#92600 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:16 pm Subject: The Supreme Awakening: SammaSamBodhi! bhikkhu0 The Event of Awakening: At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela . When adult, she prayed before a certain Banyan tree, that she might get a husband equal to herself in caste and that her firstborn may be a son. Her prayer was successful, since so indeed did it happen. At the full moon day of the Vesak month, she rose at early dawn & milked the cows. As soon as new buckets were placed under the cows, their milk poured forth in streams spontaneously all by itself. Seeing this miracle, she knew something special was going on. Sujata offering the Bodhisatta her milk rice. Now at that very night the Future Buddha had 5 specific dreams, that made him conclude: Certainly, without doubt, today is the very day, I will reach Enlightenment! His 5 colored radiance illuminated the whole tree. Then Sujata came & offered the cooked milk rice in the hands of the Great Being. After that a grass-cutter came going with a bundle of grass just harvested from nearby. He offered the Great Being 8 handfuls of Kusa grass, when he saw that this Sage was a Holy Man. The Future Buddha accepted the grass and proceeded to the foot of the great Bodhi-Tree . Reaching the imperturbable Eastern side, where all Buddhas take their seat, he sat down determined & said to himself: This is indeed the immovable spot where all the Buddhas have planted themselves! This is the very place for destroying the net of desire! Then the Future Buddha turned his back to the trunk and faced East. Right there he then made this mighty decision: Let just blood & flesh of this body dry up & let skin & sinews fall from the frame of bones. I will not leave this seat before having attained the absolute supreme Enlightenment! So determined did he seat himself in this unconquerable seat, which not even a 100 strikes of lightning could make him waver from. At this very moment the rebel deity Mara -the Evil One- raised exclaiming: Prince Siddhattha will now pass beyond my power, but I will never allow it! and sounding the Mara 's war shout, he prepared his army & went out for battle. Then Mara said to his militia: This Sakyamuni, son of Suddhodana , is far greater, than any other man, so we will never succeed to fight him up front. We will therefore attack him from behind. Frustrated, being unable even to touch this Wielder of Power even with 9 mighty hurricanes of wind, rain, rocks, weapons, red coals, hot ashes, sand, mud, & darkness Mara somewhat in panic commanded his army: Why do you stand still? Seize, kill & drive away this prince. And Mara yelled: Siddhattha , leave this seat. It is not yours but mine! Hearing this the Well-gone One replied: Mara , neither have you ever fulfilled the 10 perfections to the third degree, nor have you given the 5 great donations. Neither has you striven for insight, nor for the welfare of the world, nor for enlightenment! Therefore does this seat not belong to you, but indeed only and forever to me! Suddenly overpowered by fear Mara 's followers fled helter-skelter in all directions. Not two went the same way, but leaving their weapons in a chaos all behind, they fled terrified by panic. Seeing them flee, the great assembly of deities triumphantly shouted: Mara is defeated. Prince Siddhattha has Won! Let us celebrate the Victory! The deities then sang: The Victory has this illustrious Buddha Won. The Evil One, The End-maker is defeated & done. Thus they jubilantly circled the wisdom throne, the band of nagas singing their praises of the Seer, the flocks of birds singing their praises of the Sage, the assembly of Deities singing their praises of the Conqueror, the group of Brahmas singing their praises of the Worthy One. It was before the sun had set that the Tathagata thus conquered Mara & defeated his army. Then at the same night, after having bathed, while the Bodhi-Tree rained red sprigs on his robe, the Consummate One acquired knowledge of previous existences in the first watch of the night: With the mind thus concentrated, purified, bright, fixed, unified, focused, tractable, compliant, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to remembrance of my past lives. I recollected numerous past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion: There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan & species, had such a body. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There I had such name, belonged to such a sort & family, had such a form. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here. Thus I remembered my various past lives in all their various modes & details. This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is alert, aware, and determined. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus still concentrated, purified, bright, intact, pliant, malleable, steady, & imperturbable, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human eye I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I realized how & why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate all in accordance with the intentions of their prior actions: 'These beings who were endowed with bad behaviour of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and acted under the influence of wrong views, with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of misery, the bad destinations, the lower realms, even in the hells. But these beings, who were gifted with good behaviour of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and acted under the influence of right views, with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in happy destinations, even in a divine world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye , purified & surpassing the human -- I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, all in accordance with their particular mixture of good & bad kamma . But the satisfaction that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor did it remain. With the mind thus concentrated, fully absorbed, I directed it towards understanding the stilling of all the mental fermentations. Then I realized how it actually comes to be, that: <...> When my mind saw that, realized that, it was freed of the fermentation of sense-desire, released from the fermentation of becoming, unobstructed by the fermentation of ignorance. Fully & Perfectly Enlightened - The Buddha - perceiving this immense glory, spoke these 2 solemn verses, which never has been omitted by any of countless thousands of prior Buddhas: Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find 'the Creator', who framed this formation: What Misery! is such Endless Birth, Ageing, Decay & Death!! Now I see that 'the Constructor' of this structure is Craving ...!!! Never shall this construction be build again, as all the rafters are shattered and the main beam is busted & fully broken... At this stilling of all Craving , mind has finally found calm… Then, friends, this vision of certainty then arose in me: This release is irreversible, this is the last rebirth, this endless reappearance has finally ended... Here do all Buddhas Awaken: Bodhgaya ! <..> Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... The Supreme Awakening: Sammasambodhi! #92601 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:40 pm Subject: Re: To Boldly Go Where No Sutta Has Gone Before buddhatrue Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > I notice you have made considerable progress in this regard. Apart > from a few regrettable lapses (such as yesterday's outburst) the > rude, angry James we used to know at DSG has vanished. So you do know > what you're talking about! Is this supposed to be a compliment of some sort? ;-)) What you think has disappeared is just a matter of perception. I haven't been posting in months. However, when I do come back, out of compassion and a sense of friendliness/family with the members, I am invariably disappointed again and again by the misrepresentations I encounter of the teaching I hold most dear. One of these days I will learn to stop coming back. Ken, you can just stay special- don't change a thing! :-) Metta, James #92602 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:58 pm Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > N: Talking down? You misunderstand me. All those who are not > sotaapannas have not eradicated clinging to the idea of self. > Yes, I listen and I know what you mean, differentiating self and person. James: Okay, then we don't have any misunderstanding. You can see the point I am making in regards to self and person; which is not, in any way, a denial of anatta. Have I directly realized anatta? No, I haven't. However, I don't believe that denying the existence of people will get me there anytime sooner. I see that as placing the emphasis in the wrong direction. > ------- > N: It makes all the difference to say: a person exists, or: there are > many different cittas and rupas arising and falling away within > splitseconds, just elements. Did you read Sarah's post quoting the > sutta about the plaintain tree? So long as the idea of a person, of a > whole, is not understood as different elements, we are bound to cling > to the idea of a person exists. James: Well, this is where I keep losing you but I keep trying to reach some sort of understanding. When you say "person", what exactly do you mean? You say person of a whole, but I don't know exactly what that means. If I view a person as a whole or if I view a person as parts, what difference does that really make? Viewing a person as parts still doesn't get rid fo the sense of self. Views are views- unltimately they aren't worth a darn. Transcendent Right View is really no view. > I will also mention a pen now. Even things as a pen we can have wrong > view about, so long as the whole is taken for something existing. We > see only colour, we do not see a pen. James: I don't see what difference this makes. > > Thus, to me it is very meaningful what I learnt from the suttas: > Udaayi Sutta, SN 35:234: <"Owing to the eye and visible object arises > seeing-consciousness, does it not, friend?" "Yes, friend." "Well, > friend, it is by this method that the Exalted One has explained, > opened up, and shown that this consciousness also is without the self." > > He repeated the same about the other sense-cognitions and the > consciousness that experiences objects through the mind-door.> > This is about cittas experiencing objects through six doorways. It > helps me to realize that at the moment of seeing only colour appears, > no person, no pen. James: The sutta you just quoted doesn't say what you think it says. All it says is that the six senses are non-self and arise due to conditions, nothing about if people or pens exist. I just don't get this emphasis on the existence of objects in relation to mental objects! Plato pondered all of that in detail and it leads nowhere! Six doorways, and six different worlds, appearing > one at a time. It will lead to more detachment, more understanding of > the meaning of anatta. James: This is where I completely disagree. I don't think it leads to more understanding or direct knowledge of anatta, it just leads to philosophical pondering. Metta, James #92603 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:02 am Subject: Re: To Boldly Go Where No Sutta Has Gone Before buddhatrue Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > HELLO JAMES, > > Well, sorry, I'm not trying to butter you up but I can't tell you how > wonderful it was to read this post that has soooooo many interesting > aspects that I completely agree with! Thank you! Very glad you appreciated my post. I also appreciated your recent post to Howard. I think that the Kaballah has much to offer to those seeking ontological answers to the structure/meaning of the universe- but, of course, it should eventually be set aside. So glad you have done so, turned to Buddhism, and are moving to even higher planes of understanding. The Kaballah was a good place to start in my opinion. Metta, James #92604 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:39 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 1 nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 7 Hindrances to the Development of Paññå Association with the good friend in Dhamma, listening, considering what one has heard, testing its meaning and the right practice are the conditions for enlightenment. We have listened to the Dhamma and considered it and now we are wondering how mindfulness of nåma and rúpa can begin. We find that it hardly begins. Are there factors which hinder the development of right understanding? Bhante Dhammadhara pointed out that, although we believe that we listened and considered what we heard, we did not listen enough and we did not truly test the meaning of what we heard. Perhaps we were only passive listeners. We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Threes, Ch III, § 30, Topsy-turvey) about three ways of listening to the Dhamma. The Buddha said that there is the “topsy-turvy-brained”, the “scatter-brained” and “the man of comprehensive brain”. As to the “topsy-turvy-brained” who visits the monks and listens to the Dhamma, we read: “... But as he sits there he pays no heed to that talk in its beginning, pays no heed to its middle, pays no heed to its ending. Also when he has risen from his seat he pays no heed thereto... Just as when a pot is turned upside down, the water poured thereon runs off and does not stay in the pot, even so in this case a certain person frequents the monastery ... but pays no heed to that talk... Also when he rises from his seat he pays no heed thereto... This one is called ‘the topsy-turvy-brained’. And of what sort, monks, is the scatter-brained ? In this case a certain person frequents the monastery... As he sits he pays heed to that talk in its beginning, its middle and its end, but when he has risen up from his seat he pays no heed thereto... Just as when in a man’s lap divers kinds of food are piled together, such as sesamum, rice, sweetmeats and jujube fruits. When he rises from his seat he scatters all abroad through absent-mindedness,-- even so, monks, in this case a certain person frequents the monastery... As he sits he pays heed to that talk... but when he has risen up from his seat he pays no heed thereto. This one is called ‘the scatter-brained’.” We then read about the man of comprehensive mind who listens and pays heed to that talk in its beginning, middle and end, and who also when he gets up bears it in mind. We read: “... Just as when a pot is set upright the water poured therein accumulates and does not run away, even so in this case a certain person frequents the monastery... and pays heed to that talk... Also when he rises from his seat he bears it in mind, in its beginning, its middle and its ending. This one, monks, is called ‘the man of comprehensive mind’.” We think perhaps that we do not belong to the two first categories, but are we sure? We may be forgetful of what we heard and we may not apply it. Then we are like the “scatter-brained”. ******** Nina. #92605 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:43 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, We should carefully consider when there is sakkaya-ditthi, personality belief. Although concepts are not realities, paramattha dhammas, we may take them for things that really exist, and then there is wrong view. When someone clings to the concept of self, being, person, or different things and really believes that they exist, there is the wrong view of sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief). So long as sakkaya-ditthi has not been eradicated there are conditions for the arising of many other kinds of wrong view as well. There may be the wrong view that there is no kamma, no result of kamma, there may be the belief in an almighty god, the creator of the world and of all beings and all people. When we do not know the conditions for the arising of all sankhara dhammas, conditioned dhammas, there can be different kinds of wrong view. However, not each time when citta has a concept as object there is clinging to wrong view. Can concepts be the object of akusala citta (unwholesome consciousness)? They can, they are in fact usually the object of akusala citta. There can be lobha-mula-citta which is attached to a concept. Or there can be dosa-mula-citta which has aversion towards a concept. When one does not like this or that person does one realize what the object is? At such moments a concept is the object of citta. Thus we see that a concept can be the object of any kind of akusala citta. Can a concept be the object of kusala citta (wholesome consciousness)? It can be the object of kusala citta. Concepts belong to our daily life and thus they are the object of all kinds of cittas arising in our daily life. If we want to perform dana (giving) but we didn't know concepts, we wouldn't know what the gift is in conventional sense, thus there could not be kusala citta which performs dana. There could not be abstention (virati) from wrong deeds or speech if one did not know what is there in conventional sense, if one did not know that there is a being or a person. ----------- Nina. #92606 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sprlrt Dear Scott, Nina I'd like to add some comments on the subject of pleasant-unpleasant objects of citta. The dhammas are very impersonal, anatta, unfortunately but undestandbly we tend to have a self centred approach on this, which keeps shifting the focus away from realities/dhammas to concepts/pannati. In terms of dhammas I think it has a fairly straight explanation, seeing, and also the other vipaka cittas of that process, are either kusala or akusala, arising because of some past kamma, kusala or akusala, of which vipakas are the result. The kamma that resulted in seeing a pleasant or unpleasant object was done because at that time there were all the conditions for its arising (the main one being pakatupanissaya, i.e. habits). Are the rupas that make up a rural landscape intrinsically pleasant and the rupas that make up a industrial and polluted one intrinsically ugly? I think that they both are conditioned by the kammas of the beings that shaped them, and kammas are nama and not rupas. Akusala kamma can only be the cause of unpleasant results/vipaka, kusala kamma of pleasant results, though its timing and modes can be fathomed by Buddhas only. Alberto #92607 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear James, Larry, Connie, Scott, For a few days I have to delay reacting to posts, proceeding with text studies, since I have proofreading. Nina. Op 14-nov-2008, om 8:58 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: Okay, then we don't have any misunderstanding. You can see > the point I am making in regards to self and person; which is not, > in any way, a denial of anatta #92608 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:26 pm Subject: No more Bananas! bhikkhu0 Friends: Repeatedly Lost Opportunity: Passing by without even noticing the treasure: Having laid it out three ripe bananas to the monkeys here, I was quite a baffled after seeing an adult macaque pass them by unnoticed, even though they were within reach and less than ½m away ... !!! Why did it pass it by? Then it appeared to me: Like drawing with stick in water: Oohh so is it indeed also with most sentient beings in this world: They pass by the Buddha-Dhamma again and again, life after life, never picking it up, even though it is perfectly formulated, completely releasing, and safely saving one from all that is suffering... Even though this Dhamma leads to the Deathless state, beings miss the opportunity & flutter on in Samsara... Obsessed with empty and decaying constructions... It is said that teaching the Dhamma when average human life length is less than 100 years, is like drawing in water with a stick... It leaves no lasting trace! Highly impermanent, if not plain impossible ... Therefore: Thanks to that monkey for telling it to me so clearly: No more 'bananas', neither here, nor there, nor evermore.... It is time to let go of all the 'bananas'! It is time to let it go ... It is time to relinquish ... It is time to give it up !!! Let there be Peace ... Let there be Happiness ... Let there be Freedom ... Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net No more Bananas! #92609 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Series Survey Quote. lbidd2 Hi Nina and all, I know you are busy, so don't bother to reply. I just wanted to say that I'm glad you brought up the subject of attachment to concepts. For several weeks I have been investigating attachment to the word "I". Even in this sentence,"I have been investigating", there is attachment to the mere word "I". This attachment is very obvious and it is even incredible that "I" is simply a word. There is nothing more to it than that. And yet there is tremendous attachment to it. When this attachment is recognized it momentarily dissolves and, like a row of dominos, other cares and concerns that depend on that particular attachment collapse as well. Larry #92610 From: "colette" Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:38 pm Subject: Re: To Boldly Go Where No Sutta Has Gone Before ksheri3 Hi James, "...a place to start"? Whatever do you mean? Just because I get a little insight, Vipissana, (Yea, I read the Vipissana newsletter once in a while, thanx Nina) does not mean that the begining is done with, is over, is expired, etc. I have no doubts that as my knowledge of Mahayana-Vajrayana-Chittamatra-Yogacara-Chan-et al grows I will find more and more actual relationships between Safed Isreal and Asia(in generalization). Still, I'm very impressed with the ease at which I've adapted to these esoteric traditions here in Buddhism and how effective they actually are. As a matter of fact I've been recently speaking my wonder at why I haven't read any Buddhist books other than most of THE WILD AWAKENING (a book on Dzogchen). Surely these papers I get from the internet loose their effectiveness since they don't give that "retreat" type of effect where immersion in a topic is the objective. Books also come with their downside. gotta go. Thank you for the appreciation. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: <...> > Very glad you appreciated my post. I also appreciated your recent > post to Howard. I think that the Kaballah has much to offer to those > seeking ontological answers to the structure/meaning of the universe- > but, of course, it should eventually be set aside. So glad you have > done so, turned to Buddhism, and are moving to even higher planes of > understanding. The Kaballah was a good place to start in my opinion. #92611 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, I'd like to join in this thread too, partly because Nina is busy! --- On Fri, 14/11/08, sprlrt wrote: >I'd like to add some comments on the subject of pleasant-unpleasant objects of citta. The dhammas are very impersonal, anatta, unfortunately but undestandbly we tend to have a self centred approach on this, which keeps shifting the focus away from realities/dhammas to concepts/pannati. In terms of dhammas I think it has a fairly straight explanation, seeing, and also the other vipaka cittas of that process, are either kusala or akusala, arising because of some past kamma, kusala or akusala, of which vipakas are the result. The kamma that resulted in seeing a pleasant or unpleasant object was done because at that time there were all the conditions for its arising (the main one being pakatupanissaya, i.e. habits). .... S: So far, so good. .... >Are the rupas that make up a rural landscape intrinsically pleasant and the rupas that make up a industrial and polluted one intrinsically ugly? ..... S: We can't say this - too much conceptual thinking involved as I believe you're suggesting as well. ..... >I think that they both are conditioned by the kammas of the beings that shaped them, and kammas are nama and not rupas. ..... S: I'm tripping over this comment as well, however. We can't say the intrinisically pleasant or ugly rupas (in the landscape)are conditioned by 'the kammas of the beings that shaped them'. Perhaps I misunderstand you. .... >Akusala kamma can only be the cause of unpleasant results/vipaka, kusala kamma of pleasant results, though its timing and modes can be fathomed by Buddhas only. ..... S: I agree with this last comment. Akusala vipaka is only the result of past akusala kamma. This determines whether intrinsically pleasant/unpleasant rupas are experienced, but those rupas which have arisen (prior to the seeing consciousness and eye-door process of cittas which experience them), arose by their own causes, namely temperature if we're talking about the rupas of inanimate objects. Again, I really appreciate your reflections and discussions on these fine, but important points. I'll look forward to any of Scott's further points as well. Metta, Sarah ======== #92612 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:59 pm Subject: Let's discuss akusala szmicio Dear Sarah and friends I still take akusala as "my akusala". I think I need to discuss more in this matter. I think about moments of understanding in daily life. When we put our attention to seeing or hearing, when cittas just thinks, there is no doubt. But this do not appear so often. And it's beyond control. Usualy there is thinking about "my akusala", that "I am doin something wrong". That's so strong. I find out that things arise very natural, and the only thinkg we can do is just lead the normal life. Best wishes Lukas #92613 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's discuss akusala sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Sat, 15/11/08, szmicio wrote: >I still take akusala as "my akusala". I think I need to discuss more in this matter. ..... S: Yes, we all need to discuss and consider more about it. Why do we mind about akusala, for example? Because we take it for 'mine'. Similarly, why do we mind about others' akusala? Because we take it for 'theirs'. In other words, no understanding of lobha, dosa or moha as conditioned dhammas at such times. .... >I think about moments of understanding in daily life. When we put our attention to seeing or hearing, when cittas just thinks, there is no doubt. But this do not appear so often. And it's beyond control. ..... S: And I don't think it's even a matter of 'putting our attention' to anything. Such 'putting of attention' is usually with attachment, wishing to attend to a certain object, rather than just being aware of what is conditioned already. Yes, awareness and understanding like all other sankhara dhammas are beyond control. The more understanding, the more detachment and the less concern there is with 'how often' they might arise. ..... >Usualy there is thinking about "my akusala", that "I am doin something wrong". That's so strong. I find out that things arise very natural, and the only thinkg we can do is just lead the normal life. .... S: At least you have some understanding of this further akusala and how there is the taking it for self. As you say, it's very natural. So yes, just lead a normal life, developing more understanding of whatever appears, not just akusala and self view. We can smile too when we find such stories, such papa~nca about 'my akusala' are repeating themselves yet again - all by conditions:-). Let me know if there's anything else to discuss on this topic and have a good and wise weekend, Lukas! Metta, Sarah ===== #92614 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Howard), --- On Wed, 12/11/08, Scott wrote: >H: "...Not all sights are the same..." >Scott: Atthasaalinii (p. 414-416) regarding sappa.tigha. m - 'visible' and 'reacting': "In the exposition of 'visible object' colour is just 'coloured appearance'; or it shines - hence appearance. 'Evident to visual cognition' is the meaning of the compound term. 'Visible' is [literally] co-vision; the meaning is, it is to be seen by visual cognition. 'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye, the function or property of being in the relation of object to visual cognition, the manifestation of being the great field of visual cognition, the proximate cause of the four great essentials. Likewise all derived matter has the four great essentials as proximate cause. But where (in other sense cognition, etc.) there are different features, of that we shall speak. Where there are none the method used in the exposition of sight should be understood." >Scott: So, as for visible object, the differences are seen to be irrelevant. .... Sarah: what is seen is what is seen. However, without the differences, there wouldn't be all the different concepts and ideas about what is seen. When there is awareness and right understanding of the visible object, it's known *just as it is* as visible object. You were discussing (in another thread) about the visible object as pleasant vs unpleasant. We know that it depends on past kamma what is seen at any moment, even if we're (conventionally speaking) looking at the same landscape. The citta which sees the visible object sees/experiences it *exactly as it is*, so this of course includes its characteristic of pleasant/unpleasant too. So likewise, when understanding develops, it also knows the object more and more precisely as it is, not how we imagine it to be by later thinking and valuation. So, I agree that the differences are irrelevant, the visible object is just that which is seen and when it is known as such, there is less attending to the details and signs. None of this is to suggest, however, that any visible objects are the same or without particular characteristics. ..... Scott:> There seems to be 'different features' spoken of, however. .... Sarah: I haven't checked the text, but from your extract I take this to be referring to when discussing different sense-doors, such as the hearing of sound and so on. If the same principles apply, the 'method used in the exposition of sight should be understood' If there are different principles, for the other senses, they'll be mentioned. I'm interested to know whether your 'deep-as-usual' comments and questions on this topic and the 'Series Survey Quote' thread are part or fully answered. Metta, Sarah ========= #92615 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Boldly Go Where No Sutta Has Gone Before sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, I thought you gave a pretty good response to the Star Trek invasion too - it might also make 'zany':-) Yes, after the Abhidhamma is vaporised, it's just a matter of time before the Suttanta and eventually the Vinaya is vaporised as well.... Let's enjoy it while the good teaching lasts and forget about hamburgers and Star Trek episodes.....it'll be quite a while before they're vaporised. Metta, Sarah --- On Sun, 9/11/08, kenhowardau wrote: >I must be the only person on planet earth who (as far as he can remember) has never watched an episode of Star Trek. But I think I can follow TG's parody: The crew of the starship Abhidhamma resist, for one more day, the relentless Mahayana invasion. For one more day the teaching of paramattha dhammas is saved from being replaced by the teaching of 'a sea of being.' And the teaching of 'no self' is saved from being replaced by the teaching of 'no own being.' I liked it. But the series does have an unhappy ending, doesn't it? According to the ancient script the Abhidhamma is eventually vaporised, and the true Dhamma disappears from the known universe. (Woops, I hope I haven't spoiled it for anyone.) :-) .... #92616 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:21 am Subject: Re: Let's discuss akusala szmicio Dear Sarah, > >L:I think about moments of understanding in daily life. When we put our > attention to seeing or hearing, when cittas just thinks, there is no > doubt. But this do not appear so often. And it's beyond control. > ..... > S: And I don't think it's even a matter of 'putting our attention' >to anything. Such 'putting of attention' is usually with attachment, >wishing to attend to a certain object, rather than just being aware >of what is conditioned already. L: But there is attention all the time,isnt it? > >L: Usualy there is thinking about "my akusala", that "I am doin something > wrong". That's so strong. I find out that things arise very natural, > and the only thinkg we can do is just lead the normal life. > .... > S: At least you have some understanding of this further akusala and >how there is the taking it for self. As you say, it's very natural. >So yes, just lead a normal life, developing more understanding of >whatever appears, not just akusala and self view. We can smile too >when we find such stories, such papa~nca about 'my akusala' are >repeating themselves yet again - all by conditions:-). L: When you refering to papanca what do you mean? Can pannatti be an object for citta? I truly dont understand it. How citta can experience samething that doesnt exist at all. Thinking is real, it has its own lakkhana. But pannati hasnt. Is there any diffrence between nimita and pannatti? There is no "dog" in front "my eyes". There is visible object and seeing. And then there are diffrent cittas which thinks. Thats real, but there is no "dog". How citta can experience a "dog"? It's easy to know it on intelectual level, but why it is so hard to experience it? Best wishes Lukas #92617 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. scottduncan2 Dear Alberto, Thanks for the reply: A: "Are the rupas that make up a rural landscape intrinsically pleasant and the rupas that make up a industrial and polluted one intrinsically ugly? I think that they both are conditioned by the kammas of the beings that shaped them, and kammas are nama and not rupas. Akusala kamma can only be the cause of unpleasant results/vipaka, kusala kamma of pleasant results, though its timing and modes can be fathomed by Buddhas only." Scott: As far as 'landscapes' and 'the beings that shaped them', I'm not too sure here. I don't tend to consider 'landscape' in relation to 'the kamma of the beings that shaped them.' I'm not sure about notions of 'group kamma' or 'collective kamma' or whatnot. To be precise, 'landscape' would have to be a much construed sort of idea - a whole, a concept - and a function of many, many mind-door processes following on from the seeing visible object that is vipaaka. These moments in the citta-viithi are only three (I think), but then could arise again and again as long as the ruupa which are visible object arise. Visible object is ruupa. Its shape and colour are functions of derived ruupas, but ruupa also. It seems clear that pleasant and unpleasant refer to the experience of the object prior to the apperception that occurs during javana. The arising of sense-sphere cittas which are vipaaka includes the valuation, as I understand it. This would occur long before concepts related to what is cognized through the sense-door become objects in the mind-door process. These would reflect the thinking that occurs with a given ruupa as object following javana which can have a different jaati than the vipaaka cittas which arose earlier. For me, as I consider these things, I like to learn the order and sequence and what not, but I think of detachment as well, sometimes. I know that I'm more often than not caught up in the post-sense-door thinking and conceiving about wholes and what seems to me to be 'the seen.' I like to think that the initial moments of sense-door experience are vipaaka because this just reminds me that this particular human existence continues to arise and does so according to past kamma. I find it cool to ponder that every waking moment which seems so full of 'experience' consists of so much that is about making the next existence, and so little about having had this one made already. Sincerely, Scott. #92618 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's discuss akusala upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas (and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/15/2008 2:59:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, szmicio@... writes: Dear Sarah and friends I still take akusala as "my akusala". I think I need to discuss more in this matter. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Mind streams, though interacting and interdependent, are nonetheless distinguishable. "Your kamma is not "mine," and vice-versa, and the states, wholesome or unwholesome, that arise in one mind stream are not those that arise in another. So, it is in dependence on how immersed one is or is not in a sense of an unchanging core of identity within one's mind steam, that one may or may not be in error of speaking of "my akusala". ----------------------------------------- I think about moments of understanding in daily life. When we put our attention to seeing or hearing, when cittas just thinks, there is no doubt. But this do not appear so often. And it's beyond control. Usualy there is thinking about "my akusala", that "I am doin something wrong". That's so strong. I find out that things arise very natural, and the only thinkg we can do is just lead the normal life. ------------------------------------------- Howard: The mind states in your mind stream are the mind states directly available to you, and their character is what is directly amenable to modification "by you," not the character of the states in another mind stream. The Buddha, for example, could not awaken others, but could only point out the way. ------------------------------------------- Best wishes Lukas ========================= With metta, Howard #92619 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:22 am Subject: Re: Let's discuss akusala szmicio Dear Howard > Hi, Lukas (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 11/15/2008 2:59:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > szmicio@... writes: > > Dear Sarah and friends > > I still take akusala as "my akusala". I think I need to discuss more > in this matter. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mind streams, though interacting and interdependent, are nonetheless > distinguishable. "Your kamma is not "mine," and vice-versa, and the states, > wholesome or unwholesome, that arise in one mind stream are not those that arise > in another. So, it is in dependence on how immersed one is or is not in a > sense of an unchanging core of identity within one's mind steam, that one may or > may not be in error of speaking of "my akusala". > ----------------------------------------- L: I think there can be: speaking of "my akusala" with kusala and speaking of "my akusala" with akusala. Best wishes Lukas #92620 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, Scott, All In a message dated 11/15/2008 3:54:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: 'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye, ................................................... TG: BTW, I can completely agree with the above. The terms "friction," "friction of impact," "reacting," "co-reaction," and "striking" exactly in line with my vision of dhamma. And very important terms to consider at all times and in all situations IMO. Question... Does the above description confirm that visual-object is NOT the "stuff" we interpret "out in space," but rather, the energy, or momentum, or photons, or rupa, etc., whatever you wish to call it,' that strike the eye? It does to me, and it also seems obvious from a scientific point of view, but what is your take on that? And please, spare me the "neo" and "quasi" accoutrements. :-/ Thanks. TG #92621 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:31 pm Subject: Re: Let's discuss akusala kenhowardau Hi Lukas, > In a message dated 11/15/2008 2:59:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > szmicio@... writes: > > Dear Sarah and friends > > I still take akusala as "my akusala". I think I need to discuss more > in this matter. As I understand it there are two main ways in which we can 'take akusala as our own.' Firstly, there is conventional way, in which we might say, for example, "I am angry." Secondly, there is the ultimately real way, in which an akusala dhamma becomes the object of consciousness. We shouldn't think of the first way as being either kusala or akusala. The conventional observation "I am angry" takes place over the course of many cittas, some of which will be akusala, and others, possibly, kusala. In the second way the object the object of consciousness will always be an internal one. Only a Buddha can know external (other peoples') mind states. So, as I see it, there will be no need for the object to be identified as "this is my akusala dhamma." So in the second case the citta that thinks "this is my akusala" is most likely to be deluded and, therefore akusala. That's the way I see it anyway. :-) Ken H #92622 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sprlrt Dear Sarah and Scott > Are the rupas that make up a rural landscape intrinsically pleasant and the rupas that make up a industrial and polluted one intrinsically ugly? ..... S: We can't say this - too much conceptual thinking involved as I believe you're suggesting as well. ..... > >I think that they both are conditioned by the kammas of the beings that shaped them, and kammas are nama and not rupas. ..... S: I'm tripping over this comment as well, however. We can't say the intrinisically pleasant or ugly rupas (in the landscape)are conditioned by 'the kammas of the beings that shaped them'. Perhaps I misunderstand you. A: Ok, what about: kamma through the body door can make changes to the rupa khandha, for instance it can turn it into an intrinsically unpleasant object of 5 sense door processes. Alberto #92623 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Hi TG (& Scott), --- On Sun, 16/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >>'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye, ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ... Sarah: This was included in the quote Scott gave from the Atthasalini. The quote began with: Atthasaalinii (p. 414-416) regarding sappa.tigha.m - 'visible' and 'reacting': "In the exposition of 'visible object' colour is just 'coloured appearance'; or it shines - hence appearance. 'Evident to visual cognition' is the meaning of the compound term. 'Visible' is [literally] co-vision; the meaning is, it is to be seen by visual cognition. 'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact....." ..... >TG: BTW, I can completely agree with the above. The terms "friction," "friction of impact," "reacting," "co-reaction, " and "striking" exactly in line with my vision of dhamma. And very important terms to consider at all times and in all situations IMO. ..... Sarah: Whereas for me the terms "friction" and so on meant little without the first couple of lines you'd left out, so I decided to take a look at the Pali: "Ruupaayatananiddese [Dhs# 617] va.n.no va va.n.nanibhaa. Nibhaatii ti vaa nibhaa cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa paaka.taa hotii ti attho. Va.n.no va nibhaa va.n.nibhaa. Saddhi.m nidassanena sanidassana.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.nena passitabban ti attho. Saddhi.m pa.tighena sappa.tigha.m pa.tigha.t.tananigha.msanajanakan ti attho....." Sarah: Clearly the passage is referring to visible object as ayatana. It is experienced by seeing consciousness [cakkhuvi~n~naa.nena]. [With the coming together of the inner and outer ayatanas,] visible object (or colour - ruupa or va.n.no) 'impinges' (sappa.tigha]and conditions a 'reaction', that of seeing consciousness. Scott may well have further suggestions or more of a breakdown of the terms.. ...... >TG: Question... Does the above description confirm that visual-object is NOT the "stuff" we interpret "out in space," but rather, the energy, or momentum, or photons, or rupa, etc., whatever you wish to call it,' that strike the eye? >It does to me, and it also seems obvious from a scientific point of view, but what is your take on that? And please, spare me the "neo" and "quasi" accoutrements. :-/ Thanks. .... Sarah: As I understand the passage, it's just referring to visible object which is seen by eye-consciousness when there is a 'coming-together' of the elements. We can refer to the visible object which 'strikes the eye' because it's a 'gross rupa' which impinges on eye-sense. However, unlike tangible objects which are 'touched' at moments of bodily consciousness at the body-sense, visible object isn't actually 'touched' at the eye-sense. I've no idea whether this sounds "neo" or "quasi", but for me, it's more helpful and relevant to the development of awareness and understanding than thinking in terms of photons, energy and scientific views - useful as these may be in other regards. I'll be interested to read any further discussion you and Scott have. Metta, Sarah ============ #92624 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sprlrt Dear Scott My understaning on this is that what follows kusala vipakas cittas of a sense door process (experiencing a pleasant object) are lobha-mula cittas, even in the javana cittas of that same sense door process; and what follows akusala vipaka cittas of a sense door process (experiencing an unpleasant object) are dosa-mula cittas, in both cases akusala kamma, and this because of kilesa, unless the vothabbana/determining citta (of kiriya jati and which can also be referred to as manasikara) 'steers', when all the conditions are in place, towards one of the 8 maha-kusala cittas. The reason why in a day we have, in many cases, more lobha (which is based on pleasant objects) than dosa, is mainly because of the gati sampatti-vipatti factors which prevent akusala kamma to result in akusala vipaka, factors which we inherited at birth, with our patisandhi citta, a dvihetuka-kusala-vipaka in most cases, composed of sobhana cetasikas, alobha and adosa, which functions as 'shield', in many cases, against akusala vipaka/unpleasant objects. Nina recently posted some very good comments on this. Alberto --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: .. > > To be precise, 'landscape' would have to be a much construed sort of > idea - a whole, a concept - and a function of many, many mind-door > processes following on from the seeing visible object that is vipaaka. > These moments in the citta-viithi are only three (I think), but then > could arise again and again as long as the ruupa which are visible > object arise. Visible object is ruupa. Its shape and colour are > functions of derived ruupas, but ruupa also. > > It seems clear that pleasant and unpleasant refer to the experience of > the object prior to the apperception that occurs during javana. The > arising of sense-sphere cittas which are vipaaka includes the > valuation, as I understand it. > > This would occur long before concepts related to what is cognized > through the sense-door become objects in the mind-door process. These > would reflect the thinking that occurs with a given ruupa as object > following javana which can have a different jaati than the vipaaka > cittas which arose earlier. > > For me, as I consider these things, I like to learn the order and > sequence and what not, but I think of detachment as well, sometimes. > I know that I'm more often than not caught up in the post-sense-door > thinking and conceiving about wholes and what seems to me to be 'the > seen.' I like to think that the initial moments of sense-door > experience are vipaaka because this just reminds me that this > particular human existence continues to arise and does so according to > past kamma. I find it cool to ponder that every waking moment which > seems so full of 'experience' consists of so much that is about making > the next existence, and so little about having had this one made already. > #92625 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's discuss akusala sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, --- On Sat, 15/11/08, szmicio wrote: > >L:I think about moments of understanding in daily life. When we put our > attention to seeing or hearing, when cittas just thinks, there is no > doubt. But this do not appear so often. And it's beyond control. > ..... > S: And I don't think it's even a matter of 'putting our attention' >to anything. Such 'putting of attention' is usually with attachment, >wishing to attend to a certain object, rather than just being aware >of what is conditioned already. .... >L: But there is attention all the time,isnt it? ..... S: The cetasika, manasikara, arises with every citta, if that's what you mean. This 'attention' which arises with moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on, is of course very different from what we conventionally consider to be "putting our attention" to something. Manasikara is just a conditioned dhamma that arises and falls away at every instant without anyone doing anything about it. .... > >L: Usualy there is thinking about "my akusala", that "I am doin something > wrong". That's so strong. I find out that things arise very natural, > and the only thinkg we can do is just lead the normal life. > .... > S: At least you have some understanding of this further akusala and >how there is the taking it for self. As you say, it's very natural. >So yes, just lead a normal life, developing more understanding of >whatever appears, not just akusala and self view. We can smile too >when we find such stories, such papa~nca about 'my akusala' are >repeating themselves yet again - all by conditions:- ). .... >L: When you refering to papanca what do you mean? ..... S: Thinking, 'proliferating' with lobha, ditthi (wrong view) or mana(conceit). Btw, I agree with your later comment that there can be thinking about 'my akusala' with kusala or akusala cittas. Usually, akusala cittas of course! .... L:> Can pannatti be an object for citta? I truly dont understand it. How citta can experience samething that doesnt exist at all. Thinking is real, it has its own lakkhana. But pannati hasnt. Is there any diffrence between nimita and pannatti? ..... S: Good questions! Yes, pannatti can be and usually is the object of citta. Most of the day there are countless mind-door processes following sense door processes, usually with pannatti as objects. As for your 'how' question - just like in a dream. In a dream, there are countless mind-door processes without any sense-door processes intervening (unless we wake-up from time to time). All the objects of these mind-door processes are "something that doesn't exist at all" as you put it. It's similar during the day....we live in our day-dreams, Pannatti just refer to concepts or ideas. Nimitta is used in different contexts referring to precise objects. For example, in the development of samatha up to jhana, nimitta refers to the sign of the samatha object. It's a concept, but in this case is always the object of kusala cittas with understanding, calm and wholesome concentration. Nimitta in the suttas is often used along with anubya~njana, as in recommending not to pay attention to nimitta anubya~njana, the signs and details of realities experienced. Usually after the seeing of visible object, there is a lot of interest(with attachment) on account of the signs and details of what has been seen. Then there is the nimitta of sankhara dhammas, the sign of realities that is experienced in the development of right understanding which moves closer and closer to the direct understanding of the realities themselves. So again, it comes back to the kusala or akusala cittas, with or without understanding when concepts are experienced. However, I like your practical questions the best:-). .... L:> There is no "dog" in front "my eyes". There is visible object and seeing. And then there are diffrent cittas which thinks. Thats real, but there is no "dog". How citta can experience a "dog"? ..... S: It's just the nature of citta to experience any object as arammana by arammana paccaya (object condition). So even though "dog" does not exist in an ultimate sense, the idea of dog can be experienced, due to sa~n~naa (perception) which has marked the various realities and concepts about them repeatedly, so that the idea "dog" comes to mind. ..... L: >It's easy to know it on intelectual level, but why it is so hard to experience it? ..... S: I think there is the experiencing of concepts/ideas all the time. As you say, the thinking can be directly known because it's real. However, the concept can only ever be thought about. This is why the objects of satipatthana can only be paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). Please persist with this thread if this last comment hasn't answered your question. You can be very sure that many others have exactly the same questions and they're helpful for us all. Metta, Sarah ======== #92626 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- On Wed, 12/11/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >S: You may also like to look in Nina's e-book on 'Rupas' on-line. It's > very helpful. ------ N: I am just waiting for Alan's printproof, it can arrive any day... ..... S: Congratulations in advance! I'm sure it's been a tremendous amount of work for you both. We'll both look forward to seeing it in due course. Metta, Sarah ======== #92627 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, --- On Wed, 12/11/08, sprlrt wrote: >I don't want to make an issue on this, but for now I think I'll stick to my view :-) .... S: Go ahead and make an issue of this or anything else anytime :-). It is a difficult point as I said, i.e that only temperature is the cause of rupas outside the body. Metta, Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, sarah abbott wrote: > > >S: In inanimate objects, the rupas are only conditioned by utu > (temperature) .... #92628 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, --- On Thu, 13/11/08, sprlrt wrote: Death consciousness occurs when the kamma that resulted in that birth expires, and the eye of the corpse won't see anymore because there are no more conditions for this to happen, body-sense don't arise & fall anymore, and death will condition the arising of patisandhi/birth consciousness (the result of some other kamma which arose and fall in any one of the counteless previous existences on the many kama planes) arises immediately afterward then falls and then body consciousness will arise & fall in this brand new body, probably in a different kama plane. ..... S: As I recall (and happy to be corrected by anyone if I recall wrongly), the first process after patisandhi citta is a mind-door process with lobha, not a body-door process. However, this is a small detail. Also, of course body-consciousness only arises in planes where there is 'a body'. Thanks again for your good reminders. Metta, Sarah ========= #92629 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi Scott > Scott: I was reading a sutta yesterday, while discussing something > with Phil. Consider SN 5, 2 Somaasutta.m. The bhikkhuni Somaa was > speaking with Maara, who was telling her that women couldn't become > arahats. She said: > > "What does womanhood matter at all > When the mind is concentrated well, > When knowledge flows on steadily > As one sees correctly into Dhamma. > > Itthibhaavo ki.m kayiraa, cittamhi susamaahite; > ~Naa.namhi vattamaanamhi, sammaa dhamma.m vipassato Right. Panna is panna regardless of whether it arises in a man or a woman. > "One to whom it might occur, > 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' > Or 'I'm anything at all' - > Is fit for Maara's address." > > Yassa nuuna siyaa eva.m, itthaaha.m purisoti vaa; > Ki~nci vaa pana a~n~nasmi, ta.m maaro vattumarahatii''ti. > > Scott: As regards thoughts of 'man' or 'woman' or 'anything at all', > Bh. Bodhi paraphrases the commentary as: > > Note 338: "Spk says one entertains such thoughts on account of > craving, conceit, and views (ta.nhaamaanadi.t.thivasena )." > > Ki~nci vaa pana a~n~nasmiiti a~n~na.m vaa ki~nci 'aha.m asmii''ti > ta.nhaamaanadi.t.thivasena yassa siyaa... Yes. Here I think the emphasis is on the expression "I am such and such". Jon #92630 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, --- On Sun, 16/11/08, sprlrt wrote: >S: I'm tripping over this comment as well, however. We can't say the intrinisically pleasant or ugly rupas (in the landscape)are conditioned by 'the kammas of the beings that shaped them'. Perhaps I misunderstand you. .... >A: Ok, what about: kamma through the body door can make changes to the rupa khandha, for instance it can turn it into an intrinsically unpleasant object of 5 sense door processes. .... S: Kamma can condition rupas of the body as you know. Akusala kamma conditions unpleasant rupas, kusala kamma conditions pleasant rupas. However, it doesn't 'turn' or change any rupa khandha which has arisen already. For example, if an unpleasant/undesirable visible object is experienced by an eye-door and subsequent mind-door, the cetana arising with kusala or akusala javana cittas experiences that same visible object. However, those kusala/akusala cittas accumulate and be of the strength of kusala/akusala kamma patha in due course, conditioning future vipaka cittas and producing rupas of the body. The rupas of the body which arise and fall away now are conditioned by past, rather than present kamma. However, cittas now can condition rupas of the body, as can nutritive essence or temperature. Does this make sense? Also, please feel free to correct me anytime if you think I've made any mistakes. We all may mistakes and learn in this way together. Metta, Sarah ========== #92631 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi TG Thanks for coming in here. > TG: I would like the above sentence fine if it said "nama and rupa" instead > of namas and rupas. The latter expression gives the impression of the > discrete entities that I know Howard does not agree with. Yet adopting the plural > expression, that so many of the members use, does give that impression. > > > To say "nama and rupa" merely indicates "a distinguishable classification" > of phenomena....not discrete separate phenomena's. The perception that the use of certain terms "gives the impression of discrete entities" is a purely subjective one. In any event, the Buddha did not exhort the avoidance of certain expressions because they would give the wrong impression about the true nature of dhammas. I think you (and others) are quite mistaken in pursuing this line of thinking. > But I don't believe there's anything "insane" about seeing the world > in terms of people and things while at the same time understanding > the teachings to be saying that in truth and reality the world is > otherwise. > > TG: Otherwise indeed. "How ever it may be conceived, the fact is ever > other than that. " -- Buddha > > This also applies to nama and rupa conceptual frameworks. Detachment is > the thing needed to achieve. Detachment, yes. But there are many levbels of detachmnet. The highets form of detchment is that which comes from the development of insight. Jon #92632 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi TG > "One to whom it might occur, > 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' > Or 'I'm anything at all' - > Is fit for Maara's address." > > Yassa nuuna siyaa eva.m, itthaaha.m purisoti vaa; > Ki~nci vaa pana a~n~nasmi, ta.m maaro vattumarahatii''ti. > > Scott: As regards thoughts of 'man' or 'woman' or 'anything at all', > Bh. Bodhi paraphrases the commentary as: > > Note 338: "Spk says one entertains such thoughts on account of > craving, conceit, and views (ta.nhaamaanadi.t.thivasena )." > > TG: I would point at that the "anything at all" includes "namas" and > "rupas." Agreed. But it is not being said that a person is namas and rupas. It is being said that what is taken for a person is in truth and reality only namas and rupas. Jon #92633 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi Alex > > Jon: > > You've lost me here. If you are saying that there is not always > > wrong view of the 5 khandhas as self, then I agree. > > You have understood correctly. 5 aggregates by themselves are not > cause of wrong view, it is wrong view that incorrectly takes 5 > aggregates for Self. Through panna and all that, 5 aggregates are > correctly seen as not-self. Agreed. And it is the developmenmt of that panna that is the path. Jon #92634 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:01 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > > > 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. > > > > Would you mind quoting the passage in question so that I can take a > > look? Thanks. > > "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the > first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the > dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude > of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the > ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither > perception nor non-perception. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html [This is not the MN36 sutta which you had quoted as supporting your view, but never mind ;-))] The passage you quote here, from AN Nines, is followed by an explanation of the sense in which this statement holds true. As regards the attainment of each of the 4 jhanas it says (Bodhi translation): "Whatever states are included there comprised by form, feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness: he views those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as non-self." This is a description of insight development with jhanas consciousness as object. The sutta is not saying that insight can only be developed, and enlightenment attained, if jhana is first developed and attained. Jon #92635 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:05 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James May I butt in? > > N: It makes all the difference to say: a person exists, or: there > are > > many different cittas and rupas arising and falling away within > > splitseconds, just elements. Did you read Sarah's post quoting > the > > sutta about the plaintain tree? So long as the idea of a person, > of a > > whole, is not understood as different elements, we are bound to > cling > > to the idea of a person exists. > > James: Well, this is where I keep losing you but I keep trying to > reach some sort of understanding. When you say "person", what > exactly do you mean? You say person of a whole, but I don't know > exactly what that means. If I view a person as a whole or if I view > a person as parts, what difference does that really make? Viewing a > person as parts still doesn't get rid fo the sense of self. I agree with what I think you're saying here. If we say, "That's not a person it's really a number of separate parts attached together in a particular way", that is not the development of the understanding of not-self as taught by the Buddha. That is just trying to see things as we think they should be seen ;-)) The Buddha did not teach the denial of the existence of people. What he taught was the understanding of the true nature of dhammas, that is to say, the direct understanding of the characteristic of presently arising dhammas. But as the chariot simile points out, the *idea* of person/being arises out of the experience (direct or inferred) of the 5 khandhas. > Views > are views- ultimately they aren't worth a darn. Transcendent Right > View is really no view. Transcendent Right View is not a "view" in the sense that that word is commonly used. Transcendent Right View is the direct experience by developed panna of a nama or a rupa (or nibbana). Jon #92636 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/16/2008 7:20:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Go ahead and make an issue of this or anything else anytime :-). It is a difficult point as I said, i.e that only temperature is the cause of rupas outside the body. ============================== Does not motion cause other motion? (A hammer & a nail for example? The wind and the motion of a sailboat? And action and reaction?) And is the moon's gravity, which causes the tides and ocean waves, a form of temperature? The notion that temperature is the sole cause of rupas outside the body is simply false. Does being a Buddhist require accepting primitive science over modern science as a better story? I'll personally stick for the most part with the stories of modern science such as the brain being more relevant to emotion than the heart, and so much of modern physics which has been amply born out in application. With metta, Howard #92637 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Phil, I meant to chip in on this old discussion before now. It's been in the back of my mind: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > P: "...I professed my belief in the 'using self to get rid of self' > kind of thing and said that it seems to me that the Buddha also taught > in ways that are inexplicable except by surmising that he too saw > benefit in encouraging moral behaviour by conventional considerations > of person's seeking benefits. The example I gave was the sutta in > which the Buddha said that married couples who live with their virtue > in perfect tune can be together again after death in the Deva realm. > We agreed that this is difficult to explain, and you said that perhaps > we can surmise that in Deva realm there are more advanced degrees of > understanding by which we can be together in ways that we can't > understand from our current point of view..." .... Sarah: When Jon and I got married, Ven Saddhatissa conducted a little service for us afterwards and recited this same sutta. I've often reflected on it and as you say, it's difficult to explain. I tend to think that it's just referring to the results of kusala in terms of pleasant feelings and experiences which result. It's like the suttas which refer to the result of kusala kamma in terms of wealth, beauty and so on. We know that those who are rich and beautiful don't necessarily live happier lives and that these are very conceptual ideas. However, they are used as a kind of short-hand in the suttas to indicate the amount of pleasant feeling on account of what is seen, heard and so on. I think the sutta above about 'being together in the Deva realm' is along the same lines. In the ultimate sense, vipaka is only moments of seeing, hearing and so on, but conventionally we talk about good results by way of happy relationships, comfortable living and so on. ... > Scott:.....It is clear that the use of conventional speech is the mode of > teaching in the suttas. The reading of the suttas, and the > understanding, depends on view - right or wrong; and right view is a > function of pa~n~naa. I'll assume that this is a statement which > takes into account the listener and his or her level of developed > understanding. Any development conducive to being condition for birth > in a higher realm would have to, by necessity, be development of > actual dhammas and this does not occur simply by thinking about it. .... Sarah: Yes, I agree with all of this. .... >Scott: > Considering the message with conceptual right view, we know that > beings are not meant - the same 'being' wouldn't arise in a subsequent rebirth. The question is, does wrong view lead to the development of kusala - can one think of beings in order to forward one's aims in relation to the development of kusala? We know, for example, that an unenlightened jhaana master could find rebirth in a higher realm simply due to the development of jhaana-citta, but this really doesn't lead out of samsaara. We also know that, with 'beings' as object,the development of mettaa or karuna can proceed. Can it do so if one literally believes that 'beings' exist and that one's own wish to extend mettaa or karuna to 'beings' causes it to be so? .... Sarah: Wrong view of any kind never leads to good results (or only as a very indirect condition). At moments of metta or samatha development, there are no wrong views arising. So, the answer, I think is different cittas at different moments which bring their own results. ... Scott: > The sutta is the Pa.thamasamajiiviisutta.m, in the A"nguttara Nikaaya,Book of Fours. I'd be interested in the Commentary. From Bh. Bhodi's translation: > > "...Then the Blessed One spoke thus: 'If, householders, both wife and > husband wish to be in one another's sight so long as this life lasts > and in the future life as well, they should have the same faith, the > same virtue, the same generosity, the same wisdom; then they will be > in one another's sight so long as this life lasts and in the future > life as well.' > > "'Aaka"nkheyyu.m ce, gahapatayo, ubho jaanipatayo di.t.the ceva > dhamme a~n~nama~n~na.m passitu.m abhisamparaaya~nca a~n~nama~n~na.m > passitu.m ubhova assu samasaddhaa samasiilaa samacaagaa samapa~n~naa, > te di.t.the ceva dhamme a~n~nama~n~na.m passanti abhisamparaaya~nca > a~n~nama~n~na.m passantii'"ti." .... Sarah: This is a description of how kusala kamma leads to kusala vipaka in conventional terms. Just as our good fortune in this life is a result of past good deeds, so in the future it'll be the result of good deeds performed now. **** Scott:> The only way that the conventionally expressed scenario of a husband and wife being in 'one another's sight' in a future life can be understood is from the perspective that a certain development leads to a given birth. If the development is 'equal', then too the destination. .... Sarah: This makes sense, but again, in an ultimate sense, we are alone with the moments of seeing and so on, so I don't take it too literally, though I liked to when Ven Saddhatissa recited it to us:- ). However, even then, I took it more as a reminder to develop all kinds of kusala during this life-time. Think of King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika. She was so wise and virtuous but still had to be re- born in a hell-realm for a few days because of past kamma. We never know. ... > Scott:> Can desire to > be together forever ever condition this sort of development? I'd say not. .... Sarah: I'd say desire always leads in the opposite direction - in the direction of unpleasant, rather than pleasant results. (I just erased a comment about devas remembering and the function of pa~n~naa. Also the function of sa~n~naa, I'd stress). ....> Scott: I'd be > interested in considering any Commentarial material from the > Manorathapuuranii. ... Sarah: Yes, that would be interesting. Thanks to you both for the discussion. Scott, you referred to a recent chat together - did anything of 'public' interest come up? Metta, Sarah ======== #92638 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:09 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon, When did I say that insight is not important? It is. But insight HAS to be based on Jhana according to that Sutta. Insight work happens based ON Jhana in AN9.36 Best wishes, #92639 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:18 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 11/16/2008 10:09:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Jon, When did I say that insight is not important? It is. But insight HAS to be based on Jhana according to that Sutta. Insight work happens based ON Jhana in AN9.36 -------------------------------------------- Howard: That certainly seems unambiguous to me. I also notice something else of interest in that sutta that is, at least suggestive. I set off by double slashes what I wish to emphasize: 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & //remains// in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. //He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'// This suggests to me, though not unambiguously, that the insightful "regarding" and the inclining towards the deathless occurs *during* the jhana. There is no implication of withdrawing from the jhana first. Note that this is so except for the 8th & 9th jhanas, just as in the Anupada Sutta. In AN9.36, with regard to these two jhanas, the Buddha differently says the following: "Thus, as far as the perception-attainments go, that [the jhana of nothingness] is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two spheres — the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception — I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them." Note, for example, the difference stated in the Anupada Sutta between the 7th and 8th jhanas, with emerging from the 8th being required before gnosis occurs: 15] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of Infinite Consciousness, aware that there is ‘Nothing’, Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of ‘Nothingness’. 16] "And the states in the base of ‘Nothingness’ - the perception of the base of ‘Nothingness’ and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness, the enthusiasm, decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one as they occurred; know to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared. He understood thus: ‘So indeed, these states not having been, come into to being; having been, they vanish.’ Regarding these states he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ‘There is an escape beyond this’ , and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. 17] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of ‘Nothingness’ Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of neither perception nor non-perception. 