sort of > decisions, in our day to day affairs, though the issue is not the > train coming at us but, Suffering raising its ugly face! Suk: Yes, right now it is more ‘talk’ than the ‘walk’. But there need not be any conflict between the two. Indeed pariyatti must agree with patipatti, and all that is ever suggested is that one continues the development at the level one is at without being driven by ambition to “try to have more”. The accumulated attachment is as you note, already so great, why then want to encourage more of this in the name of Dhamma? And yes, this is true now as it is at any other time and situation. ========== Rinze: > Wouldn't we be fooling ourselves, if we imagine that, we could face > any future situation, in a "Kay sera sera.." attitude, which is > aptly put, in your own words, albeit differently:- > > "….but doesn't it all depend on the conditions at the time?" – Yes, > it does depend! So let's not do anything about it now! > > "Who knows what accumulated tendencies might arise and what actions > might follow? Do we know what cittas will arise next even now?" – Of > course we don't, so we'll wait and see! Suk: ‘Wait and see’? This doesn’t sound like right understanding to me, in fact appears like clinging with wrong view rather than detachment. But the truth is the truth, namely that there is no control over conditions. This means that this is what it is even now and must be seen as such. Indeed it must apply to the ‘present moment’ if there is going to be any chance for right understanding to arise in the future including during a life threatening situation. But since the aim is to understand conditions, it does not matter then what the response at any given moment is. Whether one moves away from the train or not and even whether there is understanding or not at the time, this does not reflect on the Right Understanding accumulated or lack of it. A correct understanding about the Path must lead one to not getting lost in speculations about the past or future, but to see the importance of coming back to the present moment. =========== Rinze: > I believe there is `Skill' in Dhamma (I know you know this but just > to refresh your mind). An athlete doesn't develop her running skills > on the track, she develops it off the track. And then, when the > occasion arises, her skills are displayed on the track. Suk: As alluded to above, there is only the present moment to apply any understanding of the Dhamma to. In this regard there is no ‘off’ or ‘on’ track and so any such separation is a hindrance rather than a help, I would think. In other words, the Dhamma is meant to lead us to better understand nama and rupa and their paccaya and therefore to be thinking in terms application to various situations, this is not helpful. But I may be misunderstanding you…..? =========== Rinze: > In just that same way, there are enlightenment factors in Dhamma > (read the section on Mixed Categories in Abhidhamma), they have to > be acquired and developed. And when developed, they rise to the > occasion when needed. Perhaps you may understand this differently. > You may say, "well that is what understanding the reality right here > and now" means. I see that as the athlete who is developing her > skills on the track! Suk: Not exactly. I would say that the ‘enlightenment factors’ are developed to the optimum level with the development very gradually, of right understanding about the present moment, starting with pariyatti. However as I expressed above, there is only the present moment; hence any idea of ‘on’ or ‘off’ the track is misleading. =========== Rinze: > Of course Sati-sampajanna has to be developed in the here and now. > But there is a way! We got to see the Path first, before we could > trod on it. The athlete sees `the way' and develops her `skills' off > the track. When the occasion arise (on the track – her path) she > achieves her goal! Suk: Again this is creating a duality which imo is not helpful at all. Right understanding develops naturally, hence any idea about what needs to be done first and later, this is a hindrance to panna arising to know the present moment for what it is, namely that it is ‘conditioned’. ========== Rinze: > Sarah, we know that there is no Self. We also know that there is no > self even in a Puthujjana! The Dhamma is like a double edged sword, > it cuts both ways. You develop Akusala Dhamma you can do wonders in > the name of Science (actually non-science / avijja). You develop > Kusala Dhamma, in just that same way you can become an Arahant > (which is true science / vijja). > > In both these scenarios we know that there were only cetasikas that > were being `manipulated' (conditioned) to achieve some objective. > Lord Buddha talks of Iddipada. The Abhidhamma states they are Will, > Effort, Thought, Reason. Hasn't Bill Gates come to what he is today > through these very same cetasikas, as the Arahants did to attain > Arahantship? Hence my opinion that the Dhamma is like a double edged > sword, it works both ways. > > If you read the autobiographies of most of these successful > entrepreneurs, you will find that their beginnings are small and > they have succeeded through sheer will power and untiring effort, > not forgetting the right decisions they took at the right moment > (mindfulness) and all the `enlightenment factors' relating to their > goal. My son is attending a seminar these days on "7 Habits of > Highly Effective People" conducted by one Stephen Covey from the > organization of FranklinCovey of US. He says, most of the ideas > discussed, reminded him of Buddhism, though in a different context! > > So no wonder, Lord Buddha's instructions to Cunda in these > words, "There are these roots of trees, there are empty places. > Meditate, Cunda, do not delay, lest you later regret it. 'This is my > instructions to you." On Effacement Sutta MN 8. Suk: I’d say, why think about ‘roots of trees’ when there are nama and rupa arising now which can be studied? ;-) Metta, Sukin #92371 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 9:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method sukinderpal Dear Rinze, ========== > Rinze: You (inside this vehicle) hear the train hooting away, just a > short distance from the vehicle, but have just enough time to escape > from the impending disasterous situation! What would you do? > > Sukin: > I can only tell you about right now, and there is no train > approaching me. ;-) > I don't want to die and would try to change the situation if there > was a threat to my life.….. > > Rinze: > Why didn't you reply with a "I will read a novel" or "I will go to > sleep" or "I will count the stars" or some such thing? Sukin, I'm > not fooling or something. I have a reason to ask this, to make > something clear. > > I know this is mere speculation, but give it your serious thought, > for we all may die someday in someway! (What a morbid thought, eh!:- > )) Suk: Perhaps my answer wasn’t clear enough. I’ll try again: I sincerely believe that the Dhamma points to the development of understanding of nama and rupas that make up our moment to moment experiences. This means that it does not matter what is conditioned to arise now or what the accumulated inclinations are, for example whether one reflects on death or something else. What matters is that one truly understands that whatever arises does so because of conditions. Rather than projecting a scenario where one then tries to ascertain how much understanding or lack of there is, why not encourage studying the present moment? And given that the Teachings are what it is, why not encourage listening and discussing? But I may have missed your point, in which case please explain more. Metta, Sukin #92372 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:15 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 6, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha explained that all these realities are not self: “If anyone hsould say, ‘Eye is self’, that is not fitting. For the arising of the eye is to be seen and its decaying. Since its arising and decaying are to be seen one would thus be brought to the stage of saying: ’Self arises in me and passes away’. Therefore, if anyone should say, ‘Eye is self’, that