18] "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated the states that had passed, ceased and changed, thus: ‘So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having been they vanished. Regarding those states, he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ‘There is an escape beyond this,’ and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. -------------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, =============================== With metta, Howard #92640 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Thanks for your reply although you didn't...really...reply to my question. First of all... What I posted was from the Atthasaalinii, and not a scientific journal. If there is or is not correspondence between the two, so be it! This is an honest look at conditions as described in the Atthasaalinii and a conversation revolving around that should not be used as an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss other types of thinking that may well correspond to one or more aspects thereof. Are you afraid of something? Science, science, science... LOL I'm creeping you out huh? LOL More importantly, I think we are at the crux of the matter between your approach to Dhamma and mine. In a passage such as this...you highly focus of the "object" being discussed. I highly focus on the "conditional circumstances" of the phenomena being discussed. Your view leads you to see "objects" as real. My view leads me to see "conditional processes" as relative...and the so-called "objects" as 'coreless apparitions.' This is so much the case, that you completely disregarded my question about the content of the Atthasaalinii and went on to talk about other content. What's the matter? Why won't you deal with the content of the Atthasaalinii that I raised the issue about? You shouldn't be afraid to bat in your own ballpark. ;-) The issue I raised, from the Atthasaalinii, dealt with conditional behavior. Such behavior takes place irregardless of the "object" being discussed. Insight focuses on -- "impermanence, affliction, and no-self." These are all principles of conditionality. Most certainly impermanence and no-self are not objects. Affliction, which might be considered an "object" when it arises, is here spoken of as a principle. Here is my statement and question again... I can completely agree with the above. The terms "friction," "friction of impact," "reacting," "co-reaction," and "striking" exactly in line with my vision of dhamma. And very important terms to consider at all times and in all situations IMO. Question... Does the above description confirm that visual-object is NOT the "stuff" we interpret "out in space," but rather, the energy, or momentum, or photons, or rupa, etc., whatever you wish to call it,' that strike the eye? Here is the passage from the Atthasaalinii... 'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye, TG #92641 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 11/16/2008 5:45:31 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: The perception that the use of certain terms "gives the impression of discrete entities" is a purely subjective one. ..................................................... TG: That's the problem with all of delusion... "subjectivity." .................................................................... In any event, the Buddha did not exhort the avoidance of certain expressions because they would give the wrong impression about the true nature of dhammas. I think you (and others) are quite mistaken in pursuing this line of thinking. ............................................................................ TG: This is not an issue I pursue or even believe in. Your impression that it is... is merely a "subjective one." Honestly. :-) TG OUT #92642 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Jon "One to whom it might occur, > 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' > Or 'I'm anything at all' - > Is fit for Maara's address." > > Yassa nuuna siyaa eva.m, itthaaha.m purisoti vaa; > Ki~nci vaa pana a~n~nasmi, ta.m maaro vattumarahatii' Ki~ > > Scott: As regards thoughts of 'man' or 'woman' or 'anything at all', > Bh. Bodhi paraphrases the commentary as: > > Note 338: "Spk says one entertains such thoughts on account of > craving, conceit, and views (ta.nhaamaanadi. craving, conce > > TG: I would point at that the "anything at all" includes "namas" and > "rupas." Agreed. But it is not being said that a person is namas and rupas. It is being said that what is taken for a person is in truth and reality only namas and rupas. Jon ............................................................. TG: Agreed...with the caveat that -- this information does not clarify exactly what nama and rupa are. TG #92643 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Howard It was my understanding, and I thought from an Abhidhamma perspective, that none of the Four Great Elements arose without some measure of the 'other three great elements' being an aspect thereof? In other words, they don't "exist" independently. Therefore, how can Sarah's comment below make sense? Now as for you Howard...here's a big fat kiss. ;-) TG OUT In a message dated 11/16/2008 6:11:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/16/2008 7:20:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _sarahprocterabbott@sarahprocsa_ (mailto:sarahprocterabbott@...) writes: S: Go ahead and make an issue of this or anything else anytime :-). It is a difficult point as I said, i.e that only temperature is the cause of rupas outside the body. ============================== Does not motion cause other motion? (A hammer & a nail for example? The wind and the motion of a sailboat? And action and reaction?) And is the moon's gravity, which causes the tides and ocean waves, a form of temperature? The notion that temperature is the sole cause of rupas outside the body is simply false. Does being a Buddhist require accepting primitive science over modern science as a better story? I'll personally stick for the most part with the stories of modern science such as the brain being more relevant to emotion than the heart, and so much of modern physics which has been amply born out in application. With metta, Howard #92644 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Howard In a message dated 11/16/2008 10:49:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Sarah and Howard It was my understanding, and I thought from an Abhidhamma perspective, that none of the Four Great Elements arose without some measure of the 'other three great elements' being an aspect thereof? In other words, they don't "exist" independently. Therefore, how can Sarah's comment below make sense? ..................................................... TG: After further reflection, it occurred to me the Sarah was attempting to confirm the Big Bang theory. Well done! TG OUT #92645 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Howard, Jon and all, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Jon) - > > In a message dated 11/16/2008 10:09:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hi Jon, > > > When did I say that insight is not important? It is. But insight >HAS to be based on Jhana according to that Sutta. Insight work >happens based ON Jhana in AN9.36 > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That certainly seems unambiguous to me. Thank you Howard for understanding and not throwing straw man arguments like some do. RE: Insight during Jhana. Various suttas DO suggest that insight can happen during Jhana, although one would probably have to come out of Jhana or at most be in the 1st Jhana to think about the insights. It does seem to me that Jhana is similiar to sankhara-upekkha-nana. That suggests to me that Jhana way doesn't exclude Insight. Various "vipassana" insights happen either during or after Jhana. Jhana in Buddha's teaching never was a contentless non-percipient trance where one cannot hear, cannot see. That is Brahman Parasivi's teaching that Buddha using his frequent "Reductio ad absurdum" analysis in MN152. Best wishes, #92646 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/16/2008 12:49:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Sarah and Howard It was my understanding, and I thought from an Abhidhamma perspective, that none of the Four Great Elements arose without some measure of the 'other three great elements' being an aspect thereof? In other words, they don't "exist" independently. Therefore, how can Sarah's comment below make sense? Now as for you Howard...here's a big fat kiss. ;-) ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! -------------------------------------- TG OUT ========================== With metta, Howard #92647 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: Let's discuss akusala szmicio Dear Sarah Now I feel some kind of regret, that i am doing so much akusala. Even when we talk about Dhamma there are still moments of akusala. Still think that if i let akusala happen it's wrong. Maybe I sholud change it? Maybe I should try much more harder. I think about right speach now. And maybe i should stop to speak or start to speak in the right way, but i cant, i really cant. I have so many doubts now. For kusala is so easy to make more kusala, so easy, but when akusala arise there is a lot of doubts in this matter. I really cant start from siila. There is so much dosa and atachement. I am not satisfy how i lead my daily life. But I have no strenght to change it. Best wishes Lukas #92648 From: "Dave Brown" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:10 am Subject: a short hello and introduction from new member asiandavebrown hello my name is dave brown , I originate from australia, I first met achaan sujin in 1973I was ordianed at time and staying at War Bovoranives in Bangkok, KunSujin used to visit small groups of foriegn monks and teach us in her unique and graceful manner ,she served us tea and buscuits her teaching was and still is very inspirational , I must confess to being very ignorant of true buddhism at that time, instead I spent my time seeking out traditional Thai forest samatta teachers....But 35 years later I have settled back in thailand and am pursuing lay vipassana training.. I found this group on the internet by chance.. #92649 From: quidam Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:14 pm Subject: "What kind of love do you got" Eagles ksheri3 Hi, To the many groups that I have participated with over these last 5 or 6 years I wish to extend my appreciation. This post was originally thought to be done with the best I could offer in the way of formatting and maintaining continuous thoughts so I did it in pieces and was going to paste them together via a form of "paper writing" called cut & paste then editing the pasted version. Unfortunately time may not allow me to format this single thought properly since I may disappear at any second and tomorrow is Monday so that means that it's the begining of the utilitarian work week and procedure may dictate that I disappear on Monday THEREFORE I am issueing this appreciation in it's raw unedited and unformatted form so that I can at least get my thoughts of appreciation out there. Pardon my inconsistantcies. since this post will be used I need to document the actual way it occured. 1st page on pad I found when I realized that I needed to write this stuff down so that I get the info properly. THE 1ST PAGE ON THE PAD I FOUND, A PAD FROM PRISON DOWNSTATE, TAYLORVILLE, THAT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETELY USED, ALREADY HAD A PAGE WRITTEN ON AND SAID: MARGIN AT TOP OF PAGE: "Man's hatred of man" <....> Now I get to the second page where I begin writing: "-- Such a sense of community since moving into a home -- Buddhist monks the most tgrue people I have ever had the honor of associating w/. -- they've remained constant and as true to their linaeges as any person I could have had the luck to perform for. -- your practices are by far such an unbelievable reality. I am in awe b y their capabilities and so I bless you for your expertise and graciousness for offering me the opportunity to experience such awesome powers. I can only repeat the most profound truth that I have experienced since 1980: BEWARE OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF ANY OF THE SLEEPING DRAGONS AWAKE." this was only a half page so I had to go to a new page to write. 1st line: "-- Such a sense of community <....> six empty lines, I had to serve the renters of the home I live in the basement so I wanted this line created so that I didn't forget but I never got the chance to fill in the empty lines since when I got home I immediately came here. "* You all have pieces to the puzzle and TOGETHER it is possible to make it work out." <....> last weekend bertos grandad went into the hospital for fluid in his lungs. Could not breathe. ----------------------------------------------------- This is now off the top of my head and will have extreme emotional values. <...> -------------------------------------------------------------- "... description of the stages of the Yogacara path to buddhahood written..." HOW ABSURD! DISCUSTING! Since when is the objective of Buddhism to attain Buddhahood? The objective is to attain ENLIGHTENMENT. The Buddha, Shakyamuni, achieved this and therefore achieved the label Buddha, but Buddhism has nothing to do with aspiring to achieve the name Buddhahood or Buddha because simply recongizing what Suffering is, and the path to stop suffering, can be, is a phenominal path to take. ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE BUDDHA ARE TWO SEPERATE THINGS. <....> #92650 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member sarahprocter... Dear Dave, I'm very happy to welcome you to DSG! Thank you for your introduction! --- On Mon, 17/11/08, Dave Brown wrote: >hello my name is dave brown , I originate from australia, I first met achaan sujin in 1973I was ordianed at time and staying at War Bovoranives in Bangkok, KunSujin used to visit small groups of foriegn monks and teach us in her unique and graceful manner ,she served us tea and buscuits her teaching was and still is very inspirational , ...... S: I wonder what your ordained name was and whether you met and knew Jonothan (Jon here on-line) at this time? He also comes from Australia, studied with A.Sujin from 1973 and was ordained for a period at Wat Bovoranives. Also, he or we'd know many/most the other foreign monks who studied with her then. Perhaps you remember some of them? As you say, "was and still is very inspirational". ...... >I must confess to being very ignorant of true buddhism at that time, instead I spent my time seeking out traditional Thai forest samatta teachers.... But 35 years later I have settled back in thailand and am pursuing lay vipassana training.. I found this group on the internet by chance.. ..... S: This is very interesting. Whereabouts are you in Thailand now? A.Sujin holds a regular Sat afternoon discussion in English at the Foundation in Thonburi. In early February, Jonothan, Nina and I will be visiting for a week or so and A.Sujin will then be holding discussions almost daily, so it would be great if you could join us at them. Meanwhile, look forward to any discussion with you here. You may also like to listen to some of the more recent edited recordings of discussions with A.Sujin at www.dhammastudygroup.org. As it happens, I was listening to part of an old (1977) poor quality-recording the other day and am always struck at how the content, message, style (even her voice) of what she explains has hardly changed at all. Anyway, speak later - I have to go out now.. Metta, Sarah ========== #92651 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:08 pm Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi James > > May I butt in? James: Sure you can! I must say, I am really surprised by this post! I never, in a million years, thought that we would be in such agreement on this issue. I had to reread what you wrote several times to make sure. I hope I am not misunderstanding. Comments to follow: > > I agree with what I think you're saying here. If we say, "That's not > a person it's really a number of separate parts attached together in a > particular way", that is not the development of the understanding of > not-self as taught by the Buddha. That is just trying to see things > as we think they should be seen ;-)) James: YES! EXACTLY!! > > The Buddha did not teach the denial of the existence of people. James: BINGO!! What > he taught was the understanding of the true nature of dhammas, that is > to say, the direct understanding of the characteristic of presently > arising dhammas. James: Right again! He taught to see the nature of all dhammas as: anicca, dukkha, and anatta. > > But as the chariot simile points out, the *idea* of person/being > arises out of the experience (direct or inferred) of the 5 khandhas. James: I am not 100% in agreement with this part because the Buddha didn't teach the chariot simile. It was spoken by a lesser ariyan and is therefore a lesser teaching. The Buddha taught to view people, especially oneself, in terms of the five khandas in order to deconstruct the idea of a lasting self. People believe in a lasting self. The Buddha taught to deconstruct the human experience into the five khandas in order to show that there is no self to be found anywhere. It is not from the five khandas that there is the "idea" of a person- there is a person (but that person is either viewed with wisdom or not). Jon, I am not sure how far apart on this we are. It is a very complicated subject. > > > > Views > > are views- ultimately they aren't worth a darn. Transcendent Right > > View is really no view. > > Transcendent Right View is not a "view" in the sense that that word is > commonly used. Transcendent Right View is the direct experience by > developed panna of a nama or a rupa (or nibbana). James: Right. Or you could say that Transcendent Right View is direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. It depends on your emphasis. > > Jon > Metta, James #92652 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? buddhatrue Hi Howard, This is a very fascinating issue you bring up: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > That certainly seems unambiguous to me. I also notice something else of > interest in that sutta that is, at least suggestive. I set off by double > slashes what I wish to emphasize: > > 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first > jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the > case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, > enters & //remains// in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of > seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. //He regards whatever > phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & > consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, > painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns > his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to > the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite ??the > resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending > of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'// > > This suggests to me, though not unambiguously, that the insightful > "regarding" and the inclining towards the deathless occurs *during* the jhana. > There is no implication of withdrawing from the jhana James: This is a possible reading- and a fascinating one as it contradicts what I think about the jhanas. However, another reading is that when the sutta states "enters and remains in the first jhana" it is describing the successful attainment of the first jhana. As the Vism. describes, before one attains the first jhana (or any subsequent jhana) there is a teetering in and out of the jhana as the mind builds balance and confidence in the jhana. So, after the meditator has successfully achieved the first jhana, and experienced the full benefits of that jhana, he/she can turn the mind to the five khandas. Granted, the sutta doesn't say "next" or "after the jhana" turn to the five khandas, but it seems to be strongly implied to me, at least. What sutta does tell me is that the Vism. idea of the "dry insight worker", who has only achieved access concentration but not full mastery of the first jhana, is a fallacy. first. Note that this is > so except for the 8th & 9th jhanas, just as in the Anupada Sutta. In AN9.36, > with regard to these two jhanas, the Buddha differently says the following: > "Thus, as far as the perception-attainments go, that [the jhana of > nothingness] is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two spheres ??the > attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception & the > attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception ??I tell you that they are to > be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, > skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on > them." > Note, for example, the difference stated in the Anupada Sutta between the > 7th and 8th jhanas, with emerging from the 8th being required before gnosis > occurs: > 15] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of Infinite > Consciousness, aware that there is ?˜Nothing?? Sariputta entered upon and abided in > the base of ?˜Nothingness?? > 16] "And the states in the base of ?˜Nothingness??- the perception of the > base of ?˜Nothingness??and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, > perception, volition and consciousness, the enthusiasm, decision, energy, > mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one > as they occurred; know to him those states arose, known they were present, > known they disappeared. He understood thus: ?˜So indeed, these states not having > been, come into to being; having been, they vanish.??Regarding these states > he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, > with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ?˜There is an escape beyond this??> , and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. > 17] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of ?˜N othingness?? > Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of neither perception nor > non-perception. > 18] "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated > the states that had passed, ceased and changed, thus: ?˜So indeed, these > states, not having been, come into being; having been they vanished. Regarding > those states, he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, > dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ?˜There is an escape > beyond this,??and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that > there is. James: This may be further support for your idea but I cannot follow what you are saying. Could you possibly re-explain with shorter quotes? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Best wishes, > =============================== > With metta, > Howard > Metta, James #92653 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 11/16/2008 8:54:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: This may be further support for your idea but I cannot follow what you are saying. Could you possibly re-explain with shorter quotes? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Let me instead insert some comments: first. Note that this is > so except for the 8th & 9th jhanas, just as in the Anupada Sutta. In AN9.36, > with regard to these two jhanas, the Buddha differently says the following: > "Thus, as far as the perception-attainments go, that [the jhana of > nothingness] is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two spheres ??the > attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception & the > attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception ??I tell you that they are to > be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, > skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on > them." - - - - - - - - - The foregoing seems to say that gnosis-penetration (a.k.a. insight) occurs within the 1st seven jhanas only, but the 8th & 9th jhanas need to be emerged from for that to occur. - - - - - - - - - - > Note, for example, the difference stated in the Anupada Sutta between the > 7th and 8th jhanas, with emerging from the 8th being required before gnosis > occurs: > 15] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of Infinite > Consciousness, aware that there is ?ËœNothing?? Sariputta entered upon and abided in > the base of ?ËœNothingness?? > 16] "And the states in the base of ?ËœNothingness??- the perception of the > base of ?ËœNothingness??and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, > perception, volition and consciousness, the enthusiasm, decision, energy, > mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one > as they occurred; know to him those states arose, known they were present, > known they disappeared. He understood thus: ?ËœSo indeed, these states not having > been, come into to being; having been, they vanish.??Regarding these states > he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, > with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ?ËœThere is an escape beyond this??> , and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. - - - - - - - - - - - The foregoing seems to show insight into the characteristics within each of the jhanas up through the 7th, including insight into impermanence. - - - - - - - - - - - > 17] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of ?ËœN othingness?? > Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of neither perception nor > non-perception. - - - - - - - - - - - But for the similar insights with regard to the states in the 8th jhana to occur, the following asserts that consciousness first emerges from that jhana. - - - - - - - - - - - > 18] "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated > the states that had passed, ceased and changed, thus: ?ËœSo indeed, these > states, not having been, come into being; having been they vanished. Regarding > those states, he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, > dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ?ËœThere is an escape > beyond this,??and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that > there is. =========================== With metta, Howard #92654 From: "Dave Brown" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member asiandavebrown Dear Sarah, thankyou for your reply. I only attended a few classes with A. Sujin when I was down from the northeast to renew visas so I didnt get to close with the group the monks I do remember at that time were Greg Wilzhek from usa Stephen Taylor UK , Don Riche UK, Colin Scattergood Australia, the rest I can not remember... I will make an effort to come to bangkok and attend talks, that would be very good, I purchased an investment property in Pattaya in june this year (its not too far from a meditation centre which follows the vipassana teachings of the late achaan Naeb ) and have just finished renovations I will return to thailand before jan 09. I travel to various countries during the year, but next year I will base my self mainly in thailand... I am retired from my computer training business...and am keen to explore more into the abhidhamma thanks agian for your interest.. and good wishes Dave Brown Western Australia #92656 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sprlrt Dear Sarah S: 1) Oja/nutriment is only a condition for producing rupas of the body. CMA, ch V1 Compendium of Matter: "Nutriment, known as nutritive essence, on reaching its stage of presence, produces material phenomena originating from nutriment *at the time it is swallowed*. More detail in the guide note. A: I've found this on KS The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena, notes to Ch 9, which would apply to plants as well 7. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality, according to the "Visuddhimagga". Some creams, for example, nourish the skin. Alberto #92657 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's discuss akusala nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 16-nov-2008, om 20:57 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I am not satisfy how i lead my daily life. But I have no strenght to > change it. ------ N: Here you can learn that whatever arises, also akusala, does so because there are conditions. We can learn from akusala. I heard a Thai recording that may be of help to you: Does this help? It is pa~n~naa and sati that guard the six doorways. There are six worlds, but they appear only one at a time, you can verify this. It is through understanding that there will be less wrong speech. We can learn to be aware of sound or hearing, no matter others or we ourselves are speaking. Dosa may arise in the midst of a conversation, and it is accompanied by unhappy feeling and they are realities, they can be objects of 'study' with sati. ------- Nina. #92658 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Rupa khandha nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 17-nov-2008, om 8:39 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > A: I've found this on KS The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena, > notes to Ch 9, which would apply to plants as well > > 7. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality, > according to the "Visuddhimagga". Some creams, for example, nourish > the skin. ------- N: But this regards skin of the human body. But I understand your argument. Plants need soil and water, but also soil and water are rupas produced by the element of heat. You were wondering about nutrition arising with all kinds of matter, also that is outside the body, but this nutrition does not produce new rupas, it merely conditions the conascent inseparables. Nina. #92659 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:23 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, During our journey we found out that we had not considered enough the Dhamma in our daily life. We were surprised when we found out how rare pure kusala is. We noticed that even when we performed good deeds such as offering dåna to the monks or helping other people, there were many more akusala cittas than we ever thought. We found that we hardly knew what pure kusala without any selfish purposes is. We were often asked: “Is this moment kusala or akusala?” and then we were not sure about this. What has been taught in the Abhidhamma “is not in the book”, it is reality, now. Did we verify in daily life what has been taught in the Abhidhamma? During this journey we learnt that even when it seems that there isn’t any unwholesomeness, such as at the moments we see a flower or a cup, there can be subtle clinging with indifferent feeling. We are ignorant of such moments time and again. Through the Abhidhamma we learnt about sense-door processes and mind-door processes, processes of cittas which experience objects through the sense-door and through the mind-door. In a process there are seven “javana-cittas” (cittas “running through” the object) which are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When there is no dåna, síla or bhåvanå, the javana-cittas are akusala cittas. When we were reminded that when we look at a flower or a cup there is clinging most of the time, we realized that we had not sufficiently considered the Abhidhamma in our daily life. Now we understand more how difficult it is to know whether at this moment, just after seeing or hearing, or at the moment of thinking, the citta is kusala citta or akusala citta. Only right understanding can know this moment precisely. If one does not consider the Dhamma enough in one’s daily life it can be due to clinging to one’s good friend in the Dhamma. One may be inclined to ask questions all the time, but sometimes it may be better to consider oneself the points one wants to be clarified. The good friend in Dhamma can point out to us the Way, but we should be courageous enough to develop right understanding ourselves. Right understanding is our best teacher; it knows kusala as kusala, akusala as akusala, it can solve all our doubts. Right understanding knows whether there is any development or not yet and it knows what hinders our development. ******* Nina. #92660 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:30 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, Question: satipatthana cannot have concepts as object and therefore when we develop satipatthana should we try to stop citta having a concept as object? S.: That is not right because then we could not lead our ordinary daily life. We cannot stop citta having concepts as object. However, pa~n~na can be developed so that it can be known that when a concept is the object, it is citta, a type of nama, which knows that concept. A concept could not be the object at that moment if there were no citta which knows it. When we develop satipatthana we should not force ourselves not to think of concepts. We should not try not to know what the different things are which we normally see and recognize in daily life. Then we would not be able to know the characteristic of nama dhamma, the reality which knows something. When a concept is the object one should realize that citta and cetasika which are nama dhammas have arisen and that they know at that moment an object which is a concept. Satipatthana can study and consider realities and be aware of them. Thus it can be known that when there is thinking it is nama which thinks, an element, a reality which experiences, not a self, a being or person. We should know that all dhammas are non-self, anatta, and that we cannot stop citta thinking of different things. Pa~n~na should penetrate the characteristics of the different namas that experience different objects through the six doors. Then doubt about the characteristics of nama dhammas can be eliminated. Nobody can prevent the arising of the phenomena of our daily life. It is because of ignorance that one tries not to think or not to know the concepts of the things that appear. If someone tries to avoid thinking of concepts pa~n~na cannot be developed. ********* Nina. #92661 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:34 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 313 and Tiika, part 1. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 313 Intro: in the following section it is explained that specific causes produce specific fruits. When one sees this rightly one abandons the no-cause view and the moral-inefficacy-of-action. If one sees this wrongly one clings to the no-cause view and to fatalism. ---------- Text Vis.313.:(d) The production of only formations, etc., respectively and no others with ignorance, etc., as the respective reasons, like that of curd, etc., with milk, etc., as the respective reasons, is called the 'method of ineluctable regularity'. -------- N: The 'method of ineluctable regularity' is the translation of dhammataa. This means: conformity to the Dhamma niyama, the ‘rule’ of Dhamma. P. Maung translates: ‘the nature of being such’ and in the Dispeller of Delusion we find: the method of appropriate nature. It is in the nature of dhammas taking their course that such and such cause produces such and such effect. The fruit is in accordance with the cause. The Tiika gives some examples to illustrate this: curd comes from milk, not from water; oil comes from sesamum seed, not from sand. --------- Text Vis.: One who sees this rightly abandons the no-cause view and the moral-inefficacy-of-action view by understanding how the fruit accords with its condition. One who sees it wrongly by apprehending it as non-production of anything from anything, instead of apprehending the occurrence of the fruit in accordance with its conditions, clings to the no-cause view and to the doctrine of fatalism. -------- N: The Tiika explains that when one understands that it is not so that everything is produced from everything one abandons ahetuka di.t.thi, the view that there is no cause. When one sees that each cause produces its fruit accordingly, one abandons akiriya di.t.thi, the view that there kamma does not produce its appropriate result. Whereas when one has wrong understanding one clings to the above mentioned wrong views. As to fatalism, niyatavaada, this is explained in the Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship and its Commentaries (translated by Ven. Bodhi). The Co. (p. 72) states that according to Makkhali Gosaala: The Tiika to the Vis. adds: also without causes, things such as oil, curd, and bodies occur, and this is the idea clung to by the fatalists. ------------------------ Conclusion: Our life is only dhammas taking their course in accordance with the proper conditions. Kamma produces rebirth in unhappy or happy planes and such rebirth is completely in conformity with the kamma which is the cause. As the Tiika explains: curd comes from milk, not from anything else such as water. There is no creator and no fate that rules over our lives. When one understand cause and fruit in life one will be less inclined to believe in a self who is reborn, who sees, experiences pain and happiness, and makes right or wrong efforts. (to be continued) ******** Nina. #92662 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:47 am Subject: Thank you and farewell philofillet Hi group I just wanted to drop by and thank you all for the soon-to-be 5 years I've been here, I've learned a lot from all of you, much of it aspects of Dhamma and I would not have come across elsewhere. I especially thank Sarah, Jon and Nina for having sent me so many books and CDs, and for their great patience with my fractious behaviour. In the end, conditions weren't there for me to have faith in Acharn Sujin, but I see new members are showing up who do respond to her approach, so mudita there! Thanks again, and happy trails to you all. metta, phil p.s this might seem attention seeking, but I didn't just want to disappear the way some people do. :) #92663 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:05 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. szmicio Dear Nina, Can satipathana arise when we think of concepts? Can sati cetasika and panja cetasika arise with the citta which has pannatti as object? Still dont understand how citta can experience pannatti? What is the lakkhana of pannati, that i may experience? many cittas arise and fall away and experience diffrent arammana. But i dont understand how pannatti can be an object for citta? i considered pannati as a result of many cittas arising and falling away experiencing a REAL arammana. What is the nimitta of thinking. When panja arises and clearly knows nama-dhatu and rupa dhatu in daily life are there still concepts is such moments? Best wishes Lukas #92664 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death (7) sarahprocter... Dear Han,(James & all), I must confess that I only just read your final installment, having just briefly skimmed it before - I put aside longer or more detailed posts to read when I can give them better attention. I enjoyed all the sections and in particular the last one: --- On Tue, 11/11/08, han tun wrote: >(8) as to shortness of the moment (kha.na parittato). Vsm says that in the ultimate sense the life-moment of living beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurrence of a single conscious moment. Just a chariot wheel, when it is rolling, rolls, that is, touches the ground, only on one point of the circumference of its tyres, and, when it is at rest, rests only on one point, so too, the life of living beings lasts only for a single conscious moment. When that consciousness has ceased, the being is said to have ceased. .... S: Yes, the life-moments are very short indeed. Our world and all we find so important just exists in this one moment of seeing, hearing, thinking or other experiencing. When we look to the Dhamma as the only refuge, it is this understanding of the reality now, the shortness of the moment now, that is intended, I believe. ..... >Accordingly, it is said that: (i) in a past conscious moment, he did live, not he does live, not he will live. (ii) in a future conscious moment, not he did live, not he does live, he will live. (iii) in the present conscious moment, not he did live, he does live, not he will live. >Han: In the ultimate sense, there should not be any difference between the arising and falling away of, say, eye-consciousness, and the arising and falling away of cuti citta? If we are not afraid of the arising and passing away of eye-consciousness, we should not be afraid of the arising and falling away of cuti citta. This being so, we should be able to face the death with courage, awareness, and understanding. .... S: This is exactly as I see it. Any cittas are as impermanent as any other cittas and not worth clinging to at all. They are all dukkha and anatta, not belonging to anyone. Cuti citta is just the same kind of citta as those that arise in deep sleep and between every sense and mind door process so very frequently during the day. As you say, we're not afraid of the next moment of seeing and the cuti citta could arise as the next citta in just the same way. Just as seeing is followed by other cittas, just as bhavanga cittas are followed by other cittas, so is cuti citta in just the same way. Nothing is ever known about the next citta, regardless of the circumstances. Anyway, you made all your comments perfectly - I only intended to agree with them. ...... ------------ --------- --------- >I have come to the END. I thank you all for giving me your time and attention. ..... S: Thank you again and also to James for kindly encouraging your series. I'd be interested to hear any of your comments on the other sections in the Vism one day, but no hurry! Metta, Sarah ========== #92665 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:41 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: Atthasaalinii (p. 414-416) regarding sappa.tigha.m - 'visible' and 'reacting': "In the exposition of 'visible object' colour is just 'coloured appearance'; or it shines - hence appearance. 'Evident to visual cognition' is the meaning of the compound term. 'Visible' is [literally] co-vision; the meaning is, it is to be seen by visual cognition. 'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye, the function or property of being in the relation of object to visual cognition, the manifestation of being the great field of visual cognition, the proximate cause of the four great essentials. Likewise all derived matter has the four great essentials as proximate cause..." Ruupaayatananiddese va.n.nova va.n.nanibhaa; nibhaataati vaa nibhaa. Cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa paaka.taa hotiiti attho. Va.n.nova nibhaa va.n.nanibhaa. Saddhi.m nidassanena sanidassana.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nena passitabbanti attho. Saddhi.m pa.tighena sappa.tigha.m, pa.tigha.t.tananigha.msajanakanti attho...Evameta.m niilaadinaa bhedena bhinnampi ruupa.m sabba.m lakkha.naadiihi abhinnameva. Sabba~nheta.m cakkhupa.tihananalakkha.na.m ruupa.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa visayabhaavarasa.m, tasseva gocarapaccupa.t.thaana.m, catumahaabhuutapada.t.thaana.m. TG: "BTW, I can completely agree with the above..." Scott: Only as far as it seems to conform to the view through which you conceive of things, which, to me (and for me as well) can only produce 'agreement' where none might be. TG: "...The terms 'friction,' 'friction of impact,' 'reacting,' 'co-reaction,' and 'striking' exactly in line with my vision of dhamma. And very important terms to consider at all times and in all situations IMO. Question... Does the above description confirm that visual-object is NOT the 'stuff' we interpret 'out in space,' but rather, the energy, or momentum, or photons, or rupa, etc., whatever you wish to call it,' that strike the eye?..." Scott: Key words include sappa.tigha and gocara. For sappatigha, there is (PTS PED): "Sappa.tigha (adj.) [sa3+pa.tigha] producing reaction, reacting..." And, the root-word: "Pa.tigha (m. & nt.) [pa.ti+gha, adj. suffix of ghan=han, lit. striking against]...2. (psychologically) sensory reaction..." As for 'gocara', as Sarah mentioned, the PTS PED gives: "...a 'field' (of sense perception, etc.), sphere, object;...food for, an object of (a) psychologically indriy.aana.m naanaagocaraani various spheres of sense -- perception...; sense -- object (=aaramma.na.m)...(sampattagocara physical contact with an object,..." Scott: I think the view gravitates to terms like 'co-reaction' and 'friction of impact' - making them it's own - because it seeks to establish that there are no separate realities. This is the aim of the view. 'Physical contact' can easily be miscontrued as the view twists the meaning of things. The sappa.tigha ruupaa are 12; those five that are impinged on by objects - the pasaada ruupaa - and those seven that are objects of impingement - the visaya ruupaa. The five pasaada ruupaa are also known as gocaaragaahika ruupaa - they can be impinged upon by external objects. Visible object remains, for me, something 'out in space' - something separate. The view seeks to conflate ruupa and naama based on an experience of perception. TG: "...It does to me, and it also seems obvious from a scientific point of view, but what is your take on that?..." I don't prefer to inject today's version of conceptual science into the Dhamma. The above remains, for me, a description of visible object (external and derived ruupa) which arises and is condition for eye-consciousness, the base of which is internal (pasaada ruupa) and the function of which is seeing. To say otherwise is to re-write the way ruupa is understood. Ruupa remains either external or internal. Ruupa is a reality separate from naama. 'Wave-lengths' and 'photons' and 'energy' are just concepts. Wait a hundred years and there will be a whole new set of concepts to explain it all and, as the history of science shows, some will reverse today's position. Not relevant, as far as I'm concerned. Sincerely, Scott. #92666 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member nilovg Dear Dave, welcome to this list. I had left Thailand since 1973, but regularly visited it and also came to Wat Bovoranives. Did you meet Ven. Dhammadharo, later Alan Driver? In what way you found Kh Sujin's teaching inspirational? Different from what you used to hear? Do you know Thai, in that case you could follow a daily broadcasting by Kh Sujin. Good to see you in Febr. , Nina. Op 16-nov-2008, om 18:10 heeft Dave Brown het volgende geschreven: > I first met achaan > sujin in 1973I was ordianed at time and staying at War Bovoranives in > Bangkok, KunSujin used to visit small groups of foriegn monks and > teach us > in her unique and graceful manner ,she served us tea and buscuits her > teaching was and still is very inspirational , #92667 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:59 am Subject: Re: Thank you and farewell buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi group > > I just wanted to drop by and thank you all for the soon-to-be 5 years > I've been here, I've learned a lot from all of you, much of it aspects > of Dhamma and I would not have come across elsewhere. I especially > thank Sarah, Jon and Nina for having sent me so many books and CDs, and > for their great patience with my fractious behaviour. In the end, > conditions weren't there for me to have faith in Acharn Sujin, but I > see new members are showing up who do respond to her approach, so > mudita there! Thanks again, and happy trails to you all. > Geez, if I had a dollar for every time you quit DSG I could bail out the US auto companies! :-) Seriously, I don't think you should quit just because you disagree with 'you know who'. This group is also about discussion of the Abhidhamma, Suttas, and Vinaya- and no one has a corner market on those teachings. And, Phil, I think you write really good posts which will be worthwhile to the new members. You could just cut back some to write. I have also cut back a lot. This isn't really a big deal to me because I can write to you off- list anytime, but I feel sorry for the new members who would never get to read one of your humanistic posts. They are truly compassionate. Metta, James #92668 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you and farewell upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and James) - Phil, I second James' sentiments! (I'm cutting down my posting, BTW.) With metta, Howard #92669 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:19 am Subject: Abhidhamma translations szmicio Dear Dhamma friends I am looking for Abhidhamma translations. Particulary: Dhammasangani and Patthana books. I know those positions are available in PTS, but I have no money to buy it. Best wishes Lukas P.s Where can I find a complete Visudhimagga translation? #92670 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott TG: Once again your definitions just seem to bolster my outlook. Thanks. Scott: Visible object remains, for me, something 'out in space' - something separate. The view seeks to conflate ruupa and naama based on an experience of perception. ......................................................... TG: To experience something "out in space," without contact, is some strange magic indeed. When the Abhidhamma commentarial passage in question so clearly talks of "striking," "friction of impact," etc., I'm amazed you prefer to ignore that and think that visual-experience is of something "out in space." We can only experience what contacts the body/mind. Period. How something "out in space," that doesn't contact the body, can be experienced...is an amazing "leap of faith" to put it politely. ;-) What surprises me is the blind eye given to aspects of the commentaries that you claim to follow so stringently. From my point of view, this lack of seeing a direct "causal connection" is very detrimental to insight. Its becoming clear that its not just the commentaries that you follow, but a very specific type of commentarial view. And any Sutta or commentary that doesn't nicely fit that preconceived view, gets ignored or dismissed as a fluke. Nevertheless, its just conditions interacting and altering...and any "identifiable" phenomena are mere resultants and empty of anything pertaining to self...or "own." Science can at times assist in bolstering the vision of the causal connectivity of phenomena, which is very supportive of Buddhist issues of conditionality, impermanence, and no-self. But if your not comfortable with it, or feel threatened by it, no need to use it. Its just a side track. To just totally dismiss all of it seems a little irrational to me. TG #92671 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you and farewell nilovg Hi Phil, I endorse James, you write good posts. But I am sure you come back, this always happened. Nina. Op 17-nov-2008, om 15:59 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > I feel sorry for the new members who would never > get to read one of your humanistic posts. They are truly > compassionate. #92672 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you and farewell hantun1 Dear Phil (James, Howard), I thank you very much for saying fare-well to us for the time being. I will miss your posts. I wish you every success in your endeavours. I also wish I were still around when you rejoin the DSG. with my warmest personal regards, Han #92673 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you and farewell sarahprocter... Hi James & Phil, Yes, like the others, I agree with you, James! Besides, without disagreements, there wouldn't be a discussion group, lol! We all enjoy and benefit from your posts, Phil, and I say this even when they disagree with everything I say:-)). Best wishes for the book in the meantime, Phil. Metta, Sarah #92674 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you and farewell TGrand458@... Hi Phil Keep studying Dhamma. Be mindful. Be happy. TG #92675 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:56 pm Subject: "Not doing good kamma is bad kamma"? antony272b2 Dear Sarah, Nina, Howard, all, "Not doing good kamma is bad kamma." Is this true (for a worldling) according to the Abhidhamma? Or are there occasions where no kamma is being made? Thanks / Antony. #92676 From: "asiandavebrown" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member asiandavebrown -dear Nina, Thankyou for your welcome reply, No I dont remember Alan Driver such a lot of water has passed under bridge....since then that I remember many of those dhamma friends :) As for what i found so special about Kun Sujin Then and Now was/is her fresh unique teaching style always moving the questioner back towards reality .It reminded me of the socratic method "Dialectic Rhetoric" revealing the truth through question and answer, I find her teaching easier to appreciate now than I did as a 22 year old, I have benifited from the A.Naeb method and as such have come around to the the appreciation of A Sujin, thanks again Khun Nina #92677 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:38 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, We found out that we did not develop satipatthåna with a sincere inclination and this is also a hindrance. The purpose of satipatthåna is the eradication of the wrong view of self and of all defilements. We want to listen to Dhamma talks because it gives us a feeling of security and we enjoy moments of peace and calm. But we do not want to apply the Dhamma. “We pay lipservice to satipatthåna”, Bhante Dhammadhara said. Do we really see the value of all levels of kusala? All kinds of kusala are beneficial and they help us to have less lobha, dosa and moha. If one sees the benefit of satipatthåna one should at the same time also practise true generosity without selfish motives, one should have true consideration for others and develop loving kindness and compassion. Do we think of kusala in a selfish way? We may cling to a concept of “my kusala”. When we see the benefit of unselfishness we shall develop all levels of kusala and we shall also have more understanding of the purpose of satipatthåna: the eradication of defilements. The last day Khun Sujin was in Sri Lanka she offered dåna in our friend Janaki’s house to the group of foreign monks we were traveling with. After the monks had finished their meal Bhante Dhammadhara gave us a sermon, speaking the following words: “When one comes to learn more about realities of this moment, one does not discover something new and different, but there comes to be some understanding of what one has been familiar with: of what one has always taken for “self”, for people, places and things. 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.” Still, it arises and something is learnt about the reality at this moment. Right understanding brings detachment and this can lead, one day, to complete and final eradication of all this ignorance which causes us to see the present moment other than it is. It causes us to see things as attractive, lasting, worth while, important. All these ways of seeing the present moment are false, treacherous, dangerous and useless. 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. ***** Nina. #92678 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:42 am Subject: Series Survey Quote nilovg Dear friends, The development of the ariyan eightfold Path is actually the development of the four satipatthånas. It is the development of awareness and right understanding of the characteristics of realities as they appear one at a time in our daily life, through the sense- doors and through the mind-door. Mindfulness is not easy and in the beginning it cannot often arise. The reason is that ignorance, clinging and all the other akusala dhammas have been accumulated for an endlessly long time in the cycle of birth and death. And also in this life, from the time we were born, defilements have been accumulated each day. The person who correctly understands cause and result of realities knows that he needs great patience and perseverance so that he is able to listen to the Dhamma, to study it carefully and to consider it. Only thus can one have understanding of the realities which appear through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense and the mind-door. By listening and considering the right conditions are being accumulated for the arising of satipatthåna, awareness and investigation of the characteristics of the realities which are appearing. In this way realities can be known as they are. Through awareness of realities one will directly understand the truth in conformity with what one has learnt and understood intellectually, namely, that all dhammas, including satipatthåna and the factors of the eightfold Path, are anattå, non- self. Satipatthåna can arise when there are the right conditions, that is, when mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå has arisen time and again, and paññå has thus been accumulated. Then people will not deviate anymore from the right Path. They will not follow a practice other than being aware of, noticing and considering the nåma dhammas and the rúpa dhammas appearing through the six doors. The person who develops paññå is truthful, sincere with regard to his own development. When satipatthåna arises he knows that that moment is different from forgetfulness of realities. When satipatthåna arises there cannot yet immediately be clear understanding of the characteristics of nåma and rúpa. Paññå develops only very gradually. ********* Nina. #92679 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma translations nilovg Dear Lukas, Visuddhimagga is not on line, but I have a double and we shall send this to you later on. Nina. Op 17-nov-2008, om 16:19 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: #92680 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:50 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 313 and Tiika, part 2. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 313, part 2. Intro: The following passage of section 313 is a verse and herein the Vis. reviews many aspects and methods dealt with before. I shall recapitulate them. The verse: So this Wheel of Becoming: As to source in the [four] truths, As to function, prevention, similes, Kinds of profundity, and methods, Should be known accordingly. --------- Text Vis.: So this Wheel of Becoming: As to source in the [four] truths, -------- N: In Vis. 300, the links that were classified before as a fivefold cause (ignorance, kamma-formations, craving, clinging and volition which is kamma-process becoming and the links that were classified as a fivefold fruit: rebirth-linking, which is 'consciousness', descent [into the womb], which is 'mentality-materiality', sensitivity, which is 'sense base', contact and feeling. Those classified as cause are here called the second truth, the origin of dukkha, and those classified as result are here called the first truth, dukkha. So long as there is birth one continues in the cycle and this is dukkha. This is all brought about by ignorance, kamma-formations and the other links which are causes. --------- Text Vis.: As to function, --------- N: in 301: One salient feature is taken of each link and it is explained as a function performed in relation to the following link. The aim is to show the dangerous aspect of each link. The Tiika states that ignorance prevents knowing and penetrating the characteristic of dhamma (dhammasabhaava), and the Vis. states that it is a condition for the manifestation of formations. This again leads to continuation in the cycle. --------- Text Vis.: prevention, --------- N: In Vis. 302: [As to prevention:] the clause 'With ignorance as condition there are formations' prevents seeing a maker; ... 'With formations as condition, consciousness' prevents seeing the transmigration of a self.... Thus, all the different links proceed according to the appropriate conditions and there is no self to be found. ---------- ---------- Text Vis.: similes, ---------- N: Vis. 303.: By way of similes it is shown how sorrowful it is to be in the cycle of birth and death. We are now overcome by ignorance, blind and stumbling along, falling down from this life to be born into a next life. We are involved in the cycle of birth and death, just as a caterpillar spinning a cocoon. -------- Text Vis. Kinds of profundity, ---------- N: As to profundity: this is the explanation of the Dependent Origination by way of the four Discriminations, Pa.tisambhidaas: (a) of meaning, (b) of dhamma, (c) of enunciation in language (nirutti), (d) in accordance with penetration, pa.tivedha, or direct realisation of the Truth. Knowledge about ageing and death is the "discrimination of meaning". This is discrimination of the fruit or effect of birth, namely, ageing and death. Knowledge about the origin of ageing and death is the "discrimination of dhamma". Dhamma is the cause, which is birth. Enunciation in language refers to the right words of teaching the Buddha used so that people could understand the deep meaning of the Dependent Origination. As to penetration, all the different links of the Dependent Origination are seen under the aspect of direct realisation. The teaching of the Dependent Origination is not theoretical, it is directed towards the practice: the development of right understanding of all phenomena of our life. ------------ Text Vis: and methods, Should be known accordingly. -------- N: There is the method of identity, (b) the method of diversity, (c) the method of inactivity, and (d) the method of appropriate nature. By rightly seeing the continuity that occurs through the linking of cause and fruit one abandons the annihilation view. By wrongly seeing identity in the non-interruption of this continuity one clings to the eternity view. By rightly seeing the arising of each new dhamma with its own characteristic one abandons the eternity belief. By not seeing continuity, one clings to the annihilation view. By rightly seeing that there are only dhammas, who are inactive (niriiha), without a soul (nijjiiva), occurring according to conditions one understands that there is no self, no creator, and by wrong understanding one clings to the moral inefficacy of action, akiriya di.t.thi. By rightly seeing the method of appropriate nature, dhammataa, namely, that each cause produces its appropriate fruit accordingly, one abandons the no-cause view and the moral-inefficacy-of-action. If one sees this wrongly one clings to the no-cause view and to fatalism. ------------- Conclusion: All these different aspects show us that there is no self, but only dhammas proceeding according to their appropriate conditions. Each aspect or method that is mentioned is an exhortation to develop right understanding of the naama or ruupa occurring at this moment in our life, so that eventually there will be liberation of the ‘fearful round of rebirths’, as the Visuddhimagga states in the following section. ******* Nina. #92681 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt Hi What is purpose of reading/listening/considering/writing/talking to/about the Dhamma? Pariyatti should be seen as the only way to decondition sankhara khandha (particularly the various atta-related ditthi) and sanna khandha (atta-sanna in the specific) from the notion of self in all its innumerable aspects and implications, which conditions the arising of the others miccha-magga/patipatti factors. I think this is why K. Sujin keeps reminding us of detachment and not expecting anything in return from the Dhamma, and to approach it with the purpose of understanding on its own. Alberto #92682 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Make an island of yourself! bhikkhu0 A Friend asked: Question: >Can one be saved by an Almighty God or Divine Power? Answer: India has always had two ancient holy traditions: Brahmana: Priests, who by rituals and worship of assumed almighty ‘gods’, and ‘divinity’ believe that they can be saved by these divine other-powers, which they then rely on. Depending thus on something they cannot see or contact their search is often blind… Sramana: Recluses, who only trust themselves and that every-one has to purify and thereby save themselves by themselves. They trust intense meditation & study after guidance of a teacher, who usually is a Buddha. Depending on direct experience is safe. No Brahmana have ever – so far reported – reached a Noble State… That is, come within 7 rebirths of Nibbana – the only lasting safety! No Brahmana have – so far reported – ever reached Nibbana… Emptiness can also be tantalizing and have even been worshipped also as a transcendental divine state … (That leads also to no safety…) Conclusion: There are gods out there. But they cannot save U or anyone else… So there is no need or gain by looking ‘out there’ after a ‘saviour’… Rather moral and mental purification can only come by looking inward. One has to do the job oneself! Most can only do it by taking a Teacher, who is either a Noble or an Awakened Buddhist… The Blessed Buddha Gotama once said: NO OTHER By self alone, is harm done. By self alone, does one suffer from own evil. By self alone, is harm left undone. By self alone, is one purified & thereby saved. Both destruction and salvation is work of self. No-one can purify another. Dhammapada Illustration 165 Background Story 165 SAVIOUR Self is indeed self's only saviour! Who else can save you ? With oneself well tamed, one gains a saviour hard to otherwise find. Dhammapada Illustration 160 Background Story 160 NOW OR NEVER Make an island for yourself. Strive quickly now in exerting effort. Be the wise one. Not a naive fool… When your defilement have been blown away and you have freed yourself from evil passions; Never will you again be Aging! Never will you again be Dying! Dhammapada Illustration 238 Background Story 235-238 ISLAND Make an island of yourself, haste to exert effort, be clever. When your mental defilements have been cleaned & you have cleared yourself of passion, then yours will be the divine state of exquisite choice. Dhammapada Illustration 236 Background Story 235-238 Don't trust this, or me… Examine thoroughly yourself! Have a nice self-reliant day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Make an island of yourself! Be your own Lamp… #92683 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:33 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Once again your definitions just seem to bolster my outlook. Thanks." Scott: The very definition of di.t.thi in action, TG: a truly incorporative and hungry sort of thing, devouring and seeing all as reflecting itself. ;-) I have to chuckle, TG, because I really don't see how we agree here. To me, these 'definitions', as you put it - given that they are conceptual entities derived from the commentarial exegesis of the Dhamma, and given the basic assumptions of this particular exegesis - are diametrically opposed to the basic postulates which seem to be part and parcel of the oft stated view you represent. This view cannot accept the existence of ultimate realities and yet, claims to be represented in commentarial discussions which have as a primordial assumption just that very thing - a fundamental basis in an acceptance of paramttha dhammaa. I'm sorry I am so loathe to accept agreement with this view of yours, but how is there agreement? TG: "To experience something 'out in space,' without contact, is some strange magic indeed. When the Abhidhamma commentarial passage in question so clearly talks of 'striking,' 'friction of impact,' etc., I'm amazed you prefer to ignore that and think that visual-experience is of something 'out in space.'" Scott: Here you misrepresent me. Ruupa, known as visible object, is 'outside' and existent. It is not created by consciousness. I'm not speaking of 'visual experience' when referring to 'outside'. I'm referring to visible object. Something separate from eye-consciousness. What to you is 'visual experience?' Is this cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na? Or is this some hybrid concept arising from the view that ate New York City? ;-) TG: "We can only experience what contacts the body/mind. Period. How something 'out in space,' that doesn't contact the body, can be experienced...From my point of view, this lack of seeing a direct 'causal connection' is very detrimental to insight...Nevertheless, its just conditions interacting and altering...and any 'identifiable' phenomena are mere resultants and empty of anything pertaining to self...or 'own.'" Scott: Again, TG, you misunderstand me. And the view misunderstands 'contact.' Budddhagosa, in discussing 'understanding', and, in particular, how 'an act of understanding should be understood as 'knowing in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving and cognizing,' notes (Visuddhimagga XIV 6): "...However [understanding] is not always to be found where perception and consciousness are. But when it is, it is not disconnected from those states. And because it cannot be taken as disconnected thus, 'This is perception, this is consciousness, this is understanding', its difference is consequently subtle and hard to see..." Scott: We agree, I think, about the lack of 'separateness' in the conascent arising of citta and cetasika, or of the same lack of 'separateness' inherent in the moment when visible object, eye-base, and eye-consciousness are in play, but we don't agree that there remain real functional differences between these elements which arise together. This difference - one attributable to there being paramattha dhammaa with characteristic function - is one we don't agree on unless the view which comprehends things for you has altered. Here, Buddhagosa seems to suggest that, while it is impossible to artificially separate the functional states arising during a 'moment of perception' there remains a difference, albeit 'subtle and hard to see.' In the above-quoted passage, Buddhagosa goes on to cite Naagasena, from the Milinda Panha: "...A difficult thing, O King, has been done by the Blessed One. -What, venerable Naagasena? - The difficult thing, O King, done by the Blessed One was the defining of the immaterial states of consciousness and its concomitants, which occur with a single object, and which he declared thus: 'This is contact, this is feeling, this is perception, this is volition, this is consciousness.'(Miln. 87)." Scott: Does the view allow for this 'together and distinct' understanding? As to contact (phassa), I've certainly not ignored it. Visuddhimagga XVII 48: "...It touches (phusati), thus it is contact (phassa)..." Scott: Phassa is naama - it is immaterial. 'Touch' is not a literal term. Can you say how the view makes sense of contact? Please clarify what you feel is 'body' and what you feel is 'mind' when the view considers perception. I still contend that the view cannot properly distinguish the two since it insists on doing away with characteristics when asserting that everything is 'conditions'. TG: "Science can at times assist in bolstering the vision of the causal connectivity of phenomena, which is very supportive of Buddhist issues of conditionality, impermanence, and no-self. But if your not comfortable with it, or feel threatened by it, no need to use it. Its just a side track. To just totally dismiss all of it seems a little irrational to me." Scott: Science doesn't threaten me - I'm using a computer right now! Science isn't Dhamma and the Dhamma has no need of bolstering from that corner. It is just a side-track, but a very misleading one. I think the hungry view that comprehends through you takes everything as nutriment for its support. Sincerely, Scott. #92684 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Dear Alberto & all, --- On Mon, 17/11/08, sprlrt wrote: >>S: 1) Oja/nutriment is only a condition for producing rupas of the body. >>CMA, ch V1 Compendium of Matter: "Nutriment, known as nutritive essence, on reaching its stage of presence, produces material phenomena originating from nutriment *at the time it is swallowed*. More detail in the guide note. >A: I've found this on KS The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena, notes to Ch 9, which would apply to plants as well >7. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality, according to the "Visuddhimagga" . Some creams, for example, nourish the skin. ..... S: It just refers to living beings and the body of such beings: Vism XIV, 70: "Physical nutriment has the characteristic of nutritive essence. Its function is to feed kinds of matter. It is manifested as consolidating. Its proximate cause is a physical basis that must be fed with physical food. It is a term for the nutritive essence [ojaa] by means of which ***living beings*** sustain themselves (cf Dhs. #646). Vism XX, 37: " What has nutriment as its condition is the materiality of fourfold origination stated thus: 'Physical nutriment is a condition, as nutriment condition, ***for this body*** (Ptn. 1,5)........Nutriment taken by a mother originates materiality by pervading the body of the child [in gestation]. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality." ..... Also, from Abhidhammatthasangaha and its commentary, translated by Wijeratne & Gethin, "Summary....", ch 6, Materiality: "....From the spreading of nutriment: beginning from the time when the nutriment from food swallowed by the mother, in the case of one lying in the womb, and from the saliva in the mouth, in the cases of the moisture born and purely-arising, follows along the channels and spreads through the body. "(56) At the time of death, however, kamma-born materialities do not arise from the time of presence of the seventeenth consciousness before the decease consciousnesses. Kamma-born materialities that arose earlier occur and then cease at the same time as the decease consciousness. After that, materiality born of consciousness and food is cut off; after that, a succession of materialities originating from season [S: temperature] occurs reckoned as the corpse." [Of course, as others have indicated, nutritive essence, along with the four great elements, colour, odour and taste, is an essential ingredient of every kalapa (group) of rupas.] I hope the quotes help:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #92685 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member sarahprocter... Dear Dave, It seems you may have missed Jon. Did you know Vince Tassiello? Anyway, thanks for adding the further detail and you're in the right place to "explore more into the abhidhamma". Let us know any topics you're reflecting on.... or any points arising. The dates we have discussions scheduled for in February in Bangkok are from 7th - 14th. If you or anyone else can join, please do so, especially as Nina and Lodewijk will also be with us. Metta, Sarah --- On Mon, 17/11/08, Dave Brown wrote: Dear Sarah, thankyou for your reply. I only attended a few classes with A. Sujin when I was down from the northeast to renew visas so I didnt get to close with the group <...> #92686 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:02 am Subject: Inside & Outside upasaka_howard Hi Scott & TG & all - When we feel an itch or a burning sensation or an ache or tingling or pleasant bodily sensation, where is that element of experience? When we "open our eyes" and see the color-panorama I call "a sight," where is that sight? Is there some place "out there, " some place "in the world" or in an exterior "visual stage" or "visual depository" or "visual realm" where there are sights? A separate matter, it seems to me, is the question of whether there is a "world out there" of truly exterior phenomena that underlie the bodily sensations and sights that we encounter. But this is an unanswerable question, for what we experience are not such underlying things; what we experience are exactly "phenomena" in the philosophical-psychological sense of element of experience. What we actually face is multi-faceted experience and the mental operations that process it and fragment and reify it into apparent entities, and what is important about all this is the impermanence, ungraspability, impersonality, and leading the mind to grief when grasping at the ungraspable. With metta, Howard #92687 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member nilovg Dear Dave, Op 18-nov-2008, om 1:46 heeft asiandavebrown het volgende geschreven: > As for what i found so > special > about Kun Sujin Then and Now was/is her fresh unique teaching style > always moving the questioner back towards reality .It reminded me of > the socratic method "Dialectic Rhetoric" revealing the truth through > question and > answer, > I find her teaching easier to appreciate now than I did as a 22 year > old, I have benifited from the A.Naeb method and as such have come > around to the the appreciation of A Sujin, ------- N: Yes, she will ask questions to make the listener think for himself instead of just repeating what he learnt. She said: the Buddha wanted people to develop their own understanding. In that way one becomes independent. She very much stressed not to be dependent on a person, to be one's own refuge. A very good principle. "It is not the person, it is the Dhamma" she would say. In Asia people often are taught to follow the teacher. Bringing us back to the reality now: the Dhamma teaches about life at this moment, it is not theory. The only reality that can really be studied and understood is not what is past, not what is future, but the present moment. With this in mind one learns to read all the texts differently from what one used to read. It is quite revealing. One can find the message contained in them: do not forget, it is all concerning this very moment, and do not forget to develop more and more understanding of it. She emphasizes listening as a condition for understanding. When listening one can verify what one hears, investigate and check the truth and each time one understands just a little more. In that way understanding can grow, but very, very gradually. Nina. #92688 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Re:Q [dsg] More on anatta nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 18-nov-2008, om 12:19 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Pariyatti should be seen as the only way to decondition sankhara > khandha (particularly the various atta-related ditthi) and sanna > khandha (atta-sanna in the specific) from the notion of self in all > its innumerable aspects and implications, which conditions the arising > of the others miccha-magga/patipatti factors. > I think this is why K. Sujin keeps reminding us of detachment and not > expecting anything in return from the Dhamma, and to approach it with > the purpose of understanding on its own. -------- N: Right, the teachings have detachment as the goal, and, she said, from the beginning detachment should be kept in mind. This is difficult since attachment has been accumulated and is deeply rooted. We want knowledge, sati and wisdom for ourselves. We want sati to arise often. I would add to pariyatti as the only way: and patipatti, the development of satipatthana. Pariyatti is a condition for sati and pa~n~na, because pariyatti concerns the reality of the present moment. Nina. #92689 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 17-nov-2008, om 13:05 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Can satipathana arise when we think of concepts? --------- N: Yes, the citta that thinks is a reality, citta paramattha dhamma. Thus, when the mind-door process of thinking cittas has fallen away, there can be another process with citta accompanied by sati and pa~n~naa that are aware of and understand thinking as just a dhamma, no self who thinks. --------- > L: Can sati cetasika and > panja cetasika arise with the citta which has pannatti as object? -------- N: Not of the level of satipatthana, since a concept is not an object understanding is developed of, it does not have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, non-self. But when we are giving something, the object can be a concept, and since generosity is kusala, it must be accompanied by sati which is non-forgetful of generosity. -------- > > L:Still dont understand how citta can experience pannatti? What is the > lakkhana of pannati, that i may experience? ------- N: Citta can think of anything, also of what is a concept. Like now: you may think of a table or a person, and instead of you, it is actually citta that thinks. As regards concepts these are manifold and we cannot say that it has a specific characteristic as in the case of nama and rupa. ------- > > L: many cittas arise and fall away and experience diffrent > arammana. But > i dont understand how pannatti can be an object for citta? > i considered pannati as a result of many cittas arising and falling > away experiencing a REAL arammana. ------- N: yes, many cittas are thinking. Concept can also be an object of citta, aaramma.na. Aaramma.na is just that which is cognized by citta, real or unreal. Sarah gave the example of a dream. -------- > L: What is the nimitta of thinking. ------ N: Sarah explained nimitta in different contexts, of different levels, this is a deep subject. Not possible to answer in one line. When a reality like thinking appears, it falls away so quickly, and the sign remains. It seems to last a while. IN reality it does not. ------- > > L: When panja arises and clearly knows nama-dhatu and rupa dhatu in > daily > life are there still concepts is such moments? ------ N: Not at that moment, only realities. But pa~n~naa does not last and immediately we are thinking with lobha about concepts. Nina. #92690 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re:Q [dsg] More on anatta szmicio Dear Nina(Alberto) > N: I would add to pariyatti as the only way: and patipatti, the > development of satipatthana. Pariyatti is a condition for sati and > pa~n~na, because pariyatti concerns the reality of the present >moment. L: so pariyatti paccaya patipatti? Can we find anything in this matter in tipitaka and commentaries? Recently I think about sacca-nana that is intelectual understanding of 4 Noble Truths, and kicca-nana that is applaying 4 Noble Truths in daily life, and there is also kata-nana the real understanding that penetrates 4 Noble Truths. Is it the same as pariyatti,patipatti and pativeda? Is there any diffrence between them? Best wishes Lukas Alberto I find your posts very useful, thanks. #92691 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... HI Scott In a message dated 11/18/2008 6:34:04 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Once again your definitions just seem to bolster my outlook. Thanks." Scott: The very definition of di.t.thi in action, TG: a truly incorporative and hungry sort of thing, devouring and seeing all as reflecting itself. ;-) I have to chuckle, TG, because I really don't see how we agree here. ...................................... TG: Chuckle away. I didn't say "we" agree. I said the definitions agree with my view. ............................................ To me, these 'definitions'To me, these 'definitions', as you p conceptual entities derived from the commentarial exegesis of the Dhamma, and given the basic assumptions of this particular exegesis - are diametrically opposed to the basic postulates which seem to be part and parcel of the oft stated view you represent. This view cannot accept the existence of ultimate realities and yet, claims to be represented in commentarial discussions which have as a primordial assumption just that very thing - a fundamental basis in an acceptance of paramttha dhammaa. I'm sorry I am so loathe to accept agreement with this view of yours, but how is there agreement? ......................................................... TG: I agreed with the passage that I posted and the corresponding definitions of the Pali that you provided. Loathe away. ;-) ............................................................ TG: "To experience something 'out in space,' without contact, is some strange magic indeed. When the Abhidhamma commentarial passage in question so clearly talks of 'striking,' 'friction of impact,' etc., I'm amazed you prefer to ignore that and think that visual-experience is of something 'out in space.'" Scott: Here you misrepresent me. Ruupa, known as visible object, is 'outside' and existent. It is not created by consciousness. I'm not speaking of 'visual experience' when referring to 'outside'. I'm referring to visible object. ........................................................... TG: Oh, excuse me. Now I understand. You are speaking about a "visible-object" that is not the object of vision. That makes much more sense....not. Here you are again claiming a "visible-object" that isn't in contact with the eye or mind. You might want to at least call it a "potential visible-object." But you'd still be wrong...for only light is seen...unless by ruupa you mean light? If you want to call "light" visible-object? ................................................................. Something separate from eye-consciousness. ...................................................... TG: Here again... visible-object the is separate from eye-consciousness. What is such a "rupa" for you? ....................................................... What to you is 'visual experience?' Is this cakkhu-vi~n~cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na? Or is this some hybrid concept view that ate New York City? ;-) TG: "We can only experience what contacts the body/mind. Period. How something 'out in space,' that doesn't contact the body, can be experienced.experienced...From my point of view, this lack of see 'causal connection' is very detrimental to insight...Neverthel'cau its just conditions interacting and altering...and any 'identifiable' phenomena are mere resultants and empty of anything pertaining to self...or 'own.'" Scott: Again, TG, you misunderstand me. And the view misunderstands 'contact.' Budddhagosa, in discussing 'understanding''contact. particular, how 'an act of understanding should be understood as 'knowing in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving and cognizing,' notes (Visuddhimagga XIV 6): "...However [understanding] is not always to be found where perception and consciousness are. But when it is, it is not disconnected from those states. And because it cannot be taken as disconnected thus, 'This is perception, this is consciousness, this is understanding'' its difference is consequently subtle and hard to see..." Scott: We agree, I think, about the lack of 'separateness' in the conascent arising of citta and cetasika, or of the same lack of 'separateness' inherent in the moment when visible object, eye-base, and eye-consciousness are in play, but we don't agree that there remain real functional differences between these elements which arise together. ......................................................... TG: We just see it so utterly differently. I can easily agree or disagree with much of what you state...depending on the outlook The bottom line is, when it gets down to considering any phenomena as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics," ball game over. That view is poison to insight IMO. Phenomena are unstable, insubstantial, coreless, empty of self, and not what they appear to be....even when phenomena appear to be "Dhammas." The mind needs to relinquish and detach from phenomena. A practice which highlights the observing of phenomena and to see it as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics" is completely antithetical to the Buddha's teaching found in the Suttas. ............................................................... This difference - one attributable to there being paramattha dhammaa with characteristic function - is one we don't agree on unless the view which comprehends things for you has altered. Here, Buddhagosa seems to suggest that, while it is impossible to artificially separate the functional states arising during a 'moment of perception' there remains a difference, albeit 'subtle and hard to see.' ..................................................... TG: Buddhagosa was not attempting to suggest anything himself. He merely was compiling the Buddhist understandings that were current at his time. If anything, I think he was taking great care not to include his views. I'll say again...in an attempt to explain something, words are needed to communicate meanings. Taking the words too literally to be positing "states of ultimate reality" is an error IMO. The Abhidhammika ilk have gotten carried away (literally) with terms like -- characteristic, function, reality, etc. They've taken this far too literally and turned the Dhamma into a "momumental substantialistic enterprise." Its a case of -- too much commentary can actually be a bad thing! ... if bungled. ..................................................................... In the above-quoted passage, Buddhagosa goes on to cite Naagasena, from the Milinda Panha: "...A difficult thing, O King, has been done by the Blessed One. -What, venerable Naagasena? - The difficult thing, O King, done by the Blessed One was the defining of the immaterial states of consciousness and its concomitants, which occur with a single object, and which he declared thus: 'This is contact, this is feeling, this is perception, this is volition, this is consciousness.this is volit Scott: Does the view allow for this 'together and distinct' understanding? As to contact (phassa), I've certainly not ignored it. Visuddhimagga XVII 48: "...It touches (phusati), thus it is contact (phassa)..." Scott: Phassa is naama - it is immaterial. 'Touch' is not a literal term. ............................................................ TG: Here is the passage from an Abhidhamma commentary... "...Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye...," Hummm...striking the eye, friction of impact? Sound like literal contact to me! NOTE: How the "visible-objects" is said to "strike the eye." It seems to say...that if nothing else, all visible-objects share in common "striking the eye." Comments? No more time. ................................................................... Can you say how the view makes sense of contact? Please clarify what you feel is 'body' and what you feel is 'mind' when the view considers perception. I still contend that the view cannot properly distinguish the two since it insists on doing away with characteristics when asserting that everything is 'conditions'a .............................................................. TG: Qualities OK. Characteristics not ok. Got it? I know you do...but prefer to calumniate me to try to make cheap "points." LOL TG OUT #92692 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/18/2008 6:34:04 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Science isn't Dhamma and the Dhamma has no need of bolstering from that corner. ....................................................... Just an added thought. Dhamma isn't meteorology either. So I guess the Buddha was out of line when he explained how the weather had over time worn out the rigging on a seafaring ship eh? Sounds like science to me. :-) I guess the Buddha felt he wanted "bolstering from that corner" to make his point clear. “…suppose there were a seafaring ship bound with rigging that had worn out in the water for six months. It would be hauled up on dry land during the cold season and its rigging would further be attacked by wind and sun. Inundated by rain from a rain cloud, the rigging would easily collapse and rot away.†(The Buddha . . . Connected Discourse of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1557) TG #92693 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:24 am Subject: Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Alberto, >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi > > What is purpose of reading/listening/considering/writing/talking > to/about the Dhamma? For some it is to accumulate mental things and to satisfy the desire for knowledge. > Pariyatti should be seen as the only way to decondition sankhara > khandha (particularly the various atta-related ditthi) and sanna > khandha (atta-sanna in the specific) from the notion of self in all > its innumerable aspects and implications, which conditions the arising > of the others miccha-magga/patipatti factors. Pariyatti is a start. Then one MUST do the actual practice. Many of people here should consider this: "I've learned more than most Arahants in Buddha's time. Why aren't I an Arahant or even a Sotopanna?" Easy: Lack of accumulations. To be more precise, undeveloped faculties, not enough good "kamma". Developing perception of impermance (aniccasanna) even for a fingersnap is very much more beneficial than even feeding the Buddha and his order of Arhat monks... Aniccasanna is one of the steps of Anapanasati, and it is also a subject of various Meditations up to 7th Jhana. > I think this is why K. Sujin keeps reminding us of detachment and not > expecting anything in return from the Dhamma, and to approach it with > the purpose of understanding on its own. > > Alberto Action stems from desire. If one has no desire, then there will not be motivation for action. If you don't desire Awakening as much as a person whose hair is on fire desires to extinguish the fire, then you will not awaken. Pure and simple. Of course once you are about to become an Arahant you develop dispassion toward that desire and throughout entire path you must not forget that desire is impersonal, impermanent, conditioned and so on. But at a certain stage it MUST be there. If you don't do anything then the kilesas will have you for lunch. It iss either you make 'em suffer, or they make "you" suffer. "Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html #92694 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Boldly Go Where No Sutta Has Gone Before kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ---------- <. . .> S: > I thought you gave a pretty good response to the Star Trek invasion too - it might also make 'zany':-) Yes, after the Abhidhamma is vaporised, it's just a matter of time before the Suttanta and eventually the Vinaya is vaporised as well.... ----------- That is the order in which the texts say the disappearing will take place, but the texts are referring to the Abhidhamma-pitaka, aren't they? The actual Abhidhamma is contained in the suttas also (in every word of them) and I believe *it* will be the last to disappear. Without Abhidhamma everything is just empty words. ------------------ S: > Let's enjoy it while the good teaching lasts and forget about hamburgers and Star Trek episodes.....it'll be quite a while before they're vaporised. ------------------ I certainly agree with the enjoying part. For example, I enjoyed the [attached] exchange between you and Han so much that I nearly sent one of those dreaded "me too" posts. But why break the habit of a curmudgeonly lifetime? :-) As for the other part: what do you mean by "forget about hamburgers and Star Trek episodes?" That doesn't sound like your normal philosophy. You don't normally advise people to change their conventional lifestyles where only minor likes and dislikes are involved. Please explain yourself! :-) Ken H PS: I am attaching the said exchange without trimming (shock, horror!) which is something we curmudgeons strongly disapprove of. So, maybe we can change just a little bit. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Han,(James & all), > > I must confess that I only just read your final installment, having just briefly skimmed it before - I put aside longer or more detailed posts to read when I can give them better attention. > > I enjoyed all the sections and in particular the last one: > > --- On Tue, 11/11/08, han tun wrote: > >(8) as to shortness of the moment (kha.na parittato). > > Vsm says that in the ultimate sense the life-moment of living beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurrence of a single conscious moment. Just a chariot wheel, when it is rolling, rolls, that is, touches the ground, only on one point of the circumference of its tyres, and, when it is at rest, rests only on one point, so too, the life of living beings lasts only for a single conscious moment. When that consciousness has ceased, the being is said to have ceased. > .... > S: Yes, the life-moments are very short indeed. Our world and all we find so important just exists in this one moment of seeing, hearing, thinking or other experiencing. When we look to the Dhamma as the only refuge, it is this understanding of the reality now, the shortness of the moment now, that is intended, I believe. > ..... > > >Accordingly, it is said that: > (i) in a past conscious moment, he did live, not he does live, not he will live. > (ii) in a future conscious moment, not he did live, not he does live, he will live. > (iii) in the present conscious moment, not he did live, he does live, not he will live. > > >Han: In the ultimate sense, there should not be any difference between the arising and falling away of, say, eye-consciousness, and the arising and falling away of cuti citta? If we are not afraid of the arising and passing away of eye-consciousness, we should not be afraid of the arising and falling away of cuti citta. This being so, we should be able to face the death with courage, awareness, and understanding. > .... > S: This is exactly as I see it. Any cittas are as impermanent as any other cittas and not worth clinging to at all. They are all dukkha and anatta, not belonging to anyone. Cuti citta is just the same kind of citta as those that arise in deep sleep and between every sense and mind door process so very frequently during the day. As you say, we're not afraid of the next moment of seeing and the cuti citta could arise as the next citta in just the same way. Just as seeing is followed by other cittas, just as bhavanga cittas are followed by other cittas, so is cuti citta in just the same way. Nothing is ever known about the next citta, regardless of the circumstances. > > Anyway, you made all your comments perfectly - I only intended to agree with them. > ...... > > ------------ --------- --------- > > >I have come to the END. > I thank you all for giving me your time and attention. > ..... > S: Thank you again and also to James for kindly encouraging your series. I'd be interested to hear any of your comments on the other sections in the Vism one day, but no hurry! > > Metta, > > Sarah <. . .> #92695 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:34 pm Subject: Re: "Not doing good kamma is bad kamma"? kenhowardau Hi Anthony, ----- A: > "Not doing good kamma is bad kamma." > Is this true (for a worldling) according to the Abhidhamma? > Or are there occasions where no kamma is being made? ------ According to my understanding it is true. And for arahants the reverse is true - there being no kamma of either kind for them. Kamma has many degrees, of course. Most of it is insignificant and incapable of bearing fruit. However, they all count. Drop by drop, little akusala deeds lead to big akusala deeds, and little kusalas lead to big kusalas. Ken H #92696 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:19 pm Subject: Which comes first? buddhatrue Hi All, I was thinking of a question: which comes first, insight or detachment? Is it insight in the three characteristics which then causes detachment or is it detachment which allows insight into the three characteristics? Metta, James #92697 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? TGrand458@... Hi James Chicken or the egg huh? Well, I'd say -- one lifts the other up, then that one lifts the other up, and so on. In other words, they elevate each other. TG In a message dated 11/18/2008 6:20:09 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi All, I was thinking of a question: which comes first, insight or detachment? Is it insight in the three characteristics which then causes detachment or is it detachment which allows insight into the three characteristics? Metta, James #92698 From: "colette" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:55 pm Subject: Observatvions of Mind ksheri3 Hi Group, <...> Since begining this long arduous path of the Mahayana I've found that it's nothing more than calming the turbulance within the mind. I've found that the mind is far more active and turbulant than any printed word could possibly relate. The Mahayana path is complete with the Abhidhamma and other methodologies of analysis and was to calm the mind, focus the mind, reach a "samadhi". The Prajnaparamita comes to mind, no? Fr. U.D. of the Chaosmatrix, your "Psychological Model" of magik is nice, I rank it up there with Dion Fortune's book THE MACHINERY OF THE MIND which I read back in the late 80s. Unfortunately you western neophytes are far to vain and secretive to deal with the profound truths of the Eastern practices and psychologies. In fact, for instance, Aleister Crowley when in his role of the Ordo Templi Orientus, he fails to properly cognize the fact that his practices are the manifestation of his minute studies in the Theravadan Buddhist practices of Sri Lanka (see the Lankavatara Sutra, et al) and I can state without question that the practices of the Golden DAwn and the Rosicrucians are destined to failure and suffering since they totally misidentify the resultant phenomena and it's causation. They're trying to fit this delusionary and hallucinatory deity they call "god" into the equation of analysis at every stage while they refuse to accept the responsibility for their own delusions and hallucinations since it is the resultant phenomena from their own mind which completely mocks and ignores the proper procedure for conducting meditative practices. But ya can't tell them anything since the only they do and can do is hallucinate and delusion. They refuse to listen to most easy and clear rationale explaining their sick ritualistic behavior, robotic behavior, following the beatten path that others have previously trodden (see Pink Floyd's "SHEEP" i.e. "well trodden corridors into the valley of steal") These are extreme and amazing cognitions I'm finding as I focus deeper in this meditation. Sorry, gotta go, I'm just a non-person, a person that does not exist <....>, I'm the INVISIBLE MAN, etc. and since I do not exist, well, then, these empty shells that constantly hallucinate themselves to be "god" cannot possibly hurt a person that was not alive, did not live, and certainly does not live, does not exist. toodles, colette #92699 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Alberto & TG), --- On Sun, 16/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:> Does not motion cause other motion? (A hammer & a nail for example? The wind and the motion of a sailboat? And action and reaction?) And is the moon's gravity, which causes the tides and ocean waves, a form of temperature? The notion that temperature is the sole cause of rupas outside the body is simply false. ..... S: In a kalapa, the rupas condition each other when they arise, but temperature is given as the sole cause for the arising of rupas outside the body. The Buddha wasn't concerned about the causes of the moon's gravity, tides and ocean waves, but about the understanding of conditioned namas and rupas leading to the end of dukkha as I see it. With regard to the arising of rupas, there are these four causes given: Vism XIX, 5: "Kamma, consciousness, temperature and nutriment constitue this fourfold condition for materiality beginning with kamma. Herein it is only when it is past that kamma is a condition for kamma-originated materiality; consciousness is a condition, when it is arising, for consciousness-originated materiality. Temperature and nutriment are conditions at the instant(moment) of their presence for temperature-originated and nutriment-originated materiality." S: With regard to the rupas outside the body, as I've discussed with Alberto, kamma, consciousness and nutriment don't apply with regard to their origination. This leaves temperature which conditions the various kalapas of rupas. ...... H:> Does being a Buddhist require accepting primitive science over modern science as a better story? I'll personally stick for the most part with the stories of modern science such as the brain being more relevant to emotion than the heart, and so much of modern physics which has been amply born out in application. ..... S: I don't think we're comparing 'like with like'. I don't find that comparing modern physics with the understanding of namas and rupas gets us very far, but others may be able to help further in this regard. Metta, Sarah ========== #92700 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, --- On Mon, 17/11/08, sprlrt wrote: > >A: Ok, what about: kamma through the body door can make changes to the > rupa khandha, for instance it can turn it into an intrinsically > unpleasant object of 5 sense door processes. > .... > S: Kamma can condition rupas of the body as you know. Akusala kamma conditions unpleasant rupas, kusala kamma conditions pleasant rupas. > > However, it doesn't 'turn' or change any rupa khandha which has arisen already. For example, if an unpleasant/undesira ble visible object is experienced by an eye-door and subsequent mind-door, the cetana arising with kusala or akusala javana cittas experiences that same visible object. > > However, those kusala/akusala cittas accumulate and be of the strength of kusala/akusala kamma patha in due course, conditioning future vipaka cittas and producing rupas of the body. > > The rupas of the body which arise and fall away now are conditioned by past, rather than present kamma. However, cittas now can condition rupas of the body, as can nutritive essence or temperature. Does this make sense? ..... >A: I think we are talking about two (of the three) different types of kamma, I was referring to the one done through the body door (i.e. actions), not to the one done through the mind door. ..... S: Whichever door - whether body or mind, the kamma conditions rupas at a later time. As I just quoted from the Vism XIX, 5: "Herein it is only when it is past that kamma is a condition for kamma-originated materiality". In other words, kamma (cetana) cannot condition rupas when it arises. The eye-sense is a result of past kamma, not of present kamma through body, speech or mind. Pls let me know if you think I'm still misunderstanding you. Metta, Sarah ====== #92701 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi James, Op 19-nov-2008, om 2:19 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > I was thinking of a question: which comes first, insight or > detachment? Is it insight in the three characteristics which then > causes detachment or is it detachment which allows insight into the > three characteristics? -------- N: Insight is already developed understanding, and this sure brings more and more detachment from the idea of self. But also when understanding is beginning, such as intellectual understanding that there are only nama and rupa, no self, brings about some degree of detachment. Detachment, alobha cetasika, accompanies each kusala citta. Thus also when studying the Dhamma there is non-attachment or detachment accompanying the kusala citta. Any clinging to the idea of 'I want sati, I want more understanding' is counteractive. I kept a former post of you about no person, but I did not answer yet. I did not want to spoil the good consensus you have with Jon. --------- Nina. #92702 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi TG and James, Good answer, TG. They condition one another. Nina. Op 19-nov-2008, om 2:47 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Chicken or the egg huh? Well, I'd say -- one lifts the other up, > then that > one lifts the other up, and so on. In other words, they elevate > each other. #92703 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:36 pm Subject: Stri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 4 nilovg Dear friends, (continuation of Bhante Dhammadhara's sermon): "...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. It is like an enemy with the appearance of a friend, very hard to detect. It is like a friend who speaks nicely, waits upon us, smiles at the right time. Who would know that that very pleasant, confortable and secure feeling we have is really an enemy, the cause of all suffering, the cause of the arising of realities from moment to moment, one after the other. We may even cling to kusala. Although it brings pleasant results, it is still impermanent, it is still dukkha. It is anattå, nothing abiding, nothing lasting, nothing substantial. Remind yourself again and again of what the goal is. Don’t be negligent. When it is time for dåna, give! Even when it is not time for dåna, perhaps it can be made into time for dåna. 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. Don’t be negligent as to calm, the moments one is free from lobha, dosa and moha. We should have mettå towards other people, instead of seeing them as objects of competition, objects to be jealous of, objects to run down. 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. May you all be well and happy with right understanding!” ******* Nina. #92704 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sprlrt Dear Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alberto & all, > > --- On Mon, 17/11/08, sprlrt wrote: > >>S: 1) Oja/nutriment is only a condition for producing rupas of the body. > > >>CMA, ch V1 Compendium of Matter: > "Nutriment, known as nutritive essence, on reaching its stage of > presence, produces material phenomena originating from nutriment *at > the time it is swallowed*. More detail in the guide note. > > >A: I've found this on KS The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena, > notes to Ch 9, which would apply to plants as well > > >7. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality, > according to the "Visuddhimagga" . Some creams, for example, nourish > the skin. > ..... > S: It just refers to living beings and the body of such beings: > > Vism XIV, 70: > "Physical nutriment has the characteristic of nutritive essence. Its function is to feed kinds of matter. It is manifested as consolidating. Its proximate cause is a physical basis that must be fed with physical food. It is a term for the nutritive essence [ojaa] by means of which ***living beings*** sustain themselves (cf Dhs. #646). > > Vism XX, 37: > " What has nutriment as its condition is the materiality of fourfold origination stated thus: 'Physical nutriment is a condition, as nutriment condition, ***for this body*** (Ptn. 1,5)........Nutriment taken by a mother originates materiality by pervading the body of the child [in gestation]. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality." > ..... > Also, from Abhidhammatthasangaha and its commentary, translated by Wijeratne & Gethin, "Summary....", ch 6, Materiality: > > "....From the spreading of nutriment: beginning from the time when the nutriment from food swallowed by the mother, in the case of one lying in the womb, and from the saliva in the mouth, in the cases of the moisture born and purely-arising, follows along the channels and spreads through the body. > > "(56) At the time of death, however, kamma-born materialities do not arise from the time of presence of the seventeenth consciousness before the decease consciousnesses. Kamma-born materialities that arose earlier occur and then cease at the same time as the decease consciousness. After that, materiality born of consciousness and food is cut off; after that, a succession of materialities originating from season [S: temperature] occurs reckoned as the corpse." > > [Of course, as others have indicated, nutritive essence, along with the four great elements, colour, odour and taste, is an essential ingredient of every kalapa (group) of rupas.] > > I hope the quotes help:-). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > Thanks for posting the quotes, they refer to nutrition as originating rupa in living beings, on which we both agree, but the word *only*, *alone* or a similar one is not mentioned, which would admittedly rule out the rupa of plants as being originated from nutrition as well as from termperature and settle the issue, so, for now, I'm still fairly happy with my view :-) Alberto #92705 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:46 pm Subject: Series Survey Quote nilovg Dear friends, The factors which lead to enlightenment should be developed over and over again for a long time, they can only be gradually accumulated. Nobody can cause the arising of paññå just by a particular way of behaviour or by particular activities. Paññå can be developed naturally, in one’s daily life, by awareness of the characteristics of realities which are non-self, which arise because of their appropriate conditions and then fall away very rapidly. There can be awareness of what appears at this very moment through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. Does one know at this moment what satipatthåna exactly is? Does one know that what appears now through the senses or the mind-door is a paramattha dhamma, non-self? If this is not known, paññå of the level of intellectual understanding should first be developed. It is necessary to listen to the Dhamma the Buddha taught so that people whould have right understanding of the characteristics of realities which appear. The Buddha taught the Dhamma so that people would have right understanding in conformity with the truth he had realized when he attained Buddhahood. One should have correct understanding of the practice, which is the development of paññå. Only the right cause can bring the right result, that is, paññå which sees realities as they are, as impermanent, dukkha and anattå. Paññå should realize that realities which arise and fall away are dukkha, unsatisfactory, not leading to happiness, and paññå should penetrate the nature of anattå of the realities appearing at this moment. There is no other way to know realities as they are but satipatthåna which time and again is aware, studies and investigates the characteristics of the dhammas appearing right now. In this way wholesome qualities, sobhana cetasikas, are accumulated and can thus be a condition for paññå to become more accomplished so that the different stages of insight can be reached. The Sammå-sambuddha had accumulated the perfections for four incalculable periods and hundred thousand aeons. From the time the Buddha Dípankara proclaimed him to be a Sammå-sambuddha in the future, he developed all the perfections from life to life. He came to see and listened to twentyfour former Buddhas during his past lives before he attained Buddhahood. In his last life, while sitting under the Bodhi tree, he penetrated the four noble Truths and attained successively the stages of enlightenment of the sotåpanna, the sakadågåmí, the anågåmí and finally the stage of the the arahat, and thereby became the Sammå-sambuddha with incomparable wisdom. He attained Buddhahood in the last vigil of the night of the full moon, in the month of Vesåkha. ****** Nina. #92706 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:00 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: Threes (24-27), and Commentary, part 2. nilovg Sangiiti Sutta Threes (24-27), and Commentary, part 2. Dear friends, ------------------------ Sutta: Three "ends":*1034 personality, its arising, its cessation. Tayo antaa - sakkaayo anto, sakkaayasamudayo anto, sakkaayanirodho anto. ----------- N: The Co gives several meanings of antaa, end, limit or division, ko.t.thaasaa. With reference to a text about becoming old etc., the ending of the bondage of body, antaa means end. But here, in the case of the three antaas, the Co states, it means division, ko.t.thaasaa. It refers to the Anguttara Nikaaya, Book of the Sixes (III, 399): The co. states that sakkaaya is the five khandhas of grasping. The origin of sakkaaya is previous craving. The ceasing of sakkaaya, the non-occurring of both [birth and its cause, craving] is nibbaana. But the Path is the way leading to the attainment of this ceasing. N: This reminds us that the five khandhas of grasping are dukkha. We should realise the many moments of craving in daily life, from morning to night. This keeps us in the cycle of birth and death. Craving is the seamstress, sewing us to the cycle. ---------- Co: Tayo antaati tayo ko.t.thaasaa. ‘..... Idha ko.t.thaaso adhippeto. Sakkaayoti pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa. Sakkaayasamudayoti tesa.m nibbattikaa purimata.nhaa. Sakkaayanirodhoti ubhinna.m appavattibhuuta.m nibbaana.m. Maggo pana nirodhaadhigamassa upaayattaa nirodhe gahite gahitovaati veditabbo. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Sutta: 'Three feelings: pleasant, painful, neither. Tisso vedanaa - sukhaa vedanaa, dukkhaa vedanaa, adukkhamasukhaa vedanaa. ------- N: There is no commentary to these lines, but these three feelings are not mentioned without reason: we are inclined to take feeling for self. Feeling arises with each citta and when we believe that there is no feeling there is indifferent feeling. When we read about feeling we can be reminded to develop more understanding of it, so that it can be realised as only a conditioned dhamma, it is not ‘my feeling’. -------------------------- Sutta: 'Three kinds of suffering: as pain, as inherent in formations, as due to change. Tisso dukkhataa - dukkhadukkhataa, sa'nkhaaradukkhataa, vipari.naamadukkhataa ---------------- The first meaning of dukkha is dukkha-dukkha, painful feeling and also unhappy (mental) feeling. The second meaning, sa.nkhaara dukkha, is dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas. Indifferent feeling is classified as sa.nkhaara dukkha, since it is conditioned, it is oppressed by arising, decay and ceasing. It is sa.nkhaara dukkha. As to the third mentioned meaning, dukkha as due to change, vipari.naama dukkha, happy feeling is classified as such. By the change in happy feeling, dukkha arises, the Co. states. The Co. explains that apart from painful feeling and happy feeling, also with regard to all dhammas of the three planes (sensuous plane of consciousness, ruupa-jhaanaplane and aruupa-jhaana plane), sa.nkhaara dukkha should be understood by the words : all conditioned dhammas (sa.nkhaara dhammas) are dukkha. The subco. explains , in the context of dukkha as change, that happy feeling in itself does not have the nature of suffering, dukkha, (natthibhaavo dukkha), but by the ceasing of it, there is dukkha, when one has not thoroughly understood (apari~n~nata) the cause. This is explained as separation from what is dear (piyavippayoga). N: As we read, by not thoroughly understanding the cause, there is suffering when happy feeling does not stay, when we are separated from dear people. It has to be understood that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent and subject to change. This can be thoroughly understood by the development of right understanding of namas and rupas appearing in our life. One will realise that whatever arises because of conditions cannot stay. ------- Co: Dukkhadukkhataati dukkhabhuutaa dukkhataa. Dukkhavedanaayeta.m naama.m. Sa"nkhaaradukkhataati sa"nkhaarabhaavena dukkhataa. Adukkhamasukhaavedanaayeta.m naama.m. Saa hi sa"nkhatattaa uppaadajaraabha"ngapii.litaa, tasmaa a~n~nadukkhasabhaavavirahato sa"nkhaaradukkhataati vuttaa. Vipari.naamadukkhataati vipari.naame dukkhataa. Sukhavedanaayeta.m naama.m. Sukhassa hi vipari.naame dukkha.m uppajjati, tasmaa sukha.m vipari.naamadukkhataati vutta.m. Apica .thapetvaa dukkhavedana.m sukhavedana~nca sabbepi tebhuumakaa dhammaa ‘‘sabbe sa"nkhaaraa dukkhaa’’ti vacanato sa"nkhaaradukkhataati veditabbaa. #92707 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha nilovg Dear Alberto, I can add the subco to this passage, which explains the proximate cause. Op 19-nov-2008, om 8:45 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Vism XIV, 70: > > "Physical nutriment has the characteristic of nutritive essence. Its > function is to feed kinds of matter. It is manifested as > consolidating. Its proximate cause is a physical basis that must be > fed with physical food. It is a term for the nutritive essence [ojaa] > by means of which ***living beings*** sustain themselves (cf Dhs. > #646). ------------ Tiika: As to the words, the characteristic of nutritive essence, this means, while making here a certain distinction, nutrition that is the essence of the fluid that pervades the constituent parts (of the body) and that is the cause of sustaining the body. Edible food is made into morsels. It is consumed and thus it is food, after it is made into morsels it is swallowed, is meant. He said this in order to explain nutritive essence with the substance *. After external food has been obtained as a condition, internal nutrition produces materiality, it feeds materiality and thus, this is nutrition. Thus he said that its function is to feed materiality. Therefore, because it generates the octads with nutrition as the eighth ** constituent in this body, its manifestation is consolidating. With external food as a condition the function of nutrition is feeding materiality, and thus, he said, its proximate cause is a physical basis that must be fed. ------- Nina. #92708 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, --- On Wed, 19/11/08, sprlrt wrote: > S: It just refers to living beings and the body of such beings: > > Vism XIV, 70: > "Physical nutriment has the characteristic of nutritive essence. Its function is to feed kinds of matter. It is manifested as consolidating. Its proximate cause is a physical basis that must be fed with physical food. It is a term for the nutritive essence [ojaa] by means of which ***living beings*** sustain themselves (cf Dhs. #646). ..... S: "Yaaya ojaaya sattaa yaapenti" - by just referring to sattaa (living beings), I take it to mean 'only living beings'. .... A:> Thanks for posting the quotes, they refer to nutrition as originating rupa in living beings, on which we both agree, but the word *only*, *alone* or a similar one is not mentioned, which would admittedly rule out the rupa of plants as being originated from nutrition as well as from termperature and settle the issue, so, for now, I'm still fairly happy with my view :-) ..... S: I'm sure you're still happy after reading the commentary notes Nina kindly added as well :-) Metta, Saraj ======= #92709 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's discuss akusala sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, (Han & all), --- On Mon, 17/11/08, szmicio wrote: L:> Now I feel some kind of regret, that i am doing so much akusala. ..... S: Isn't this because it's all taken for 'my akusala'? ..... L:> Even when we talk about Dhamma there are still moments of akusala. ..... S: Of course - better to know and be honest about it as you are! No point dwelling on the akusala however. What appears now? What about seeing or hearing or other dhammas too? ..... L:> Still think that if i let akusala happen it's wrong. Maybe I sholud change it? Maybe I should try much more harder. .... S: Again, this is all just thinking with an idea of Self, of 'Me' who can do something, rather than understanding the conditioned dhammas. .... L:> I think about right speach now. And maybe i should stop to speak or start to speak in the right way, but i cant, i really cant. ..... S: Whether there is speech now or not depends on different factors which are all conditioned. While we agonise about whether to do A or B, or to go right or left, all such dhammas have arisen and fallen away by conditions. There is never any Self in control. .... L:> I have so many doubts now. For kusala is so easy to make more kusala, so easy, but when akusala arise there is a lot of doubts in this matter. ..... S: It's just thinking with aversion, thinking with doubt. Very common indeed. The more understanding of dhammas now - just namas and rupas, the less doubt, the less taking of anything for Self. .... L:> I really cant start from siila. There is so much dosa and atachement. I am not satisfy how i lead my daily life. But I have no strenght to change it. ..... S: We all have different accumulations - some people smile and laugh a lot and tend to be easy-going, some worry a lot and have a lot of dosa. In the end, it really doesn't matter, because they are all conditioned dhammas, not belonging to anyone. Panna can understand any reality without selection, but with detachment. So whatever comes, let it come! Han recently quoted the following: Sn 1.2 Dhaniya Sutta, it is different from the text. Dhaniya the cattleman: "The rice is cooked, my milking done. I live with my people along the banks of the Mahi; my hut is roofed, my fire lit: so if you want, rain-god, go ahead & rain." The Buddha: "Free from anger, my stubbornness gone, I live for one night along the banks of the Mahi; my hut's roof is open, my fire out: so if you want, rain-god, go ahead & rain." S: Whatever dhammas arise, "go ahead and rain"! Awareness can be aware now of whatever appears. Metta, Sarah ======== #92710 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:04 am Subject: Re: Q [dsg] More on anatta nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 18-nov-2008, om 16:08 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Pariyatti is a condition for sati and > > pa~n~na, because pariyatti concerns the reality of the present > >moment. > > L: so pariyatti paccaya patipatti? > Can we find anything in this matter in tipitaka and commentaries? ------- N: Yes, the texts about listening to the Buddha as being a condition for understanding. It all begins with listening. You can see in many suttas that people came to visit the Buddha and listened. How else could there be patipatti, without understanding how to practise? See the right conditions for enlightenment: the first one is association with the right person. Association for what? Hearing the Dhamma. And then: considering what one heard. At such moments pariyatti develops. --------- > > L: Recently I think about sacca-nana that is intelectual > understanding of > 4 Noble Truths, and kicca-nana that is applaying 4 Noble Truths in > daily life, and there is also kata-nana the real understanding that > penetrates 4 Noble Truths. > Is it the same as pariyatti,patipatti and pativeda? > Is there any diffrence between them? ------- N: The first classification (sacca etc.) concerns specifically the four noble Truths. Moreover, kicca ~naa.na is more than intellectual understanding. It is firm conviction: this is what has to be known: nama and rupa appearing now, this is the right Path. Also, when there is kicca ~naa.na and kata ~naa.na, sacca ~naa.na is not abandoned, it develops on and one. Kh Sujin explained that these three must be applied to our daily life now. Dukkha is the falling away of dhammas that have arisen, in daily life, now. If dukkha is not thoroughly known, the ceasing of dukkha cannot be realized. We have to realize the origin of dukkha, craving, now, in daily life, from morning to night. I would say, the truth is explained in different ways and this is helpful. But Kh Sujin also warns us time and again not to be stuck with words and terms. Nina. #92711 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:10 am Subject: Re:Q [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt Dear Lukas, thanks for your kind remark - Alberto #92712 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:12 am Subject: Re: More on anatta sprlrt Dear Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > > >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > What is purpose of reading/listening/considering/writing/talking > > to/about the Dhamma? > > For some it is to accumulate mental things and to satisfy the desire > for knowledge. > > > Pariyatti should be seen as the only way to decondition sankhara > > khandha (particularly the various atta-related ditthi) and sanna > > khandha (atta-sanna in the specific) from the notion of self in all > > its innumerable aspects and implications, which conditions the arising > > of the others miccha-magga/patipatti factors. > > Pariyatti is a start. Then one MUST do the actual practice. > > Many of people here should consider this: "I've learned more than most > Arahants in Buddha's time. Why aren't I an Arahant or even a Sotopanna?" > > Easy: Lack of accumulations. To be more precise, undeveloped faculties, > not enough good "kamma". > > Developing perception of impermance (aniccasanna) even for a fingersnap > is very much more beneficial than even feeding the Buddha and his > order of Arhat monks... > > Aniccasanna is one of the steps of Anapanasati, and it is also a > subject of various Meditations up to 7th Jhana. > For me it is easier to refer to sanna as memory rather than perception, I therefore see more fit to develop aniccasanna, along anattasanna and other kusala dhammas, through the proper study and considering of the Dhamma rather than via specific samatha meditation techniques, which focus the attention on the nimitta/concept of some dhamma (tangible rupas in the case of anapanasati), concepts which by definition don't possess any of the 3 characteristics the real dhammas exhibit, anicca, dukkha and anatta, and which belong to satipatthana/vipassana bhavana and not to samatha bhavana. > > > I think this is why K. Sujin keeps reminding us of detachment and not > > expecting anything in return from the Dhamma, and to approach it with > > the purpose of understanding on its own. > > > > Alberto > > Action stems from desire. If one has no desire, then there will not be > motivation for action. If you don't desire Awakening as much as a > person whose hair is on fire desires to extinguish the fire, then you > will not awaken. Pure and simple. Of course once you are about to > become an Arahant you develop dispassion toward that desire and > throughout entire path you must not forget that desire is impersonal, > impermanent, conditioned and so on. But at a certain stage it MUST be > there. > > If you don't do anything then the kilesas will have you for lunch. It > iss either you make 'em suffer, or they make "you" suffer. > > "Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you (Nanamoli-Bodhi adds: Ananda). Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. [Practice jhana] (in Nanamoli-Bodhi is: Meditate), Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you [all] (not in Nanamoli-Bodhi) ." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html This is what the Buddha told Ananda, a sotapanna, 'to do' over 2,500 year ago, not to us all and not 2,500 years later. The Buddha is not with us anymore (though his Dhamma is), Ananda is 'well gone' too, and so are most of the people to whom the Bhudda tought the Dhamma. Nowadays arahants are completely extinct, other ariyas an endangered species, and, let's face it, panna in very short supply, unlike the times of the Buddha, when many people would attain nibbana upon hearing just few words on dhammas such as the eye, seeing, and the seen. The decline of this sasana is just another aspect of anicca I suppose, no need to be sad, it has to be like this, the Dhamma wouldn't make much sense otherwise. Alberto #92713 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sprlrt Dear Sarah S: Whichever door - whether body or mind, the kamma conditions rupas at a later time. A: Kamma through the body door cannot condition (i.e. originate) rupa khanda outside the body, but it can imo shape, change, modify, affect rupa khandha in many, many ways and at the time the kamma is done. Alberto #92714 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Please feel free at any time to refrain from discussing if it agitates you. I'm trying to stick to thoughts about 'a view' and am not referring to someone known as 'TG' - I hope you can consider the view as well. Di.t.thi is such a significant influence on a given understanding of the Dhamma and I'm learning how this really is a 'view,' as in a pervasive way of 'seeing' and conceiving of things. Look at the views we each represent (or, that arise and are mistaken for 'each of us') - so different, so pervasive, so diametrically opposed in many ways. Fascinating. Regarding: TG: "...You are speaking about a 'visible-object' that is not the object of vision...Here again...visible-object that is separate from eye-consciousness. What is such a 'rupa' for you?" Scott: Each of the components of, say 'seeing,' have separate existence. Visible object is not 'seen' unless the necessary conditions for seeing are present. The ruupa that is visible object arises first - prior to the arising of seeing consciousness - and is object condition for the arising of seeing-consciousness. This implies a separate 'existence' for ruupa and does not negate the fact that 'seeing' - the experience - requires conditions (including object) and is a function of a confluence of three separate realities arising in proximity and conascently and then falling away. TG: "...striking the eye, friction of impact? Sound like literal contact to me! NOTE: How the 'visible-objects' is said to 'strike the eye.' It seems to say...that if nothing else, all visible-objects share in common 'striking the eye.' Comments? No more time..." Scott: How do you understand phassa - contact? Do you consider contact to be naama or ruupa? Sincerely, Scott. #92715 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Re: Inside & Outside scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding (and please don't reply if you don't wish, since I recognize the 'Philosopher Howard' in the below and he doesn't usually write to invite discussion): H: "When we feel an itch or a burning sensation or an ache or tingling or pleasant bodily sensation, where is that element of experience? When we 'open our eyes' and see the color-panorama I call 'a sight,' where is that sight? Is there some place 'out there,' some place 'in the world' or in an exterior 'visual stage' or 'visual depository' or 'visual realm' where there are sights? A separate matter, it seems to me, is the question of whether there is a 'world out there' of truly exterior phenomena that underlie the bodily sensations and sights that we encounter. But this is an unanswerable question, for what we experience are not such underlying things; what we experience are exactly 'phenomena' in the philosophical-psychological sense of element of experience. What we actually face is multi-faceted experience and the mental operations that process it and fragment and reify it into apparent entities, and what is important about all this is the impermanence, ungraspability, impersonality, and leading the mind to grief when grasping at the ungraspable." Scott: The view here seems to be that external ruupa doesn't exist and is only a mind-created phenomenon. 'Sights' are not the same as 'seeing'. 'Sights' are conceived, constructed, imagined. This occurs through the mind-door. What is 'seen' is visible object - external ruupa. This occurs through the eye-door and does so prior to mind-door processes. What do you think of the suggestion that visible object arises first and is object condition for seeing-consciousness? How does this fit with the above stated view? Sincerely, Scott. #92716 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/19/2008 2:08:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (Alberto & TG), --- On Sun, 16/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:> Does not motion cause other motion? (A hammer & a nail for example? The wind and the motion of a sailboat? And action and reaction?) And is the moon's gravity, which causes the tides and ocean waves, a form of temperature? The notion that temperature is the sole cause of rupas outside the body is simply false. ..... S: In a kalapa, the rupas condition each other when they arise, but temperature is given as the sole cause for the arising of rupas outside the body. -------------------------------------------- Howard: It is "given"? Did the Buddha assert that? And where? In any case, it is clearly false. Moreover, as I understand the Dhamma, there are not "sole causes" for phenomena. ------------------------------------------- The Buddha wasn't concerned about the causes of the moon's gravity, tides and ocean waves, but about the understanding of conditioned namas and rupas leading to the end of dukkha as I see it. -------------------------------------------- Howard: With regard to these conventional phenomena, is there not motion engendering motion, and gravity engendering motion of tides as opposed to temperature. And, BTW, the Buddha DID speak of weather conditions among the causes of things when he pointed out that phenomena do not arise based only on one's prior kamma. So, I believe you are in error. -------------------------------------------- With regard to the arising of rupas, there are these four causes given: Vism XIX, 5: "Kamma, consciousness, temperature and nutriment constitue this fourfold condition for materiality beginning with kamma. Herein it is only when it is past that kamma is a condition for kamma-originated materiality; consciousness is a condition, when it is arising, for consciousness-originated materiality. Temperature and nutriment are conditions at the instant(moment) of their presence for temperature-originated and nutriment-originated materiality." ------------------------------------------- Howard: But I ask about the Buddha, not a monk. In any case, there is no question at all that motion engenders motion. -------------------------------------------- S: With regard to the rupas outside the body, as I've discussed with Alberto, kamma, consciousness and nutriment don't apply with regard to their origination. This leaves temperature which conditions the various kalapas of rupas. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Ain't so. ---------------------------------------------- ...... H:> Does being a Buddhist require accepting primitive science over modern science as a better story? I'll personally stick for the most part with the stories of modern science such as the brain being more relevant to emotion than the heart, and so much of modern physics which has been amply born out in application. ..... S: I don't think we're comparing 'like with like'. I don't find that comparing modern physics with the understanding of namas and rupas gets us very far, but others may be able to help further in this regard. Metta, Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard #92717 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside & Outside upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/19/2008 8:22:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: What do you think of the suggestion that visible object arises first and is object condition for seeing-consciousness? ========================= What is initially-unseen visible object, and where does it arise? That is the thinking that arises for me when you ask this question. With metta, Howard #92718 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:03 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > When did I say that insight is not important? It is. I've never suggested that you said insight was not important. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. > But insight HAS > to be based on Jhana according to that Sutta. This is the point we were discussing. But are you are now saying that *insight* has to be based on jhana? Because previously you've said that *enlightenment* has to be based on jhana. > Insight work happens > based ON Jhana in AN9.36 Yes, there can be insight (and enlightenment) that has jhana consciousness as its object, as in AN9.36. No argument from me on that. Jon #92719 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi TG > In any event, the > Buddha did not exhort the avoidance of certain expressions because > they would give the wrong impression about the true nature of > dhammas. I think you (and others) are quite mistaken in pursuing > this line of thinking. > > TG: This is not an issue I pursue or even believe in. Your impression > that it is... is merely a "subjective one." Honestly. :-) Well perhaps I haven't properly characterised the kind of comments I have in mind, because there have been a lot of them (and strongly put, too) ;-)) Jon #92720 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi TG > > TG: I would point at that the "anything at all" includes "namas" > and > > "rupas." > > Agreed. But it is not being said that a person is namas and rupas. > It is being said that what is taken for a person is in truth and > reality only namas and rupas. > > Jon > ............................................................. > TG: Agreed...with the caveat that -- this information does not clarify > exactly what nama and rupa are. Agreed. So where does this leave us (apart from being too much in agreement)? ;-)) Jon #92721 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:11 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > > I agree with what I think you're saying here. If we say, "That's > not > > a person it's really a number of separate parts attached together > in a > > particular way", that is not the development of the understanding > of > > not-self as taught by the Buddha. That is just trying to see > things > > as we think they should be seen ;-)) > > James: YES! EXACTLY!! Well, of course! Nothing new here, is there? ;-)) > > The Buddha did not teach the denial of the existence of people. > > James: BINGO!! Come on, don't tell me this is new ground ;-)) > What > > he taught was the understanding of the true nature of dhammas, > that is > > to say, the direct understanding of the characteristic of presently > > arising dhammas. > > James: Right again! He taught to see the nature of all dhammas as: > anicca, dukkha, and anatta. SNAP! (almost). Yes, he taught the nature ! of all dhammas as: anicca, dukkha, and anatta. And he taught that the seeing of this is the development of insight. And he taught the way that this insight knowledge can be developed. But I'm not sure I would put it as you have: "He taught to see the nature of all dhammas as ...". > > But as the chariot simile points out, the *idea* of person/being > > arises out of the experience (direct or inferred) of the 5 > khandhas. > > James: I am not 100% in agreement with this part because the Buddha > didn't teach the chariot simile. It was spoken by a lesser ariyan > and is therefore a lesser teaching. The Buddha taught to view > people, especially oneself, in terms of the five khandas in order to > deconstruct the idea of a lasting self. Whoa there James. How is "viewing people as the five khandhas", as you advocate here, any different in essence from "viewing people as composed of separate parts", which we agreed above to be a kind of wrong view/practice? In either case, the person is taken as the starting point. > People believe in a lasting > self. The Buddha taught to deconstruct the human experience into > the five khandas in order to show that there is no self to be found > anywhere. It is not from the five khandas that there is the "idea" > of a person- there is a person (but that person is either viewed > with wisdom or not). Yes, people (including you and me) believe in a lasting self. This belief is wrong view. It is a belief rooted in ignorance of the true nature of dhammas and the Four Noble Truths. It is dispelled (eventually) by the development of insight knowledge (the knowledge that sees dhammas as they truly are). > Jon, I am not sure how far apart on this we are. On this particular point, rather a long way, I fear ;-)) > It is a very complicated subject. On that we are agreed! > James: Right. Or you could say that Transcendent Right View is > direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. It depends on your > emphasis. Yes, although I would say that direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths direct experience by developed panna of nama and rupa are just different ways of describing developed insight knowledge. As you say, a matter of emphasis only. Jon #92722 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a short hello and introduction from new member jonoabb Hi Dave Thanks for the intro and follow-up. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Brown" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, thankyou for your reply. I only attended a few classes with A. > Sujin when I was down from the northeast to renew visas so I didnt get to > close with the group the monks I do remember at that time were Greg Wilzhek > from usa Stephen Taylor UK , Don Riche UK, Colin Scattergood Australia, the > rest I can not remember... I arrived in Bangkok in late 1973 and started attending the weekly discussions in English (held in the library of Mahamakut Rajavitaylai, within the grounds of Wat Bovorn) right away. But the names you mention do not ring any bells with me. Did you know an American monk, Jotimaana (I think), resident at Wat B and a regular attendee of the weekly discussions at that time? Hoping you continue to find the discussion here of interest. Do come in with some comments/questions (or start a new thread) if you feel inclined. Jon #92723 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear Alberto, Your points were discussed by others, but I shall add just a little on kamma and vipaaka. Op 14-nov-2008, om 12:02 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Are the rupas that make up a rural landscape intrinsically pleasant > and the rupas that make up a industrial and polluted one intrinsically > ugly? > I think that they both are conditioned by the kammas of the beings > that shaped them, and kammas are nama and not rupas. > Akusala kamma can only be the cause of unpleasant results/vipaka, > kusala kamma of pleasant results, though its timing and modes can be > fathomed by Buddhas only. ----- N: Yes, kamma is naama. As I see it, it is the force of kamma performed before, perhaps aeons ago, that is accumulated form citta to citta, from life to life and can bring a result later on. The real cause of vipaaka is within, in the citta, not outside, coming from other people's kamma. Certainly, there are outward circumstances, time, place, which make it favorable to produce result, but these are not the real cause. I quote a verse from the Dhammapada posted by Ven. Samahita, and here the word self we should not misunderstand, it does not mean an abiding ego, it means: the citta of such person, not of another person. We can place it in the right context and not misunderstand the word self. (Dhammapada, vs 165) ---------- Then your other post: A: The reason why in a day we have, in many cases, more lobha (which is based on pleasant objects) than dosa, is mainly because of the gati sampatti-vipatti factors which prevent akusala kamma to result in akusala vipaka, factors which we inherited at birth, with our patisandhi citta, a dvihetuka-kusala-vipaka in most cases, composed of sobhana cetasikas, alobha and adosa, which functions as 'shield', in many cases, against akusala vipaka/unpleasant objects. Nina recently posted some very good comments on this. ------- N: Lobha is conditioned by the accumulated lobha and this is carried on from citta to citta. Lobha will always find an object. Pleasant vipaaka is not the real cause. One can with wise understanding react to pleasant vipaaka. One can come to understand that this is a conditioned dhamma and impermanent. I do not remember you refer to which post, speaking of a shield. Born with dvihetuka patisandhicitta, most of us? Who knows. But interest in the Dhamma can arise because of tihetuka patisandhicitta. Then, in any case, the pa~n~naa one is born with has to be developed. It is of no use to speculate. Nina. #92724 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:29 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon, >--- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > When did I say that insight is not important? It is. > > I've never suggested that you said insight was not important. > Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. > > > But insight HAS > > to be based on Jhana according to that Sutta. > > This is the point we were discussing. But are you are now saying > that *insight* has to be based on jhana? Because previously you've > said that *enlightenment* has to be based on jhana. some mileposts: study -> Jhana -> first hand insight -> enlightment a=b b=c thus a=c No contradiction. Jhana helps to gain real (rather than read about) insight which then causes enlightment. > > Insight work happens > > based ON Jhana in AN9.36 > > Yes, there can be insight (and enlightenment) that has jhana > consciousness as its object, as in AN9.36. No argument from me on > that. > > Jon Not just can be, but there is a path with Jhana playing an important role. Best wishes, #92725 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:36 am Subject: Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Alberto > > Dear Alex > For me it is easier to refer to sanna as memory rather than > perception, I therefore see more fit to develop aniccasanna, along > anattasanna and other kusala dhammas, through the proper study and > considering of the Dhamma rather than via specific samatha >meditation techniques, which focus the attention on the >nimitta/concept of some dhamma (tangible rupas in the case of >anapanasati), Sutta quote please? The above doesn't sound like Buddha-Dhamma at all. Maybe New Age dhamma, but not Buddha Dhamma. >concepts which by definition don't possess any of the 3 >characteristics the real dhammas > exhibit, anicca, dukkha and anatta, and which belong to > satipatthana/vipassana bhavana and not to samatha bhavana. Sabbe sankhara anicca. Sabbe sankhara dukkha. Sabbe Dhamma anatta. "Concepts" as ALL things are anatta. Since anatta requires anicca & dukkha, then concepts are anicca & dukkha as well. Please don't teach eternalistic neo-platonism where there are immortal concepts not subject to impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self. > Nowadays arahants are completely extinct, How do you (or KS) know? Superpower mind reading powers? With best wishes, #92726 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... HI Jon In a message dated 11/19/2008 7:06:36 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > TG: Agreed...with the caveat that -- this information does not clarify > exactly what nama and rupa are. Agreed. So where does this leave us (apart from being too much in agreement)? ;-)) Jon ............................................... Let's just stay here for awhile. :-) TG #92727 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:55 am Subject: Re: Inside & Outside truth_aerator Hello Howard & Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Scott - > > In a message dated 11/19/2008 8:22:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > scduncan@... writes: > > What do you think of the suggestion that visible object arises >first and is object condition for seeing-consciousness? > ========================= >What is initially-unseen visible object, and where does it arise? >That is the thinking that arises for me when you ask this question. > > With metta, > Howard Philosopher Alex also thinks in a similiar style as: "an object is already a set of perceptions" and how that it is impossible to describe an "unseen&unimagined sight" since sight is a seen and/or imagined mental thing. However all those things have few problems: a) Suttas often seem to be very realistic. ex MN148. eye + external form = eye consciousness "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect." b) The control issue. One can't simply imagine a suitcase filled with cash and create it like that. We could say that the mental stream isn't under anyone's control and thus some things don't happen as we wish... Any ideas, comments? With best wishes, #92728 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Sarah, In a message dated 11/19/2008 6:46:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: The Buddha wasn't concerned about the causes of the moon's gravity, tides and ocean waves, but about the understanding of conditioned namas and rupas leading to the end of dukkha as I see it. ............................................................. TG: So I guess we should just overlook the Buddha's interest in weather conditions and their affects on boats? LOL The Buddha didn't overlook squat or lack concern about any conditional situation IMO. “…suppose there were a seafaring ship bound with rigging that had worn out in the water for six months. It would be hauled up on dry land during the cold season and its rigging would further be attacked by wind and sun. Inundated by rain from a rain cloud, the rigging would easily collapse and rot away.†(The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1557) BTW Sarah, I'm still hoping on a clarification from you about the Four Great Elements. It was my understanding that it was an Abhidhamma point of view that they don't exists independent of each other but are always connected in all phenomena...even though one or the other are predominant at any given time. So how can heat alone be the cause of rupa? As Howard says...there are no "sole" causes. I agree. TG #92729 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside & Outside upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Scott) - In a message dated 11/19/2008 11:55:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: However all those things have few problems: a) Suttas often seem to be very realistic. ex MN148. eye + external form = eye consciousness "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect." ========================== Just a comment on this one point: Dependency need not be temporal. Seeing certainly depends on seen. With metta, Howard #92730 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Scott, Howard BTW, I was just thinking, it seems odd to me that Sarah and Scott, being such "purists" that they don't want to consider even basic understandings from science. Yet...happily accept Abhidhamma commentarial thought from anonymous authors ... which were basically trying to create a science out of the Suttas. Very interesting! If you want authenticity, gotta stick with Suttas. And perhaps not all Suttas are authentic Buddha's teaching, the vast majority probably are. Zero commentaries are authentic Buddha's teaching. But, if you think "their guess" is better than yours, by all means, follow in somebody else's footsteps and follow "whoever they may be" and what they have analyzed the Suttas to mean. Don't take "your understanding" for it. ;-) TG #92731 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:26 am Subject: A Puppet on Strings TGrand458@... A puppet on strings... That's all we are...and 'conditions' are doing the manipulating. #92732 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:04 am Subject: Re: Inside & Outside truth_aerator Hi Howard, Scott and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Scott) - > ========================== >Just a comment on this one point: Dependency need not be temporal.> >Seeing certainly depends on seen. > > With metta, > Howard Is the "seen" or the "basis" for the seen located outside of one's stream of consciousness? With best wishes, #92733 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside & Outside upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Scott) - In a message dated 11/19/2008 1:04:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, Scott and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Scott) - > ========================== >Just a comment on this one point: Dependency need not be temporal.> >Seeing certainly depends on seen. > > With metta, > Howard Is the "seen" or the "basis" for the seen located outside of one's stream of consciousness? --------------------------------------- Howard: The "seen" is content of consciousness. As for an external basis, it is unknown. -------------------------------------- With best wishes, ======================== With metta, Howard #92734 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings nilovg Hi TG, Op 19-nov-2008, om 18:26 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > A puppet on strings... That's all we are...and 'conditions' are > doing the > manipulating. ------- N: And here a quote from the Vis. (I used it in my rupas) you studied so often: The “Visuddhimagga” (XVIII, 31) uses a simile of a marionette in order to illustrate that there is no human being in the ultimate sense, only conditioned phenomena. We read: “Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said: ‘The mental and material are really here, ‘But here there is no human being to be found, ‘For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll-- ‘Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.” When one sees a performance with marionettes, it seems that the puppets have lives of their own: they exert themselves, they are absorbed, attached or full of hatred and sorrow, and one can laugh and cry because of the story that is being enacted. However, the puppets are only wood and strings, held by men who make them act. When one sees how the puppets are stored after the play they are not impressive anymore, only pieces of wood and strings. When we study the Abhidhamma it helps us to understand more that this marionette we call “self” can move about, act and speak because of the appropriate conditions. ______ Nina. #92735 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside & Outside nilovg Hi Howard, Op 19-nov-2008, om 20:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > The "seen" is content of consciousness. As for an external basis, > it is > unknown. ------ Visible object, rupa, is too weak at its arising moment to perform any function such as being object or base. It has to arise just before the eye-door process begins. But the 'moment' is infinitely short. It has just arisen (in a flash) when seeing arises and visible object is experienced. No need to speculate where is visible object before? But we know it has arisen because there are conditions for it, produced by temperature (heat), and when it is colour of a body, by kamma, citta, nutrition and heat. Nina. #92736 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:06 pm Subject: Serious questions regarding ParaNibbana & Arhatship truth_aerator Hello all, On another Board I saw talks about Nibbana being critiqued by non- Buddhists, which got me thinking about few things. As I understand it, ParaNibbana is termination of 5 khandas without any reoccurance. This has some issues. If there is really no Arahant (or worldlings) even in Samsara then it means that: a) In ultimate truth there isn't any one who experiences Samsara? b) In ultimate truth there isn't any one who experiences Nibbana? c) Arahant's 5 khandas (including citta & cetasikas) themselves do not experience paraNibbana since they have to cease first, for ParaNibbana to occure. d) ParaNibbana cannot be an "object" of cognition because it IS devoid of ALL cognition. Just as sound cannot be an object of eye, absence of consciosness cannot be an object of any internal sense base. Did anyone experience rapid unconsciousness? The thing about full unconsciousness is that one doesn't know that one is unconscious. What may look like an unconscious person lying on the hospital bed for 1 hour, for that person 1 hour isn't felt. In fact one may not even notice that gap unless one is very attentive, knows what is going on and most importantly REVIEWS all the signs after emerging from unconsciousness. An Arahant who paranibbana'ed (or shall I say 5 aggregates) can't do that. So this implies that e) there is no knowledge that (citta, cetasika, etc) is ceased for ever? If there is no knowledge of absence (there is no citta to know that!), does it means that there IS i) Knowledge of presence (which requires) citta? Or ii) Knowledge of absence? iii) No knowledge of absence & no knowledge of presence. - What is this then? If a person is an assemblage of impersonal conditions coming together in some specific fashion and your, mine, and everyone's subjective internal vs external feeling was such as well, then there is a question: What prevents such forces from forming a new existence for an Arhat's khandas that ParaNibbana? What mechanism (which would have to be eternal) is responsible for that? IF there was something for every set of Khandas that lasted for entire Samsara which was the sole cause for subjective perspective (not to be confused with the view a sakkayaditthi) and gone out, then this could explain why a terminated process does not restart. Is there such a process? Furthermore the assumptionn of something different in each "person" could prevent another paradox. Can two or more (conventionally speaking) people be reborn as ONE being? (ie 2+ different cuti cittas having ONE patisandhi citta rebirth linking). What was the cause of the first citta for a particular being (conventionally speaking)? What was the cause of that? (If it had no begining, no first cause or set of simulteneous ex nihilo causes) then today would have never came as it would be infinity into the future from that infinite past! Does "population" of Samsara Stay the same, increases or Decreases? If it is one of the first two then does this mean that new deluded "beings" are appearing (how, ex nihilo?) and if the population of Samsara is decreasing then it means that Samsara had a beginning. If so, did samsara appear ex nihilo some gadzillion aeons ago? This all isn't a critique. It is just challenging questions about certain subleties. Maybe some Mahayanists have thought in similiar fashion regarding Nibbana in a sense being inseperable from Samsara. Best wishes, #92737 From: "colette" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Observatvions of Mind ksheri3 "...the object of correct seeing is in the ultimate truth, and that of false seeing is in the conventional truth." Madhymikavatara and/or Khenpo Migmar Tsering. Hi Group, Yea, you guys know that I've got something with this meditation. It's very profound and will, WITHOUT QUESTION, effect those who think they can get away with taking my body, taking my will, taking my mind, etc, from me and using it as their own personal bauble which they can offer as the place where ALL OF THEIR CRIMES HAVE BEEN CREATED, MANIFESTED. This is a charlattan's way of putting the blame for a crime on another person so that the criminal can escape RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. Lets look at "false seeing" which encompasses the the senses and "eye- consciousness", for instance, but we can certainly rely upon the adages that people have always used, such as, "can you see what I'm saying", et al, which obviously shows that the sense consciousnesses are far more than the simple dribble that is written down in the citta material, Abhidharma, et al. Another obvious conclusion is that I believe whole heartedly in buddha Nature since, as I've told many occult and esoteric societies since 2004, "I cannot see evil, which is a handicap to me, myself. There is something inherent in the human organism that all humans have and I cannot explain it other than suggesting that it is Buddha Nature -- it is not reasonable to pressume that any individual, even a criminal, is desirous of their own demise, their own suffering, their own destruction. THEREFORE it is not reasonable to EXCLUDE the concept of Buddha Nature since this same concept is so prevelent in most, if not all, theologies, in one form or another. Just look at this: "A common beings examing knowledge is not exactly a correct seeing but due to its rejection of true existence it is subsumed it int. Likewise, the subsequent attainments (pristalabdha) of the Lower Arya's are not exactly false seeing but because their mode of grasping is conventional they are subsumed in it." I THINK THAT THAT STATEMENT ALONE IS A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEMS WE ALL HAVE WITH COGNITION AND THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WHEN COGNITION COMES INTO CONTACT WITH THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS ACCORDING TO WESTERN THEOLOGICAL TRADITION (CHRISTIANITY) BUT MORE EASILY SAID AS NOTHING MORE THAN THE THREE PIOSONS. We could debate whether the 3 Poisons are Lobha, Mosa, and Dosa as the Abhidharma defines them but that's too superficial for me. <...> toodles, colette #92738 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? buddhatrue Hi TG and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi James > Chicken or the egg huh? Well, I'd say -- one lifts the other up, then that > one lifts the other up, and so on. In other words, they elevate each other. Yes, I am sure that they support each other. However, I was wondering which occurs first at the moments of path and fruit: stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner, and arahant. At those moments of enlightenment, is it detachment which proceeds insight into the three characteristics or is it insight into the three characteristics which proceeds insight. Of course, it doesn't really matter to know with such precision- but in this group the discussion revolves around such precision of mind states so I thought I would ask. Metta, James #92739 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings TGrand458@... Hi Nina Great Quote! In a message dated 11/19/2008 12:31:49 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: The “Visuddhimagga†(XVIII, 31) uses a simile of a marionette in order to illustrate that there is no human being in the ultimate sense, only conditioned phenomena. We read: “Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said: ‘The mental and material are really here, ‘But here there is no human being to be found, ‘For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll-- ‘Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.†...................................................... TG: Really enjoy seeing the emphasis on the term "void" here in the Visuddhimagga. How about that Ken H....Mahayana in your own back door! ;-) So as not to confuse anybody, TG does not consider it Mahayana. And yet, as useful as this quote is, it does not pinpoint why we are like a puppet. It is a vague pass at the idea. .......................................................... When one sees a performance with marionettes, it seems that the puppets have lives of their own: they exert themselves, they are absorbed, attached or full of hatred and sorrow, and one can laugh and cry because of the story that is being enacted. However, the puppets are only wood and strings, held by men who make them act. When one sees how the puppets are stored after the play they are not impressive anymore, only pieces of wood and strings. When we study the Abhidhamma it helps us to understand more that this marionette we call “self†can move about, act and speak because of the appropriate conditions. ...................................................................... TG: When we study the Abhidhamma??? I came to that idea through study of the Suttas....and so did the Abhidhamma materials. LOL What is the preoccupation with this "political" pushing of Abhidhamma??? I realize this group was designed to focus on Abhidhamma studies, but give me a break. Abhidhamma, at best, is the study of the Suttas. At worst its a mis-reading of the Suttas. The above statement would be much more effective if it said... "When we study the Dhamma..." But anyway, thanks for the posting of this quote. I always thought it was one of the many highlights of the Visuddhjmagga. TG #92740 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:07 pm Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > James: YES! EXACTLY!! > > Well, of course! Nothing new here, is there? ;-)) > > > James: BINGO!! > > Come on, don't tell me this is new ground ;-)) > James: Well, I thought it was new ground and now it seems like you are back-peddling. Is it somehow unseemly to have agreement with me? :-) > > What > > > he taught was the understanding of the true nature of dhammas, > > that is > > > to say, the direct understanding of the characteristic of > presently > > > arising dhammas. > > > > James: Right again! He taught to see the nature of all dhammas as: > > anicca, dukkha, and anatta. > > SNAP! (almost). Yes, he taught the nature ! of all dhammas as: > anicca, dukkha, and anatta. And he taught that the seeing of this is > the development of insight. And he taught the way that this insight > knowledge can be developed. But I'm not sure I would put it as you > have: "He taught to see the nature of all dhammas as ...". James: I believe he taught both: to intellectually know them as anicca, dukkha, and anatta and to directly see them as such. When he taught the three characteristics surely he knew that most of those listening didn't directly know the three characteristics. So, he wanted them to intellectually see dhammas/sankhara in this way before directly seeing them in this way. > > > > But as the chariot simile points out, the *idea* of person/being > > > arises out of the experience (direct or inferred) of the 5 > > khandhas. > > > > James: I am not 100% in agreement with this part because the Buddha > > didn't teach the chariot simile. It was spoken by a lesser ariyan > > and is therefore a lesser teaching. The Buddha taught to view > > people, especially oneself, in terms of the five khandas in order > to > > deconstruct the idea of a lasting self. > > Whoa there James. How is "viewing people as the five khandhas", as > you advocate here, any different in essence from "viewing people as > composed of separate parts", which we agreed above to be a kind of > wrong view/practice? James: We had no such agreement!! Where did I agree to such a thing?? It doesn't matter how you view people- it is just a view. It doesn't mean anything. It isn't until insight that the truth is known. In either case, the person is taken as the > starting point. James: The person is the starting point. Dhammas or khandas cannot be the starting point as that approach is too advanced to be a starting point. (Oh gosh, I find my past enthusiasm ebbing away. :-(( > > > People believe in a lasting > > self. The Buddha taught to deconstruct the human experience into > > the five khandas in order to show that there is no self to be found > > anywhere. It is not from the five khandas that there is the "idea" > > of a person- there is a person (but that person is either viewed > > with wisdom or not). > > Yes, people (including you and me) believe in a lasting self. James: So you admit that we are people, you and me? This > belief is wrong view. It is a belief rooted in ignorance of the true > nature of dhammas and the Four Noble Truths. It is dispelled > (eventually) by the development of insight knowledge (the knowledge > that sees dhammas as they truly are). James: Okay, no disagreement- but I don't see your point either. > > > Jon, I am not sure how far apart on this we are. > > On this particular point, rather a long way, I fear ;-)) James: Yeah, I guess so. Well, it was nice having that loving, heady, Indian summer with you, Jon, while it lasted. :-)) Metta, James #92741 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Nina & Ken) - In a message dated 11/19/2008 8:00:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Nina Great Quote! In a message dated 11/19/2008 12:31:49 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: The “Visuddhimagga†(XVIII, 31) uses a simile of a marionette in order to illustrate that there is no human being in the ultimate sense, only conditioned phenomena. We read: “Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said: ‘The mental and material are really here, ‘But here there is no human being to be found, ‘For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll-- ‘Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.†...................................................... TG: Really enjoy seeing the emphasis on the term "void" here in the Visuddhimagga. How about that Ken H....Mahayana in your own back door! ;-) So as not to confuse anybody, TG does not consider it Mahayana. And yet, as useful as this quote is, it does not pinpoint why we are like a puppet. It is a vague pass at the idea. .......................................................... When one sees a performance with marionettes, it seems that the puppets have lives of their own: they exert themselves, they are absorbed, attached or full of hatred and sorrow, and one can laugh and cry because of the story that is being enacted. However, the puppets are only wood and strings, held by men who make them act. When one sees how the puppets are stored after the play they are not impressive anymore, only pieces of wood and strings. When we study the Abhidhamma it helps us to understand more that this marionette we call “self†can move about, act and speak because of the appropriate conditions. ...................................................................... TG: When we study the Abhidhamma??? I came to that idea through study of the Suttas....and so did the Abhidhamma materials. LOL What is the preoccupation with this "political" pushing of Abhidhamma??? I realize this group was designed to focus on Abhidhamma studies, but give me a break. Abhidhamma, at best, is the study of the Suttas. At worst its a mis-reading of the Suttas. The above statement would be much more effective if it said... "When we study the Dhamma..." But anyway, thanks for the posting of this quote. I always thought it was one of the many highlights of the Visuddhjmagga. TG ______ Nina. ================================= From the Bhikkhuni Samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, there is the following (SN 5.9): 9. Sela Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Sela dressed... she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding._23_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl143.html#n-23) Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Sela, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse: 30. "By whom has this puppet been created? Where is the maker of the puppet? Where has the puppet arisen? Where does the puppet cease?"_24_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl143.html#n-24) Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Sela: "Now who is this...? This is Mara the Evil One... desiring to make me fall away from concentration." Then the bhikkhuni Sela, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: 31. "This puppet is not made by itself, Nor is this misery made by another. It has come to be dependent on a cause, When the cause dissolves then it will cease. 32. As when a seed is sown in a field It grows depending on a pair of factors: It requires both the soil's nutrients And a steady supply of moisture. 33. Just so the aggregates and elements, And these six bases of sensory contact, Have come to be dependent on a cause; When the cause dissolves they will cease."_25_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl143.html#n-25) Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Sela knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. With metta, Howard #92742 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/19/2008 7:25:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: 31. "This puppet is not made by itself, Nor is this misery made by another. It has come to be dependent on a cause, When the cause dissolves then it will cease. ...................................................... TG: Only one kiss a week, sorry. LOL I'm not sure if you meant to, but I like the way you justified my comment without making any comment at all. :-) TG #92743 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha scottduncan2 Dear TG, (Howard, Sarah), I'm a carp and couldn't resist this marshmallow - reel me in: TG: "BTW, I was just thinking, it seems odd to me that Sarah and Scott, being such 'purists' that they don't want to consider even basic understandings from science..." Scott: I'm happy to be placed in Sarah's company here. I've said it before; I'll say it again: Science schmience. My favourite science is science fiction. My favourite scientist is Iain Banks. Sarah will disavow the association with me after this: Antonyms for purism include 'compromise,' 'eclectisism,' 'adaptability,' 'progressivism,' and 'melange.' Antonyms for 'purify' include 'pollute,' 'contaminate,' 'soil,' 'debase,' 'degrade,' 'defile,' and 'debauch.' Mixing mundane, ordinary, worldly science with Dhamma in the name of compromising, or eclecticism, or some standard of ideational adaptability, or smug progressivism, only produces a melange that is a pollution, a contamination, a soiling, a debasing, a degradation, a defiling, and a debauching of the Dhamma. ;-) Sorry for waffling on my opinion. ;-) TG: "...If you want authenticity, gotta stick with Suttas. And perhaps not all Suttas are authentic Buddha's teaching, the vast majority probably are. Zero commentaries are authentic Buddha's teaching. But, if you think 'their guess' is better than yours, by all means, follow in somebody else's footsteps and follow 'whoever they may be' and what they have analyzed the Suttas to mean. Don't take 'your understanding' for it." Scott: Since you bring it up (again), TG, the only appeal of the Sutta-Only school in this day and age is for the proponent him- or herself who can presume to understand the Suttas based on his or her own highly esteemed understanding. This is, of course, the height of grandiosity, but must be really fun - all that creation and make-believe. ;-) The Sutta-Only fundamentalist can pretend his or her understanding of the suttas is correct, based on who knows what mystical criteria, and that he or she ought to be considered an expert by dint of years of study or repetition of sutta reading alone and nothing else. ;-) Reading an English translation of an ancient language and claiming to understand something as deep as the Dhamma simply by thinking it over is totally ludicrous. And yet this is what the Sutta-Only proponents would have me believe. No one with any sort of discrimination would ever buy such a notion. Pure hubris. ;-) Anything that a modern-day, Sutta-only proponent says is neo-commentary. While I'll stand by the ancient Commentarial tradition and the Abhidhamma - its why I read here after all (this is the clearly stated subject of discussion at DSG) - I would never trust to a single idea of any one of these Sutta-Only neo-commentators - including myself should I ever have any neo-commentary to offer - Dog forbid. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #92744 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/19/2008 6:06:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Please feel free at any time to refrain from discussing if it agitates you. I'm trying to stick to thoughts about 'a view' and am not referring to someone known as 'TG' - I hope you can consider the view as well. ............................................ TG: Likewise I'm sure. "TG" is a meaningless set of initials. There's only a "puppet" behind them. Since your posts often come off as rude, I just respond in like tone as I feel its what you must expect. Then latter you occasionally post -- "you are just trying to stick to thoughts about a view." You might be selling that line, but I'm not buying it. LOL I will admit my tone to Sarah and Nina is often harder than the tone they deliver. But this is not the case with you. FYI I do post to you because you are sharp and it is good practice to deal with someone who is sharp. You need not concern yourself with my agitation or lack thereof. Thanks. ............................................ Di.t.thi is such a significant influence on a given understanding of the Dhamma and I'm learning how this really is a 'view,' as in a pervasive way of 'seeing' and conceiving of things. Look at the views we each represent (or, that arise and are mistaken for 'each of us') - so different, so pervasive, so diametrically opposed in many ways. Fascinating. .................................................. TG: Its all a matter of conditions. Our conditions are different, so views are different. I see phenomena as "coreless," you see it as "realities with individual characteristics." Fascinating indeed. (Mums the word on the Visuddhimagga calling the aggregates "void." It will be our secret...and maybe Buddhaghosa was just having a bad day. It happens to the best of the commentators. ;-) ) ................................................... Regarding: TG: "...You are speaking about a 'visible-object' that is not the object of vision...Here again...visible-object of vision...Here a eye-consciousness. What is such a 'rupa' for you?" Scott: Each of the components of, say 'seeing,' have separate existence. .......................................................... TG: Only in terms of analysis. In actuality, nothing has "separate existence." ........................................................... Visible object is not 'seen' unless the necessary conditions for seeing are present. ............................................................. TG: Agreed! Shall we stop here? ;-) ....................................................... The ruupa that is visible object arises first - prior to the arising of seeing consciousness - and is object condition for the arising of seeing-consciousnesobject implies a separate 'existence' for ruupa and does not negate the fact that 'seeing' - the experience - requires conditions (including object) and is a function of a confluence of three separate realities arising in proximity and conascently and then falling away. ........................................................ TG: I won't bother analyzing each aspect of this. It is simply not the way I would discuss the matter. The way that you state the above can be read or understood in different ways and in subtle ways. There is a way I can read it and say -- yea, that's true to such and such an extent...but not absolutely. There is another way I can read it and say -- this person is overshooting the mark and missing the point. Based on my readings of your writings, and others that seem to be writing the same type of thing you are, I conclude it to be the latter case. ................................................................ TG: "...striking the eye, friction of impact? Sound like literal contact to me! NOTE: How the 'visible-objects' is said to 'strike the eye.' It seems to say...that if nothing else, all visible-objects share in common 'striking the eye.' Comments? No more time..." Scott: How do you understand phassa - contact? Do you consider contact to be naama or ruupa? ......................................................... TG: Buddhist "contact" requires both physical and mental conditions. It is actually impossible to separate them...other than for analysis. (Even the immaterial world, assuming it exists, is based on the momentums acquired in in a nama/rupa environment.) Contact causes feeling. Contact is the basis for feeling, but feeling arises, for all practical purposes, simultaneously with contact. I know Abhidhamma identifies contact as a nama...they also think the mind is in the heart, etc. I don't see a "digital type" on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps. TG OUT #92745 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/19/2008 7:45:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Since you bring it up (again), TG, the only appeal of the Sutta-Only school in this day and age is for the proponent him- or herself who can presume to understand the Suttas based on his or her own highly esteemed understanding. This is, of course, the height of grandiosity, but must be really fun - all that creation and make-believe. ;-) .......................................................... TG: Flagged for more extreme rudeness! In case your next post says -- "who me?, I'm just a little innocent who wants to discuss issues." LOL That's a laugh. That and your "straw man" quip. I guess the Buddha felt his teachings taught what he wanted to say and the way he wanted to say it. I guess you feel you are smarter than him and elect to think someone else can teach his teachings better than he could. That attitude must go like..."let's help the Buddha out and say it more clearly than he did or could." LOL Who's arrogant? Depends on your point of view. Maybe the highlighting of "separates" that Abhidhamma leans toward was exactly what the Buddha wanted to avoid. Hummmmm. Go ahead, believe in your secondary sources and put down the Suttas that don't support what you take from that. Its not my idea of a good methodology, but my conditions are different from yours. :-) The rest of you post is just a continuation of rudeness. I'll pass. TG OUT #92746 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "(Mums the word on the Visuddhimagga calling the aggregates 'void.' It will be our secret...and maybe Buddhaghosa was just having a bad day. It happens to the best of the commentators." Scott: Imagine that, Buddhagosa makes TG's day by using his favourite term. ;-) Seriously though, I'm going to take Buddhagosa's understanding of the term over yours any day. TG: "...Buddhist 'contact' requires both physical and mental conditions. It is actually impossible to separate them...other than for analysis. (Even the immaterial world, assuming it exists, is based on the momentums acquired in in a nama/rupa environment.)