is not fitting; in this way eye is not-self. If anyone should say, ‘Visible objects are self’... ‘Eye- consciousness is self’... ‘Eye-contact is self’... ‘Feeling is self’... that is not fitting;... If anyone should say, ‘Craving is self’ that is not fitting. For the arising of craving is to be seen and its decaying. Since its arising and decaying are to be seen one would thus be brought to the stage of saying: ‘Self arises in me and passes away’. Therefore, if anyone should say, ‘Craving is self’, that is not fitting; in this way eye is not-self, visible objects are not-self, eye-consciousness is not-self, eye-contact is not-self, feeling is not-self, craving is not-self....” The Buddha clearly explained what the material to be studied is so that the understanding can be developed which eradicates defilements. The material to be studied are all the objects which can be experienced now through the six doors. How can we begin to study realities? What can be known at the beginning? Nothing else but the reality which appears at this moment. Are there realities appearing and can they be known one at a time? It seems that many realities appear all at the same time, but then we are thinking of a “whole”, of a concept or idea. ******* Nina. #92373 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:25 pm Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, Paramattha dhammas are not pa~n~natti dhammas. Paramattha dhammas are realities which each have their own characteristics which can be directly experienced, even if one does not use terms to name them. Pa~n~natti dhammas, concepts, are not absolute realities. We may see a painting of fruits, such as grapes, or mangos, and we may see real grapes, and mangos. What is then a concept? When we see a painting of mountains, of the sea, or trees, we know that it is a picture. When we see real mountains or trees do we believe that these are realities, not concepts? It is evident that names are concepts, pa~n~nattis, because they convey the characteristics or the meaning of phenomena. However, even if one does not name things yet or there is no name yet, one can already think of a concept of a "whole" or a mass. There can be a concept or idea of "something" which appears even though one does not know any language or words to express its meaning. When we know what it is that appears, even without naming it, we know a pa~n~natti . When we see what is only a painting of fruits and real fruits, both the painting and the real fruits are pa~n~nattis. A pa~n~natti is not a paramattha dhamma (reality). As we have seen there are many aspects with regard to pa~n~natti. It can be an idea of a whole or a mass or it can be a name or term that refers to something, be it real or not real. What is the difference between real fruits and a painting of fruits? What appears through the eyes while one sees are not beings, people, or different things. No matter whether one sees a painting of grapes or the real grapes, through eyes only colour appears. We may believe that only the picture is a pa~n~natti and that the real grapes are not a pa~n~natti. However, in reality the picture as well as the real grapes that appear are objects which are pa~n~natti experienced by mind-door process cittas. The cittas of the eye-door process experience only colour which appears. The cittas of the mind-door process that experience a concept know the meaning of something, they know what something is. They know that there are grapes. Thus, the cittas (moments of consciousness) which know that there are grapes, have a concept, a pa~n~natti, as object, not a paramattha dhamma. When we see somebody, we should know that this is in reality the same as seeing a picture, thus, we know in both cases a concept. It is difficult to separate concepts from realities, for example, when we notice that there is a chair. The object which is the paramattha dhamma appearing through the eyes and the object which is the paramattha dhamma appearing through the bodysense are not pa~n~nattis. ****** Nina. #92374 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- On Sat, 25/10/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > my sympathy with the loss of Albany. I remember your post > about her > before. She must have been remarkable. .... S: That was kind of you. Yesterday Jon rang her sister (also in her 90s) and learnt the details. It was the morning of Albany's 97th birthday. She had a chat with a family member and had been very cheerful, nothing amiss at all. Soon after, it seems, she had a massive stroke, not even time to press the alarm she wore round her neck. She never regained consciousness and died a couple of days later. Anything can happen at any time....just like going to sleep as KS reminds us. ... > I appreciated your reflections about losing everything. > While > reflecting on this, I noticed that I was thinking of myself > losing > everything, and realised that this was not right. As you > quoted, > <"Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on > how wisely there is > consideration about reality, not just about the > word."> ... S: Yes, thought of 'me' come in all the time, even whilst reflecting on the Dhamma, don't they? .... > > N. This reminded me about a Survey quote I gave some time > ago: > > 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”. > ... S: Yes, I like this quote too. "Paramattha dhammas are the same for all people". Just moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. No beings or people - just various namas and rupas arising and falling away. We think about possessions, about our house, our family and so on, but it's only thinking. As you say, birth and death of citta at every moment. Metta, Sarah ======== #92375 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, We were discussing assitance to friends in difficulties.... --- On Tue, 4/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: >Howard: Strong but kindly delivered and useful comments, some even evaluating choices made and actions taken, can be very helpful. These don't constitute being judgmental. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- S: Yes, I think it comes back to the cittas at such times, as now. .... ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- >Howard: So rough! Yes, such circumstances can arise when least expected, sometime s due to poor judgement, sometimes to unseen kamma, sometimes mainly to actions of others and to events largely beyond our control. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ S: As usual, all the different ingredients in the 'hot-pot' which condition the 'flavour' to be just as it is. By conditions, the realities arising now can't be anything different than how they are. We think of a rough situation, and conventionally speaking, this is a very rough one, but still just experiences through 6 door-ways, attended to wisely or unwisely. ... ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- >Howard: Well done, Sarah! IMO, mostly excellent. Of course, as I view the matter, the no-control and no-choice parts are overblown. Much of what comes to us is due to our kamma, our intentions, our actions ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- S: Yes, much 'that comes to us', actually all vipaka is due to past kamma - by this is not by any control. The moments of seeing and hearing now cannot be changed into anything else. Similarly if there are conditions to think or intend one way rather than another, this is also by conditions, by accumulations. Apart from nibbana, all dhammas are conditioned and there is no self that plays a role. Interestingly, in my chat with Nelson, of all the dhamma-related points that I touched on, this one about 'conditions' and acceptance of what has been conditioned now was (if only on a rather superficial level), the one that he took most interest in and found easiest to agree with. Yes, I know we still have some difference of opinion here, but I've really appreciated your sympathetic comments and advice in this thread. Metta, sarah ========= #92376 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, TG & all, --- On Sun, 5/10/08, Phil wrote: > TG: If we have a crooked arrow, and shoot it into the air, the results will be erratic and unwanted. If we straighten that arrow and shoot it into the air, the resulting action will be straight and flawless. > > This is supposed to support what you said above. >Ph: I think it does. We have to straighten the arrow. This reminds me of an anecdote I heard in one of the Burmese sayadaws talks. It was about the verse in Dhammapada about the farmer straighening the irrigation channel (something like that.) <....>Very inspirational, if someone could post it. .... S: I'm happy to post it (belatedly): Verse 80, translated by Daw Mya Tin: "VI (5)The Story of Samanera Pandita While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (80) of this book, with reference to Samanera Pandita. Pandita was a young son of a rich man of Savatthi. He became a samanera at the age of seven. On the eighth day after becoming a samanera, as he was following Thera Sariputta on an alms-round, he saw some farmers channeling water into their fields and asked the thera, "Can water which has no consciousness be guided to wherever one wishes ?" The thera replied, "Yes, it can be guided to wherever one wishes." As they continued on their way, the samanera next saw some fletchers heating their arrows with fire and straightening them. Further on, he came across some carpenters cutting, sawing and planing timber to make it into things like cart-wheels. Then he pondered, "If water which is without consciousness can be guided to wherever one desires, if a crooked bamboo which is without consciousness can be straightened, and if timber which is without consciousness can be made into useful things, why should I, having consciousness, be unable to tame my mind and practise Tranquillity and Insight Meditation?" Then and there he asked permission from the thera and returned to his own room in the monastery. There he ardently and diligently practised meditation, contemplating the body. Sakka and the devas also helped him in his meditation by keeping the monastery and its precincts very quiet and still. Before Meal time Samanera Pandita attained Anagami Fruition. At that time Thera Sariputta was bringing food to the samanera. The Buddha saw with his supernormal power that Samanera Pandita had attained Anagami Fruition and also that if he continued to practise meditation he would soon attain arahatship. So the Buddha decided to stop Sariputta from entering the room, where the samanera was. The Buddha went to the door and kept Sariputta engaged by putting some questions to him. While the conversation was taking place, the samanera attained arahatship. Thus, the samanera attained arahatship on the eighth day after becoming a novice. In this connection, the Buddha said to the bhikkhus of the monastery, "When one is earnestly practising the Dhamma, even Sakka and the devas give protection and keep guard; I myself have kept Thera Sariputta engaged at the door so that Samanera Pandita should not be disturbed. The samanera, having seen the farmers irrigating their fields, the fletchers straightening their arrows, and carpenters making cart-wheels and other things, tames his mind and practises the dhamma; he has now become an arahat." The Buddha then spoke in verse as follows: Verse 80. Farmers (lit., makers of irrigation canals ) channel the water; fletchers straighten the arrow; carpenters work the timber; the Wise tame themselves. " ***** Metta, Sarah ======= #92377 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Mon, 13/10/08, Alex wrote: >>S: What are the objects of jhana cittas, Alex? Are they concepts or >realities? For example, the nimitta 'earth kasina' - is it a nama, a >rupa or a pa~n~natti? ... A:>Concepts vs "ultimate realities" became a popular topic later on. >In suttas such as MN111 there is a description of what is seen in 1st Jhana -> "directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention" >vitakko vicaro piti sukha cittekaggata phasso vedana sanna cetana cittam chando adhimokkho viriyam sati upekkha manasikaro .... S: No, Alex, these are known by the subsequent reviewing consciousnessess. At the moment of jhana cittas, the object are the objects of samatha, such as the 'earth kasina', death, breath and so on. There is only one object of a citta, one object of jhana citta. ... >> A:> For me, insights happened ONLY during meditation, not after. > ... >>S: If you are saying that you believe that in your experience, >there were jhanas A:>Note I've said "meditation" . >>with insights occurring during them, I'd say, clearly there was no >jhana, no insight and no understanding. A:> How do you know? Because it doesn't fit with commentaries? ... S: Because it indicates no understanding of jhana, the development of samatha or of insight. The object of the development of samatha and of jhana is one of the 38 objects of samatha, nearly always a concept. The object of satipatthana or insight is a reality, a nama or rupa. ... A:> "Then when he saw that Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from hindrances, elated, & bright, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye, in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ kn/ud/ud. 5.03.than. html >Note when the insight has happened, during guided meditation. Or immeadetely afterwards but before the purifying effects have ceased. ... S: Suppabuddha, the leper, saw the crowd gathered around the Buddha and approached it, ready to listen to the Dhamma. The Buddha knew that Suppabuddha could appreciate the teachings and gave him a gradual talk (as we've been discussing with Han - on morality, heaven, sense-desires, renunciation and then when ready, the 4 Noble Truths. By the end of it, Suppabuddha was a sotapanna. There is no indication whatsoever in the Udana or its commentary of jhana or samatha development being involved. From the commentary (for others interested): "He was of malleable heart (muducitta.m) due to the disappearance of the defilements [kilesa] of view and conceit and so on, with a heart devoid of the hindrances (viniivara.nacitta.m) through the disappearance of yearning for sense-pleasures and so forth, of uplifted heart (udaggacitta.m) through his link with the loftiest joy and jubilation where right practice is concerned, of devout heart (pasannacitta.m) through the successful attainment of faith therein, 'When the Lord knew (Suppabuddha the leper to be)' being the connection. "Or alternatively, of ready heart (kallacitta.m): with a heart free of ill health due to the disappearance of yearning for sense-pleasures; of malleable heart (muducitta.m): with a heart no (longer) hard, as a result of loving-kindness, due to the disappearance of ill-will; with a heart devoid of the hindrances (viniivara.nacitta.m): with a heart no (longer) closed, on account of an absence of wavering, due to the disappearance of distraction and fretting; of uplifted heart (udaggacitta.m): with a heart active, by way of exertion (sampaggahavasena), due to the disappearance of sloth and torpor; of devout heart (pasannacitta.m): with a heart made up, where right practice is concerned, due to the disappearance of doubt...." > ... >> S: So you are telling me that a) the various khandhas are the >objects of jhana cittas up to the "8th one" and that at moments of >such jhana cittas, the panna arises which understands those dhammas >as anicca, dukkha and anatta? A:> In Aruppa the objects are the corresponding phenomena (infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither perception nor non perception) >I am aware that Base of Infinite space & nothingness is considered to be 'conceptual' while base of infinite consciousness is "ultimate". ... S: Yes, even so, there is no understanding of even this 'ultimate' dhamma as anicca, dukkha or anatta at such a time. This is the understanding that only develops with insight. The objects of all other jhana cittas (other than 2nd and 4th arupa jhana cittas) are concepts. So the various khandhas are not the objects of jhana cittas. ... A:> In Rupa Jhana there can be various objects. But whatever objects are used, sattipatthana does happen WHILE sutta Jhana. ... S: Mundane jhana cittas (like any other conditioned dhammas) can be the object of satipatthana, but there cannot be satipatthana whilst such cittas arise. Metta, Sarah ======== #92378 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 2:12 am Subject: Mindfulness of Death (3) hantun1 Dear James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Lukas, This is the continuation of my attitude towards old age and death. I often reflect on five facts the Buddha taught in AN 5.57 Upajjhatthana Sutta (In Burma it is known as Abhinha sutta). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html The sutta has three parts. In the First Part a person reflects as follows: (1) I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging. Jaraadhammomhi jara.m anatiito (2) I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness. Byaadhidhammomhi byaadhi.m anatiito (3) I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death. Mara.nadhammomhi mara.na.m anatiito (4) I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me. Sabbehi me piyehi manaapehi naanaabhaavo vinaabhaavo (5) I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. Kammassakomhi kammadaayaado kammayoni kammabandhu kammapa.tisara.no, ya.m kamma.m karissaami kalyaa.na.m vaa paapaka.m vaa tassa daayaado bhavissaamii As the above is self-explanatory, I will not elaborate further on these. While reflecting on the fifth factor, a thought occurred to me recently. In Burma more than 100,000 people died in May this year due to a cyclone. Why these people died at the same time? (Well, not exactly at the same time, as the arising and falling away of cuti citta is very, very fast. So, let us say within a short period of time.) What have they done in their past lives so that they died together? According to the Buddha’s Teachings, as shown above, kamma is a personal inheritance. Kamma is individual because it is cetanaa or volitional action of an individual mind. How then do these personal inheritance of more than 100,000 people ripened at the same time? Can this be called a *collective kamma*, as raised by Francis Story in his article Collective Karma? (It is in the book titled Kamma and its Fruit, selected essays edited by Nyanaponika Thera, that includes Questions and Answers about Kamma and its Fruit, by Nina.) Is it due to the fact that they might have committed volitional actions at different times and at different places that are practically identical, but that individual kammas ripened at about the same time? But whatever the past conditions might be, they must still remain personal kammas. For example, a child who died was born in that locality because of his/her past unwholesome kamma, and not due to the kamma of the parents who also died together. The subject of kamma is very wide and difficult. I wonder if the readers may have some explanation as to why over 100,000 people died at about the same time? ==================== Second Part of the Sutta. In the second part of the sutta, the Buddha raised the question: on what line of reasoning should one reflect as above? "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] youth's intoxication with youth. Because of that intoxication with youth, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that youth's intoxication with youth will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...” [To repeat for other reflections. Please see the sutta.] ==================== Third Part of the Sutta. In the third part of the sutta, the Buddha taught another consideration that would eventually lead to magga ~naana. "Now, a disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one subject to aging, who has not gone beyond aging. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' When he/she often reflects on this, the factors of the path take birth [maggo sa~njaayati]. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed.” [Pali word inserted by me.] Han: Here, I have some difficulty. To reflect that I am not the only one subject to aging, there are also other beings who are subject to aging, seems to me as an anti-climax. It is like saying in a financial crisis, I am not the only person who is affected by economic down-turn, but other people also suffer the same fate. It might bring some comfort, but to think of such reflection leading to magga ~naana [maggo sa~njaayati] is a bit difficult to appreciate. But on the other hand, the Buddha never said anything which is not true. So, it must be my shortcoming that I could not grasp what the Buddha meant. One Burmese Sayadaw briefly explained that by just reflecting that I must get old, I am not the only one to get old, there are also other persons who get old, etc. will not lead to magga ~naana. One must reflect on the realities associated with aging. What is aging? Aging is the change (vipari.naama) of the four essentials of form (mahaa bhuuta ruupas) due to burning up with the heat element (jiira.n tejo). And when the mahaa bhuutas undergo changes, the derivatives (upaadaaya ruupas) also change. Only when one reflects on the vipari.naama changes of the ruupas, one will lead to loki pa~nca”ngika magga (sammaa ditthi, sammaa sankappa, sammaa vaayaama, sammaa sati, sammaa samaadhi). These are also vipassanaa ~naanas. When the person reflects more on vipassanaa ~naanas then only one can lead to lokuttaraa magga ~naana. This is the gist of what the Sayadaw said. I must admit that I may not be very precise in narrating the Sayadaw’s explanation. I wonder whether the readers have a better explanation as to what the Buddha meant in the Third Part of the sutta? Respectfully, Han #92380 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 2:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt Hi, just one more consideration on the subject, short but dense :-) The Dhamma 'translates' the dhammas into pannati/concepts, the only language that we, as selves, find meaningful and can understand, and what stands in the way back to the source of the Dhamma, the dhammas, is the self and its concepts. Alberto #92381 From: "Leo" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 2:05 am Subject: STATUE WITH BELLS leoaive Hi I have seen that Buddha was talking about man with bells. I think it is a good idea to make a chain and attach bells to it, and then place all on buddha statues. Men is like a calf after cow. Sometimes is like a bull. I think it is a good one. Maybe face is ok to make with signs or unnatural too. Or maybe some spots ok too. With metta Leo #92382 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 5:26 am Subject: Re: Buddha recomended Jhana MN107 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding MN 107, Ga.nakamoggallaanasutta.m A: "...It is simply impossible for the above to mean anything BUT development." Yes, I agree that the sutta does refer to development. It is not, however, when one reads the whole text, simply a global instruction for everyone to do jhaana. When the Buddha explains to Ga.naka Moggalaana the accountant the 'gradual training, gradual practice, and gradual progress' (anupubbasikkhaa anupubbakiriyaa anupubbapa.tipadaa), he seems to be discussing this in relation to the monk. He places the development of samaadhi - of concentration - after other the development elements has obtained. The whole context of the sutta ought to be understood to refer to the special circumstance of the monk. These terms, in the Paa.li (PTS PED), consist of: "A.nu (adj.) small, minute, atomic, subtle..." "Pubba2 (adj.) previous, former, before..." "Sikkhaa (f.)...1. study, training, discipline..." "Kiriya, Kiriyaa & Kriyaa [abstr. fr. karoti] 1. (n.)...action, performance, deed; the doing=fulfilment..." "Pa.tipadaa (f.) [fr. pa.ti+pad] means of reaching a goal or destination, path, way, means, method, mode of progress..." The sense of the compounds seems to be that the conditions for the development of concentration to the level of jhaana must be in place *before* such development can obtain. There is the sense of development proceeding along a course suggesting a building upon a certain necessary foundation. The development describes how one thing is built upon previous developments: 'the minute and subtle previous study', or 'the minute and subtle previous fulfillment of action', or 'the minute and subtle previous mode of progress'. And while this doesn't mean a literal cookbook or step-wise approach, because sati and pa~n~naa must be adequately developed in order to distinguish the presence of the necessary elements of which each 'level' consists, a definite order of development is clearly meant. For example, the development of dhammas for one who has conditions to be 'one who can be tamed' (purisadamma.m) - for one capable of going forth - is described in the sutta. The very first aspect of development is that one 'be restrained by the restraint of the Paatimokkha' and 'be perfect in conduct and resort, and seeing the fear in the slightest fault,' (ehi tva.m, bhikkhu, siilavaa hohi, paatimokkhasa.mvarasa.mvuto viharaahi aacaaragocarasampanno a.numattesu vajjesu bhayadassaavii, samaadaaya sikkhassu sikkhaapadesuu). A certain level of development in relation to 'guarding of the sense doors', to 'reflecting wisely', to 'moderation in eating', to 'mindfulness and full awareness' seems to be a prerequisite condition to support the development of samaadhi, at least according to the sutta and in relation to those of whom the Buddha is speaking. How can anyone think of blindly chasing after jhaana when these initial conditions cannot possibly be in place? I don't ever read anyone on this list to suggest that jhaana is not real, or is impossible to be developed, but I do read in the view you present an ongoing tendency to minimize the difficulty with which such a subtle and complex consciousness obtains. I read you to be unclear as to the nature of jhaana, its constituents, and, in particular, its prerequisites. In particular, the lack of understanding I read in your conceptualisation of the development of jhaana has a serious flaw: I don't think you appreciate the role of satipa.t.thaana must play in all development. Dhammas need to be known for what they are and this is the function of satipa.t.thaana *over the course of any development*. Given the level of theoretical misunderstanding the view you present entails, I'd suggest that this view can never be condition for the development of jhaana. This view can lead to an unwise seeking after states of feeling and imagination easily clung to and misunderstood as jhaana. Sincerely, Scott. #92383 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Phil & TG) - In a message dated 11/5/2008 3:54:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Phil, TG & all, --- On Sun, 5/10/08, Phil wrote: > TG: If we have a crooked arrow, and shoot it into the air, the results will be erratic and unwanted. If we straighten that arrow and shoot it into the air, the resulting action will be straight and flawless. > > This is supposed to support what you said above. >Ph: I think it does. We have to straighten the arrow. This reminds me of an anecdote I heard in one of the Burmese sayadaws talks. It was about the verse in Dhammapada about the farmer straighening the irrigation channel (something like that.) <....>Very inspirational, if someone could post it. .... S: I'm happy to post it (belatedly): Verse 80, translated by Daw Mya Tin: "VI (5)The Story of Samanera Pandita While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (80) of this book, with reference to Samanera Pandita. Pandita was a young son of a rich man of Savatthi. He became a samanera at the age of seven. On the eighth day after becoming a samanera, as he was following Thera Sariputta on an alms-round, he saw some farmers channeling water into their fields and asked the thera, "Can water which has no consciousness be guided to wherever one wishes ?" The thera replied, "Yes, it can be guided to wherever one wishes." As they continued on their way, the samanera next saw some fletchers heating their arrows with fire and straightening them. Further on, he came across some carpenters cutting, sawing and planing timber to make it into things like cart-wheels. Then he pondered, "If water which is without consciousness can be guided to wherever one desires, if a crooked bamboo which is without consciousness can be straightened, and if timber which is without consciousness can be made into useful things, why should I, having consciousness, be unable to tame my mind and practise Tranquillity and Insight Meditation?" Then and there he asked permission from the thera and returned to his own room in the monastery. There he ardently and diligently practised meditation, contemplating the body. Sakka and the devas also helped him in his meditation by keeping the monastery and its precincts very quiet and still. Before Meal time Samanera Pandita attained Anagami Fruition. At that time Thera Sariputta was bringing food to the samanera. The Buddha saw with his supernormal power that Samanera Pandita had attained Anagami Fruition and also that if he continued to practise meditation he would soon attain arahatship. So the Buddha decided to stop Sariputta from entering the room, where the samanera was. The Buddha went to the door and kept Sariputta engaged by putting some questions to him. While the conversation was taking place, the samanera attained arahatship. Thus, the samanera attained arahatship on the eighth day after becoming a novice. In this connection, the Buddha said to the bhikkhus of the monastery, "When one is earnestly practising the Dhamma, even Sakka and the devas give protection and keep guard; I myself have kept Thera Sariputta engaged at the door so that Samanera Pandita should not be disturbed. The samanera, having seen the farmers irrigating their fields, the fletchers straightening their arrows, and carpenters making cart-wheels and other things, tames his mind and practises the dhamma; he has now become an arahat." The Buddha then spoke in verse as follows: Verse 80. Farmers (lit., makers of irrigation canals ) channel the water; fletchers straighten the arrow; carpenters work the timber; the Wise tame themselves. " ***** Metta, Sarah =================================== Sarah, I appreciate your posting this. I suspect that much of what I see in this story - of intentional action & self-training (by a boy, no less!), of the efficacy of kayagata-sati, and of purposefully setting up of auspicious conditions, including maintaining quiet & non-interruption by devas and even by the Buddha while the child was at a critical stage of meditating, emphasizing the need for special, guarded circumstances supporting meditation (and not just at "anytime") is interpreted by you in some fashion different from me. And I'm also sure you knew how I and others would interpret this material -and so, I applaud you for presenting this nonetheless (without comment of your own, in fact)! With metta, Howard #92384 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 6:30 am Subject: Re: Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' szmicio Dear Sarah >S: It was the morning of Albany's 97th birthday. She had a chat with >a family member and had been very cheerful, nothing amiss at all. >Soon after, it seems, she had a massive stroke, not even time to >press the alarm she wore round her neck. She never regained >consciousness and died a couple of days later. ----------------------------------------- L: All is according to Dhamma, but I usually think about that is my body which dies. How can you deal with it? No personality at all, but what about thinking about blood and such staff. Always when I think about dying I have languor. Recently I wake up in the middle of night with strong pain in my body. I thought about my liver. ----------------------------------------- > > N. This reminded me about a Survey quote I gave some time > > ago: > > > > 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”. > > ... > S: Yes, I like this quote too. "Paramattha dhammas are the same for all people". Just moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. No beings or people - just various namas and rupas arising and falling away. -------------------------------- L: Today I stoped for a moment and noticed that not is real, just thinking. But there is no understanding nama as nama, rupa as rupa. > We think about possessions, about our house, our family and so on, but it's only thinking. As you say, birth and death of citta at every moment. L: But why we are so involved in those dream?? Even when we know there is something wrong with it, we still cling to it. > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > #92385 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 9:14 am Subject: Re: Buddha recomended Jhana MN107 truth_aerator Dear Scott, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding MN 107, Ga.nakamoggallaanasutta.m > > A: "...It is simply impossible for the above to mean anything BUT > development." > > Yes, I agree that the sutta does refer to development. It is not, > however, when one reads the whole text, simply a global instruction > for everyone to do jhaana. When the Buddha explains to Ga.naka > Moggalaana the accountant the 'gradual training, gradual practice, >and > gradual progress' (anupubbasikkhaa anupubbakiriyaa > anupubbapa.tipadaa), he seems to be discussing this in relation to >the > monk. He places the development of samaadhi - of concentration - > after other the development elements has obtained. Of course Jhana requires quite a bit of prior development. Most people can't just decide to do Jhana and then BOOM enter one. Typical steps 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 =12 MN#4, 27,36,39,51,60,65,76,77,79,101,112,119,125 Of course 4 Jhanas are 1 out of 9 steps. But the fact is, as Upanisa Sutta states is that Samadhi IS proximate condition to "seeing as things have become". The whole context > of the sutta ought to be understood to refer to the special > circumstance of the monk. > > > The sense of the compounds seems to be that the conditions for the > development of concentration to the level of jhaana must be in place > *before* such development can obtain. Of course these conditions are: 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges > I don't ever read anyone on this list to suggest that jhaana is not > real, or is impossible to be developed, GOOD then! :) > but I do read in the view you present an ongoing tendency to >minimize the difficulty with which such a subtle and complex >consciousness obtains. Did I anywhere state that Jhana was EASY, especially if one wants to master it? While Jhana can be easy for those, rare ones, who have the right conditions, for most peope it isn't. Even for those who Jhana is easy may have worked really hard at earning merit and such in previous times, so it wasn't easy for them at some time. > I read you to be unclear as to the nature of jhaana, its >constituents, and, in particular, its > prerequisites. In particular, the lack of understanding I read in > your conceptualisation of the development of jhaana has a serious > flaw: Scott, what is the last meditation retreat you have sat at? How many retreats have you done? Do you have DAILY practice? Furthermore: How many suttas have you read? Have you read 4 Nikayas? Have you done your OWN analysis of what Jhana is/isn't? >I don't think you appreciate the role of satipa.t.thaana must > play in all development. Dhammas need to be known for what they are > and this is the function of satipa.t.thaana *over the course of any > development*. I don't think that you've read some of my posts carefully enough. I stress VERY MUCH satipatthana in order to ENTER Jhana and using Jhanic power FOR satipatthana. Best wishes, #92386 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death (3) nilovg Dear Han, Thank you for your post. I also find these reflections very important. Op 5-nov-2008, om 11:12 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Can this be called a *collective kamma*, as raised by Francis Story > in his article Collective Karma? ------ N: As you suggest, no. that is not true. Kamma is the domain of the Buddhas, we cannot understand all. The Co to the Vibhanga, Ch 16, classification of knowledge begins with the Knoweldge of the Tathaagataa, about kamma. There are other factors which make it favorable or unfavorable for kusala kamma or for akusala kamma to produce vipaaka: the place where one is born, gati, the time one lives, kala, the bodily condition, upadhi, and success or failure in one's occupation, payoga. As to kala, one may live in an unfavorable time when there is war, unrest, hunger. Then akusala kamma has more opportunity to produce akusala vipaaka, and one's lifespan may be ended by violence. So many factors play their part. ---------- H: "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging'? ------- N: We may think and think and think, but will this change our attitude? Why is there old age and death? We are in the cycle of birth and death and old age and death must follow upon birth, it cannot be otherwise. It is niyama, fixed, like a law. But how to be liberated? Only one way: satipatthana, the eightfold Path, and this means: no delay in developing understanding of what appears now, even if it is reflecting on what we are reading now. It is conditioned, there could not be any such reflection if we had not heard the teachings or read the Tipitaka. --------- Han: Here, I have some difficulty. To reflect that I am not the only one subject to aging, there are also other beings who are subject to aging, seems to me as an anti-climax. ------ N: No, very true, if we think of the cycle of birth and death. We cannot fathom when there was a first moment of ignorance, and this conditions the cycle to continue. All beings all around us are in this cycle, otherwise they would not be here. But there is a way out, and we also have the duty to help others to find this way out as best as we can. The Sayadaw was right, to develop understanding of bodily phenomena , but also of mental phenomena. To develop understanding so that stages of insight will arise (we do not know in which life) and eventually enlightenment. Thus, this sutta you quoted can instill a sense of urgency to develop more understanding, and this is always of what appears now. ***** Nina. #92387 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:46 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: Threes (19 - 23) and Commentary, part 3. nilovg Dear friends, sutta: Three forms [of conceit], to wit(1),'I am better than...,' (2) 'I am equal to ...,' (3) 'I am worse than...' Tisso vidhaa - seyyohamasmiiti vidhaa, sadisohamasmiiti vidhaa, hiinohamasmiiti vidhaa. -------- The Co elaborates on the word vidhaa, which is another term for conceit in this context. The “Dispeller of Delusion” (p. Ch 17, p. 254) is similar to the Co to the Sangiitisutta with regard to this whole passage. It gives word associations and states that vidhaa stands for aspect, shape, pride: < For because of modifying (vidahana) according to superiority, etc. , it is called “mode” (vidhaa). Or vidhaa is in the sense of placing.Thereforefore it is mode of pride, the placing of pride, that arises thus: ‘I am superior’...> ---- N: There is conceit when one thinks oneself important. Because of conceit one may think oneself better than others, equal to others or less than others. The three ways of comparing oneself with others may occur in someone who is actually superior, in someone who is actually equal and in someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect there are nine kinds of conceit (Book of Analysis 962 and Atthasalini II, Book II, Part Il. Summary, Chapter II, 372.). The Co refers to conceit classified as threefold and as ninefold. The Co gives examples in the case of kings, bhikkhus, ministers and slaves or servants. We read in the “Dispeller of Delusion” (p. p. 243,244) which has a similar wording: (about the pride of one who is superior who says:’I am superior, seyyassa seyyo ‘ham asmii ti maano) : As to the pride of one who is superior and says ‘I am equal’, seyyassa sadiso ‘ham asmii ti maano, we read: As to the pride of one who is superior and says: ‘I am inferior’, seyyassa hiino ‘ham asmii ti maano, we read:< For the king whose kingdom... is not successful feels pride thus: ‘I have only the mere pleasure of the name of king; what kind of king am I?’ > The same is said about a monk who has little gain and honour and asks himself: ‘What kind of a preacher of the Dhamma am I?’ As to ministers, they may have the pride of one who is equal and says, I am superior or who says I am equal or I am inferior, in a way similar as given in the examples of conceit of a king. As to a slave, we read about the pride of one who is inferior and says I am superior, or equal or inferior. --------------- N: No matter whether one is a king, a monk, a minister or a servant, conceit can arise on account of any object. We may not notice how often a moment of conceit arises on account of our possessions, the house we live in, our furniture, honour, praise, knowledge, the development of understanding of nama and rupa. Only when sati and direct understanding arise it can be known precisely when conceit arises. It cannot be eradicated if it is not known thoroughly. Only the arahat has eradicated conceit completely. ----- co: Raajaa hi ra.t.thena vaa dhanavaahanehi vaa ‘‘ko mayaa sadiso atthii’’ti eta.m maana.m karoti . Pabbajitopi siiladhuta"ngaadiihi ‘‘ko mayaa sadiso atthii’’ti eta.m maana.m karoti. ‘‘Seyyassa sadisohamasmii’’ti maanopi etesa.myeva uppajjati. Raajaa hi ra.t.thena vaa dhanavaahanehi vaa a~n~naraajuuhi saddhi.m mayha.m ki.m naanaakara.nanti eta.m maana.m karoti. .... ****** Nina. #92388 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 3:08 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (3) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your very useful comments. > > Han: Can this be called a *collective kamma*, as raised by Francis Story in his article Collective Karma? > Nina: As you suggest, no. that is not true. Kamma is the domain of the Buddhas, we cannot understand all. The Co to the Vibhanga, Ch 16, classification of knowledge begins with the Knoweldge of the Tathaagataa, about kamma. There are other factors which make it favorable or unfavorable for kusala kamma or for akusala kamma to produce vipaaka: the place where one is born, gati, the time one lives, kala, the bodily condition, upadhi, and success or failure in one's occupation, payoga. As to kala, one may live in an unfavorable time when there is war, unrest, hunger. Then akusala kamma has more opportunity to produce akusala vipaaka, and one's lifespan may be ended by violence. So many factors play their part. Han: I learn a lot from your above comment. I am learning for the first time about gati, kaala, upadhi, and payoga. I think the example, you gave above about kaala, is applicable for gati as well. A person may be born (gati) in a country where there will be war, unrest and hunger. ==================== > > Han: "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] youth's intoxication with youth. Because of that intoxication with youth, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that youth's intoxication with youth will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...” [I put here the full quote from the sutta.] > Nina: We may think and think and think, but will this change our attitude? Why is there old age and death? We are in the cycle of birth and death and old age and death must follow upon birth, it cannot be otherwise. It is niyama, fixed, like a law. But how to be liberated? Only one way: satipatthana, the eightfold Path, and this means: no delay in developing understanding of what appears now, even if it is reflecting on what we are reading now. It is conditioned, there could not be any such reflection if we had not heard the teachings or read the Tipitaka. Han: I have a slight disagreement with the first part of your above comment. Here, the Buddha did not ask us to *think* and *think* aimlessly. He asked us to reflect the First Part of the sutta to have the results shown in the Second Part of the sutta. (i) Reflecting on aging as I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging, can either entirely abandon or make it weaker the intoxication with youth (yobbana mada). (ii) Reflecting on illness as I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness, can either entirely abandon or make it weaker the intoxication with health (aarogya mada). (iii) Reflecting on death as I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death can either entirely abandon or make it weaker the intoxication with life (jiivita mada). And so on, as mentioned in the sutta. Of course, the value of satipatthaana as mentioned in your comment is very true. ==================== > > Han: Here, I have some difficulty. To reflect that I am not the only one subject to aging, there are also other beings who are subject to aging, seems to me as an anti-climax. > Nina: No, very true, if we think of the cycle of birth and death. We cannot fathom when there was a first moment of ignorance, and this conditions the cycle to continue. All beings all around us are in this cycle, otherwise they would not be here. But there is a way out, and we also have the duty to help others to find this way out as best as we can. The Sayadaw was right, to develop understanding of bodily phenomena, but also of mental phenomena. To develop understanding so that stages of insight will arise (we do not know in which life) and eventually enlightenment. Thus, this sutta you quoted can instill a sense of urgency to develop more understanding, and this is always of what appears now. Han: Very true. When we reflect we are not the only one to be subjected to this and that, others are also subjected to this and that, we may realize the duty to help others, as mentioned by you. But also, I think by reflecting in this way, we are reflecting the universal truth and vipaaka niyaama applicable to all beings and from which no one can get away. This realization of universal truth and vipaaka niyaama can then be combined with the development of understanding as mentioned by you. Respectfully, Han #92389 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Buddha recomended Jhana MN107 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply. Regarding: A: "...I stress VERY MUCH satipatthana in order to ENTER Jhana and using Jhanic power FOR satipatthana." Scott: How do you define satipa.t.thaana? Given that, how does satipa.t.thaana allow an 'entry into jhaana'? How do you define 'jhaanic power'? Given that, how does 'jhaanic power' facilitate satipa.t.thaana? Sincerely, Scott. #92390 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Buddha recomended Jhana MN107 truth_aerator Dear Scott, >- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply. Regarding: > > A: "...I stress VERY MUCH satipatthana in order to ENTER Jhana and > using Jhanic power FOR satipatthana." > > Scott: How do you define satipa.t.thaana? See MN118 for example. It shows anapanasati developing 4 satipatthanas and all that. >Given that, how does satipa.t.thaana allow an 'entry into jhaana'? Sattipatthana help one to lose the personal narrative, drop all idea of full control or an agent, remove unwholesome qualities based on what I've said before and enter Jhana. >How do you define 'jhaanic power'? I meant superpower mindfulness pregnant with lots of insights. > Given that, how does 'jhaanic power' facilitate > satipa.t.thaana? It is an excellent way to train the mind to be receptive to the truths present in every moment and keep it focused on the ultimate. Satipatthana. With Jhana insights can pop like popcorn. If it ain't Jhana, it ain't Buddhist meditation. If it ain't meditation, it ain't Buddhism. Buddha has taught meditation, this is what distinguishes it from lets say Jnana Yoga who taught "discrimination of realities" and such philosophical stuff. > Sincerely, I hope so. > > Scott. Best wishes, #92391 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 6:00 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,311 312 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 311. (b) The defining of the individual characteristic of ignorance, etc., is called the 'method of diversity'. One who sees this rightly abandons the eternity view by seeing the arising of each new state. And one who sees it wrongly clings to the annihilation view by apprehending individual diversity in the events in a single continuity as though it were a broken continuity. 312. (c) The absence of interestedness on the part of ignorance, such as 'Formations must be made to occur by me', or on the part of formations, such as 'Consciousness must be made to occur by us', and so on, is called the 'method of uninterestedness'. One who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral-inefficacy-of-action view, because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance, etc., is established as a law by their respective individual essences. **************************** 311. avijjaadiina.m pana yathaasaka.mlakkha.navavatthaana.m naanattanayo naama. ya.m sammaa passanto navanavaana.m uppaadadassanato sassatadi.t.thi.m pajahati. micchaa passanto ekasantaanapatitassa bhinnasantaanasseva naanattaggaha.nato ucchedadi.t.thi.m upaadiyati. 312. avijjaaya sa"nkhaaraa mayaa uppaadetabbaa, sa"nkhaaraana.m vaa vi~n~naa.na.m amhehiiti evamaadibyaapaaraabhaavo abyaapaaranayo naama. ya.m sammaa passanto kaarakassa abhaavaavabodhato attadi.t.thi.m pajahati. micchaa passanto yo asatipi byaapaare avijjaadiina.m sabhaavaniyamasiddho hetubhaavo, tassa aggaha.nato akiriyadi.t.thi.m upaadiyati. #92392 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 7:17 pm Subject: Re: Buddha recomended Jhana MN107 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "Sattipatthana help one to lose the personal narrative, drop all idea of full control or an agent, remove unwholesome qualities based on what I've said before and enter Jhana." Scott: I'm sorry, Alex, but this is senseless. What, in your view *is* satipa.t.thaana? A: "I meant superpower mindfulness pregnant with lots of insights." Scott: This too, is bordering on massively incomprehensible. What are you referring to? 'Jhaanic power' is 'superpower mindfulness pregnant with lots of insights'? I honestly don't think you know what you are talking about. This doesn't conform to anything I've read about jhaana. A: "It is an excellent way to train the mind to be receptive to the truths present in every moment and keep it focused on the ultimate. Satipatthana. With Jhana insights can pop like popcorn." Scott: No, sorry, this isn't going anywhere. I am convinced that the view you represent is not intact at all. I'm sorry I asked for clarification. Sincerely, Scott. #92393 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 8:06 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death (3) szmicio Dear Han, This Sutta you gave is wonderfull reminder. But it's still not sufficient for me. I usually take pleasure from outside word, and forget about dead and illness. Forget about Dhamma. Please continue your series. Best wishes Lukas P.s How is your health now? #92394 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 7:57 pm Subject: Dropping the Anger... bhikkhu0 Friends: The Only Clever Killing: Sakka - the king of the 33 divinities - once spoke these verses to the Blessed Buddha : Having slain what, does one sleep in ease? Having slain what, does one never sorrow? What is the one thing 0ohh Gotama Whose killing you approve? The Blessed One: Having slain Anger, one sleeps in calm ease; Having slain Anger, one does not sorrow The killing of Anger, 0ohh Vasava With its poisoned root and honeyed tip: This is the killing, the Noble Ones approve. For having slain that, one does not grieve. Sakka continued: I am not one easily upset in mind. Nor easily agitated by Anger's whirl. I never become angry for long Nor does Anger hang on in me. When angry, I do not despise. Nor do I praise own qualities. I keep myself well controlled. Protecting my own future good. Therefore: Bring Anger under control; Do not let your friendships waste away. Do not blame the one who is blameless; Do not speak splitting or divisive speech. Their own Anger crushes enraged people. Like the roaring mountain avalanche. Do not let Anger overpower you; Do not become angry with the angry. Noble Ones always remain harmless. Their own Hate crushes angry people. Like a devastating mountain avalanche. FUEL ON FIRE ? Not by anger is Hate ever quenched. Only by Kind Friendliness is Hate always quenched. This Ancient Law is an Eternal ... Truth ... Dhammapada Illustration 5 Background Story 5 Source: The Grouped sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya I 237-40 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Dropping the Anger... #92395 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mindfulness of Death (3) hantun1 Dear Lukas, Thank you very much for your feed-back. Yes, I will continue my series. My health is the same, not better and not worse. With best regards, Han #92396 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:52 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 6, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, In the Wellawatte Temple of Colombo where we had Dhamma discussions a train passed every so often and since the noise was loud we had to stop talking for a while. We all may have thought of a concept of “train” at such moments, and we must have thought of it in different ways. Some of us perhaps thought of it with gladness because it meant a little pause in a long discussion and an opportunity to reflect. Others may have had aversion because of the noise. The moments when one is absorbed in concepts there is no sati. When sati arises it can be aware of different realities appearing through different doorways, one at a time. This is the way to learn that there are only nĺmas and rúpas appearing, no people who are sitting in a room, no train. It has all been explained in the above-quoted sutta: there is sound, there is hearing, there are different feelings conditioned by different contacts, and there is craving conditioned by feeling. None of these realities is self or belongs to a self. No person hears, hearing hears. Hearing hears sound, it does not hear a train. A train is only a concept we can think of, and the thinking does not occur at the same time as hearing. The thinking of the concept “train” is conditioned by accumulations of former experiences. We cannot help it that we think in such or such a way, thinking is “beyond control”, and “beyond control” is another word for anattĺ. ******* Nina. #92397 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one will really understand when the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept and through which door citta knows a concept. When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, there are no beings, people or things, there is no self. At this moment realities arise and fall away and succeed one another so rapidly that it seems that we see a thing, such as a fan. The fan rotates, and it seems that we can see rupas (matter) moving. In reality there are many series of mind-door process cittas which have a pa~n~natti (concept) as object and thus the characteristics of the paramattha dhammas are hidden. One does not know the characteristics of the paramattha dhammas as they really are. Question: If this is so, how can we do away with concepts? S.: That is not possible. However, one should understand correctly that, when one knows that there are beings, people, or things, there are at such moments mind-door process cittas which have a concept as object. _________ Nina. #92398 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 5-nov-2008, om 11:41 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > The Dhamma 'translates' the dhammas into pannati/concepts, the only > language that we, as selves, find meaningful and can understand, > and what stands in the way back to the source of the Dhamma, the > dhammas, is the self and its concepts. -------- N: You are right. If we do not cling to self we are not led astray by concepts or conventional language expressing realities. And that is why we cannot understand the Suttas properly without the Abhidhamma as you suggested in another post. With the Abhidhamma, in applying it, we can understand the Buddha's message contained in the suttas.We can profit to the full from the suttas. Interesting you use dhamma and dhammas here. This reminds me of something I heard this morning, listening to a Thai recording: --------- Nina. #92399 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 6, 2008 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 5-nov-2008, om 15:30 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: But why we are so involved in those dream?? > Even when we know there is something wrong with it, we still cling to > it. ------- N: We all do, it is conditioned. It is of no use to ask: what should one do to remedy the situation. The arahat does not dream anymore. I heard this morning in a recording that people ask all the time: what should they 'do' to have less akusala. I render this talk: ---------- Nina.