..." Scott: Armchair physics. TG: "...I don't see a 'digital type' on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps." Scott: Permanence. What you and I 'see' is conditioned by ignorance. Sincerely, Scott. #92747 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott, (Sarah, and Howard) In a message dated 11/19/2008 9:05:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "...I don't see a 'digital type' on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps." Scott: Permanence. What you and I 'see' is conditioned by ignorance. ........................................................ TG: “Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…†(The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. 5, pg. 4) Permanence? ...sure. “…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid aside the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings [pleasant, painful, neutral] are born of contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; with the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.†(The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the B, vol. 2, pg. 1270) Contacts as source, root, condition ... for feeling. "Appropriate contacts" are the contacts needed to generate feeling. The Buddha analogizes the rubbing of two fire-sticks. Sounds pretty physical to me...and most scientific! I wonder if Sarah will say that the Buddha wasn't interested in fire-sticks and heat generation? ;-) This corresponds to the Abhidhamma passage that talked of "striking" and "friction." TG OUT #92748 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:32 pm Subject: Re: More on anatta sprlrt Dear Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Sabbe sankhara anicca. > Sabbe sankhara dukkha. > Sabbe Dhamma anatta. > > > "Concepts" as ALL things are anatta. Since anatta requires anicca & > dukkha, then concepts are anicca & dukkha as well. > > Please don't teach eternalistic neo-platonism where there are > immortal concepts not subject to impermanence, unsatisfactoriness > and not-self. > > Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door processes, and thinking, like seeing and the other 4 sense door processes, are nama, the dhammas that experience an object, which are rupa in the case of the 5 sense door, rupa is real (i.e. it actually exists), like nama, that which experience an object, and are real because they arise and fall (one of the meaning of sankhara). Concepts are not immortal, they're simply not real (i.e. they don't actually exist) because they are not nama (that which experience an object) nor rupa (the objects of 5 sense door processes), concepts do not arise and fall and are not sankhara, and dhamma are all sankhara plus Nibbana only. There just isn't much room for concepts in the Dhamma. Alberto #92749 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... Hi Alberto and Alex Question for Alberto...Is a mirage real? TG #92750 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:30 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, After the Bhante’s sermon Khun Sujin gave Dhamma dåna to us all. She spoke about the deepest cause of all our failures in the development of satipatthåna: our own defilements which we have accumulated for so long. She reminded us again of our fundamental inconsistence: we want to develop satipatthåna in order to eradicate the concept of self, but we still continue to consider ourselves as very important. This selfish attitude appears in our manner and speech, it can be very prominent. We often speak about realities such as seeing, hearing or thinking as anattå, non-self, but do we realize it when there is plain selfishness in daily life? Up till now we did not understand very well that less clinging to the concept of self also means being less selfish in our daily life. We are so used to thinking of ourselves that we do not notice it. Khun Sujin reminded us to realize more the moments we think of ourselves and to realize our action and speech that are motivated by egoism. How often do we find ourselves important? How often do we have conceit? Do we think ourselves better than others? Even when we think ourselves equal to or less than others we may find ourselves important and that is conceit. We may, for example, think: “Why does he treat me in that way?” Does this not often happen in daily life? The “Vibhanga” (Book of Analysis, Second Book of the Abhidhamma) enumerates in the “Analysis of Small Items” (345) many objects which can be objects of pride and conceit. Pride is here the translation of the Påli word “mada” which literally means intoxication. We read: “Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health; pride of youth; pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of being (a regular) alms collector; pride of being not despised; pride of posture (bearing); pride of accomplishment; pride of popularity; pride of being moral; pride of jhåna; pride of dexterity; pride of being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of (bodily) perfection; pride; heedlessness; (mental) rigidity; rivalry....” All these objects can be a source of intoxication and conceit. We should consider them in daily life, that is the reason why they are enumerated. Is it not true that we want to be honoured and respected, that we want to be popular and receive compliments? We are attached to other people’s opinion about us. The word “rivalry” used in the “Vibhanga” is another word for competition. We do not want others to be better than we are, even with regard to kusala and right understanding. We may not have noticed that we are so self-seeking, but the enumeration in the “Vibhanga” can remind us to be aware more often of such moments. We should investigate the deepest motives of our behaviour. Behaviour and speech we thought to be correct and pleasing are often motivated by selfishness. Khun Sujin told us in plain words that we should do something for others instead of doing something for ourselves, and that this gradually can become our nature. It will condition more kusala in our life. When we consider ourselves not as “somebody” we see more the importance of other people. A “nobody” or “not somebody” is another word for non-self, anattå. Do we really understand the meaning of anattå and its application in daily life? The sotåpanna has realized the truth of anatta and for him there are no more conditions to neglect the five precepts. When we transgress them there is no true consideration for other people’s well-being. The sotåpanna has eradicated stinginess. We are still stingy, we do not always want to share with others what we have because we think of our own comfort. Through satipatthåna there will be less ignorance of the many moments of selfishness which arise and there will be the understanding that akusala is only a conditioned reality, not “my akusala”. We shall develop satipaìtthåna with a more sincere inclination, we shall develop it in order to understand whatever reality arises, to understand it as non-self. ****** Nina. #92751 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:33 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, When someone has only theoretical understanding of realities that is the result of listening to the Dhamma, he is not able to directly understand nåma and rúpa as they are. He does not realize that what he sees and conceives as people and beings, is in reality only that which appears through the eyes. Therefore, we should time and again investigate the Dhamma we hear and study, we should ponder over it in all details. Only in this way the meaning of the words which denote characteristics of realities can be fully understood. The wording “that which appears through the eyes” describing the characteristic of visible object is altogether appropriate. It explains that visible object is only an element (dhåtu) appearing through the eyes so that it can be seen. No matter what colour it is: red, green, blue, yellow or white, a bright or a dull colour, it must appear when it impinges on the rúpa which is eyesense. When someone, after having seen what appears through the eyesense, does not understand realities as they are, there is bound to be attå-saññå. He takes what was seen for people, beings or things. When people are absorbed in different colours, it causes them to think of a “whole”, of shape and form, and thus there is remembrance (saññå) of the outward appearance of persons and things. When it seems that one sees people, beings or things, there are in reality only different colours which are seen, such as black, white, the colour of skin, red or yellow. If people would not interprete different colours or “translate” them into shape and form, they would not conceive them as beings, people or things. Therefore, when we see and we are then absorbed in the shape and form, in the outward appearance (nimitta) and the details of things, we should know that this occurs only because colour appears. When colours appear, we think about them, interprete them and “translate “ them into shape and form of different things. When sati arises and is mindful of realities and paññå begins to study and investigate their characteristics, one will begin to understand that the outward appearance and all the details of things, all the different colours, are only what appears through the eyes, nothing else. Then paññå begins to penetrate the characteristics of realities as not a self, not a being, not a person. If sati arises and is aware time and again, one will understand the meaning of the Buddha’s words explaining that, by the development of the understanding of the realities which naturally appear, one will not cling to the outward appearance and the details of things. _______ Nina. #92752 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi James, Op 20-nov-2008, om 1:53 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Yes, I am sure that they support each other. However, I was > wondering which occurs first at the moments of path and fruit: > stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner, and arahant. At those > moments of enlightenment, is it detachment which proceeds insight > into the three characteristics or is it insight into the three > characteristics which proceeds insight. ------- N: At the moment of path-consciousness, nibbaana is the object, not the three characteristics. But just before that, in the same process of cittas, one of the three is penetrated in relation to the dhamma that appears, and this can be any reality, even lobha. Thus, pa~n~naa sees that dhamma as impermanent or dukkha or anatta. Then pa~n~naa has been highly developed and at the same time it is accompanied by detachment of a high degree. And so it is when nibbaana is the object. It is the task of pa~n~naa to bring about detachment from realities. Nina. #92753 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings nilovg Hi TG, Op 20-nov-2008, om 3:44 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: to Howard: > Only one kiss a week, sorry. LOL I'm not sure if you meant to, > but I like the way you justified my comment without making any > comment at all. > :-) ---------- N: I was also thinking of this in the suttas and it shows all the more: Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma are one, the Buddha's teaching. TG, with all your background knowledge you must know that there is a lot of Abhidhamma in the Suttas. Nina. #92754 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Boldly Go Where No Sutta Has Gone Before sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & all, --- On Wed, 19/11/08, kenhowardau wrote: >>S:....Yes, after the Abhidhamma is vaporised, it's just a matter of time before the Suttanta and eventually the Vinaya is vaporised as well.... ----------- K:> That is the order in which the texts say the disappearing will take place, but the texts are referring to the Abhidhamma-pitaka, aren't they? The actual Abhidhamma is contained in the suttas also (in every word of them) and I believe *it* will be the last to disappear. Without Abhidhamma everything is just empty words. ..... S: Yes, with the disappearing of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka cannot survive because it's meaning is no longer understood, the Abhidhamma in it is lost.....empty words, as you say. ------------ ------ >>S: > Let's enjoy it while the good teaching lasts and forget about hamburgers and Star Trek episodes.... .it'll be quite a while before they're vaporised. ------------ ------ K:> I certainly agree with the enjoying part. For example, I enjoyed the [attached] exchange between you and Han so much that I nearly sent one of those dreaded "me too" posts. But why break the habit of a curmudgeonly lifetime? :-) ..... S: ;-) You still have your way of making the point... .... K:> As for the other part: what do you mean by "forget about hamburgers and Star Trek episodes?" That doesn't sound like your normal philosophy. .... S: It was a throw-away comment...I meant that the Abhidhamma has a very limited shelf-life, whereas the shelf-life for hamburgers and Star Trek is likely to be much longer.....Just silliness, not the stuff of a Ph D thesis:-) .... K:> You don't normally advise people to change their conventional lifestyles where only minor likes and dislikes are involved. .... S: Heaven forbid! In this regard I'd encourage anyone to carry on with hamburgers and Star Trek or whatever simple pleasures they like. I think, like you, that I only once ate a hamburger and Star Trek used to be on when I was a teenager, I recall, but most of it was lost on me. As for simple plesures, even Khun Sujin has always enjoyed watching and laughing at cartoons while you and we have all that fun in the sea, of course! Talking of which, it seems that you've had terrible storms/cyclones recently in Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast. Do hope all's well and you're taking care in the surf! (Our Big Wave Bay has pretty well been destroyed as a surf-haven since a huge typhoon/cyclone hit it at the end August). Still enjoyable for swims, however. ..... K:> PS: I am attaching the said exchange without trimming (shock, horror!) which is something we curmudgeons strongly disapprove of. So, maybe we can change just a little bit. :-) ..... S: Always exceptions for a good cause:-). Metta, Sarah ======= #92755 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta nilovg Dear Alberto and Alex, Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but still, they have to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said. There isn't anything that is self. Nina. Op 20-nov-2008, om 8:32 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Concepts are not immortal, > they're simply not real (i.e. they don't actually exist) because they > are not nama (that which experience an object) nor rupa (the objects > of 5 sense door processes), concepts do not arise and fall and are not > sankhara, and dhamma are all sankhara plus Nibbana only. There just > isn't much room for concepts in the Dhamma. #92756 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sprlrt Hi TG, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alberto and Alex > > > Question for Alberto...Is a mirage real? > > > TG > > A Yes/No question... my favourites. A: No Alberto #92757 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: "Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…" (The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. 5, pg. 4)..." Scott: What is the name of the sutta please, TG? The co-ordinates above are not enough for me to locate it. Thanks. I'll look at the SN sutta when I've found the one from the AN. TG: "...Contacts as source, root, condition ... for feeling. 'Appropriate contacts' are the contacts needed to generate feeling. The Buddha analogizes the rubbing of two fire-sticks. Sounds pretty physical to me...and most scientific! I wonder if Sarah will say that the Buddha wasn't interested in fire-sticks and heat generation?...This corresponds to the Abhidhamma passage that talked of 'striking' and 'friction.'" Scott: Again, TG, the view misunderstands the meaning of 'simile' and appropriates the literary aspects used in the device, taking them literally. I'll discuss 'contact' (phassa) and the related sense-bases when I've found the AN sutta. Sincerely, Scott. #92758 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/19/2008 9:43:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/19/2008 7:25:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: 31. "This puppet is not made by itself, Nor is this misery made by another. It has come to be dependent on a cause, When the cause dissolves then it will cease. ...................................................... TG: Only one kiss a week, sorry. LOL I'm not sure if you meant to, but I like the way you justified my comment without making any comment at all. :-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) I thought no comment was needed. ------------------------------------------ TG ================================= With metta, Howard #92759 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/20/2008 4:09:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Alberto and Alex, Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but still, they have to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said. There isn't anything that is self. Nina ========================= How is seeing concept (whatever that is) as not-self, which you say must happen, not seeing anatta as applying to concepts? With metta, Howard #92760 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta nilovg Hi Howard, I do not understand your question, the second part of it. Nina. Op 20-nov-2008, om 15:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > How is seeing concept (whatever that is) as not-self, which you say > must > happen, not seeing anatta as applying to concepts? #92761 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/20/2008 10:01:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I do not understand your question, the second part of it. Nina. Op 20-nov-2008, om 15:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > How is seeing concept (whatever that is) as not-self, which you say > must > happen, not seeing anatta as applying to concepts? ========================== You wrote "Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but still, they have to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said." That sure seems contradictory to me. To see concepts as not self is to see them as having the 3rd characteristic. With metta, Howard #92762 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:34 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi James, since the Indian summer did not last long, I might come in as well. The forecast is cold weather, wet snow, night frost. But I can face the cold. Op 14-nov-2008, om 8:58 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Have I directly realized anatta? > No, I haven't. However, I don't believe that denying the existence > of people will get me there anytime sooner. I see that as placing > the emphasis in the wrong direction. ------- N: It helps to keep in mind what is explained in Vis. Ch XVII in the context of D.O. If one wrongly sees continuity one tends to eternalism, a person who exists. One should also see diversity, the arising of a new dhamma, time and again. If one wrongly sees diversity, one denies continuity. There is continuity in the series of cittas arising and falling away. One citta is succeeded by a next one and thus all inclinations, good and bad are accumulated from moment to moment. That is why we can speak of the character of this or that individuality. Balance is necessary. Perhaps this answers your questions? > > James: Well, this is where I keep losing you but I keep trying to > reach some sort of understanding. When you say "person", what > exactly do you mean? You say person of a whole, but I don't know > exactly what that means. -------- N:We are used to think of a person who exists, our whole life. But through the dhamma we can learn a new approach, and this becomes clearer when there can be a beginning of awareness of one dhamma appearing through one doorway at a time through one of the six doors, instead of joining together many impressions through the different doorways we remember and think about. We have to know that seeing is, different from thinking of a person, this is a beginning of understanding one dhamma at a time, not more than one. This is what the Buddha meant when saying not to be lost in the outward appearance of things and the details, and that is: lost in a whole of impressions. This causes us to mistakenly think that a person exists. We meet people and take it for granted that they are there already. But they are cittas arising and falling away and rupas that change all the time, from head to toe. I quote about this subject from Survey: And another quote: --------- The last quote also points to awareness of one reality at a time. This cannot be applied in the beginning, but at least one can acquire more understanding of what the object of awareness is. ------- Nina. #92763 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta nilovg Hi Howard, Op 20-nov-2008, om 16:11 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You wrote "Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but still, > they have > to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said." > That sure seems contradictory to me. To see concepts as not self is to > see them as having the 3rd characteristic. ---------- N: I see your point. We do not have to develop insight of concepts in order to eventually penetrate the three general charactreistics. This applies only to realities. But in a way we can say that everything, also concepts, are not self. The self does not exist at all. How can we then say that a concept is self? Nina. #92764 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:52 am Subject: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, all - The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought. The reality corresponding to that is actually a mental activity, a specific line of thought. Any instance of that is certainly anicca, dukkha, and anatta. Often, there is no actual phenomenon, elementary or an aggregation of elementary phenomena, that is the referent of a given concept. In that case, the intended referent is merely imagined/projected; it doesn't exist, and we speak of it as "concept-only." On DSG, many folks use the word 'concept' not to refer to a mental activity/phenomenon, but to the intended referent of that activity, and if that intended referent is an aggregation of elementary phenomena, it is treated, oddly, as both non-existent and as simultaneously being not-self, hence having the property of anatta. One thing is clear to me: The Buddha never said that there are no trees, no cities, no animals, no father and no mother, etc. While unequivocal in asserting the emptiness of all aggregations/formations and of all namas and rupas, the Buddha never denied the existence of compounds, including sentient beings. In the Karaniya Metta Sutta, for example, the Buddha taught the following: Whatever living creatures there be, Without exception, weak or strong, Long, huge or middle-sized, Or short, minute or bulky, Whether visible or invisible, And those living far or near, The born and those seeking birth, May all beings be happy! Let none deceive or decry His fellow anywhere; Let none wish others harm In resentment or in hate. Just as with her own life A mother shields from hurt Her own son, her only child, Let all-embracing thoughts For all beings be yours. With metta, Howard #92765 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:18 am Subject: Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Alberto, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Dear Alex >Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door processes, >and thinking, like seeing and the other 4 sense door processes, are >nama,the dhammas that experience an object, which are rupa in the >case of Object of thinking are anicca & anatta. Mind door processess are anicca & anatta. 4 sense door processess, seeing, nama/rupa are anicca & anatta. > the 5 sense door, rupa is real (i.e. it actually exists), like nama, > that which experience an object, and are real because they arise and > fall (one of the meaning of sankhara). Concepts are not immortal, > they're simply not real (i.e. they don't actually exist) because If concepts aren't real, then how can we talk about something which isn't real? CONSIDER THIS! >they are not nama They are (sanna, sankhara) and like any nama process, are anicca & anatta. > (that which experience an object) nor rupa (the objects > of 5 sense door processes), concepts do not arise and fall and are They DO arise! When people invent new concept then it arises. When everyone forgets, then it ceases. Concepts isn't something that ALWAYS exist for ALL people. 'Computer' concept isn't known for a member of some tribe in pacific ocean. My 81 year old Grandma still can't learn the concept of "computer" and refers to it as TV. Please don't ruin Buddha's teaching by creating permanent" forms, concepts etc. Best wishes, #92766 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Nina and Alberto, >--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto and Alex, > Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but still, they have > to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said. There isn't anything > that is self. > Nina. If concepts do not have 3 characteristics (anatta is one of them) then they are atta! HERESY!!! Furthermore, the reason that something is anatta is because of ANICCA & dukkha. No anicca and/or dukkha, then not anatta. Concepts (like any mind object) cannot be constantly possessed as that which KNOWS the concepts isn't permanent. With best wishes, #92767 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Alberto, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi TG, Alex > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@ wrote: > > > > Hi Alberto and Alex > > > > > > Question for Alberto...Is a mirage real? > > > > > > TG > > > > > > A Yes/No question... my favourites. > A: No > > Alberto > If mirage isn't real, then how come people see it? Why do they fall for it? Mirage, illusion, hallucinations are most definately REAL. But the 'content' of them is unreal. Ex: mirage of water as a phenomena is real. But there is no real water there. #92768 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:30 am Subject: Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, You are right! >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is >generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought Dhammayatanna (ideas, mind objects) is impermanent. If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the ideas are discerned. MN148. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html With Best wishes, #92769 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 11/20/2008 10:01:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > I do not understand your question, the second part of it. > Nina. > Op 20-nov-2008, om 15:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > How is seeing concept (whatever that is) as not-self, which you >say > > must > > happen, not seeing anatta as applying to concepts? > ========================== > You wrote "Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but >still, > they have > to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said." > That sure seems contradictory to me. To see concepts as not >self is to > see them as having the 3rd characteristic. > > With metta, > Howard Minor correction: To see concepts as not self is to see them as having the three (anicca-dukkha-anatta) characteristics. With Best wishes, #92770 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... Hi Alberto, Alex, All Question for Alberto...Is a mirage real? > > > TG > > A Yes/No question... my favourites. A: No Alberto .......................................................... TG: A mirage, a mirage that appears like water, for example, appears as a combination of various conditions...light, sky, a flat surface, heat, etc. So I would say, I mirage certainly is real, it just isn't what it appears to be. A "mirage" is merely the appearance. It is only "actual water" that doesn't exist. But the "water" isn't the mirage, the mirage is the appearance of water. A mirage appears when the conditions come together to support it and disappears when those conditions fall apart. Concepts exist in the same way a mirage exists. The supposed "conceptually projected referent" of the concept is just like the "water" in the mirage. The "referent" never appears and never is mean to appear in a concept. A concept is comprised (for Howard) of memory, perception, consciousness, attention, etc. A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama. A concept actually appears and it actually disappears based on conditions. Just like a mirage. The supposed "conceptually projected referent" never had anything to do with it...just like the "actual water" never had anything to do with the mirage. TG OUT #92771 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings TGrand458@... Hi Nina, Sarah, Howard, All In a message dated 11/20/2008 1:51:25 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: I was also thinking of this in the suttas and it shows all the more: Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma are one, the Buddha's teaching. ............................................................. TG: No. It doesn't show this. It shows that commentators used aspects of the Suttas for analysis. This does not MAKE the commentary "the Buddha's teaching." What a false thing to claim. ..................................................................... TG, with all your background knowledge you must know that there is a lot of Abhidhamma in the Suttas. ........................................................... TG: LOL Reverse that. LOL Man... if ever there was a group being led by the tail, this is it. LOL But seriously, I know what I hope you mean. I don't dispute it at all. I acquired a lot of value from studying Abhidhamma and commentaries. It did reveal certain things, led me in some good directions. However, these commentarial approaches have flaws, and are no substitute for Suttas. Commentaries should be looked upon with caution, hell, even the Suttas should. But particularly the commentaries that by their very nature must "re-state" what the Buddha taught and this often leads to "re-interpretations" of what the Buddha taught. The commentaries should be used as a tool to analyze the Suttas. Where they correspond to the Suttas, great. Where they don't correspond, junk. They should not be looked on "themselves" as being a basis for a spiritual Path. The commentaries should NEVER be claimed to be the Buddha's teaching! TG OUT #92772 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] On Concepts nilovg Hi Hpward, Op 20-nov-2008, om 16:52 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > On DSG, many folks use the word 'concept' not to refer to a mental > activity/phenomenon, but to the intended referent of that activity, > and if that > intended referent is an aggregation of elementary phenomena, it is > treated, > oddly, as both non-existent and as simultaneously being not-self, > hence having > the property of anatta. One thing is clear to me: The Buddha never > said that > there are no trees, no cities, no animals, no father and no mother, > etc. While > unequivocal in asserting the emptiness of all aggregations/ > formations and of > all namas and rupas, the Buddha never denied the existence of > compounds, > including sentient beings. ------- N: Yea, yea, we all agree about the last sentence. As a concept having the property of anatta, we have to know the context of this remark of concept also being included in not self. It is not a characteristic, more a general remark. Let us not fight about words. There is more about concepts, and I quote from Rob's forum an interesting part, containing also an old discussion with you. ------- Rob K: Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Puppet on Strings nilovg Hi TG, Op 20-nov-2008, om 18:18 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Commentaries > should be looked upon with caution, hell, even the Suttas should. But > particularly the commentaries that by their very nature must "re- > state" what the > Buddha taught and this often leads to "re-interpretations" of what > the Buddha > taught. > > > The commentaries should be used as a tool to analyze the Suttas. > Where they > correspond to the Suttas, great. Where they don't correspond, junk. > They > should not be looked on "themselves" as being a basis for a > spiritual Path. > The commentaries should NEVER be claimed to be the Buddha's teaching! ------- N: I quote from Rob's forum part of a post by Ven. Dhammanando: -------- end quote. Nina. #92774 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:03 pm Subject: Re: More on anatta sprlrt Dear Alex I can understand your stance on this issue, but I think that as long as we keep it there will always be all the conditions for concepts to be the rulers of our kamma. Alberto #92775 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:04 pm Subject: commentaries. nilovg Hi TG more quotes from Rob's forum, part from a post by Ven. Dhammanando: < Then for Dhamma issues the standards are given in the MahÄparinibbÄna Sutta: QUOTE 1) "Here, monks, a monk may say thus: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, friend, have I heard, face to face with him have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.' "Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled. Non-welcoming, non-reviling, every word and syllable should be well studied, placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya. When placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya, should they not fit in with the Sutta, nor accord with the Vinaya, you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is not the word of the Blessed One, and has been wrongly grasped by that monk.' Thus, monks, you should reject it. If they fit in with the Sutta and accord with the Vinaya, then you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is the word of the Blessed One and has been rightly grasped by that monk.' Monks, understand this as the first great standard. 2) "Again, monks, a monk may say: 'In such and such a residence lives a community of monks with an elder, a leader. Face to face with that community of monks have I heard, face to face with it have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.' "Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled ... Monks, understand this as the second great standard. 3) "Again, monks, a monk may say: 'In such and such a residence live many elder monks, of great knowledge who have mastered the tradition, Dhamma-bearers, Vinaya-bearers, tabulated summary-bearers. Face to face with these elders have I heard, face to face with them have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.' "Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled ... Monks, understand this as the third great standard. 4) "Again, monks, a monk may say: 'In such and such a residence lives a monk, an elder, of great knowledge, who has mastered the tradition, a Dhamma-bearer, a Vinaya-bearer, a tabulated summary-bearer. Face to face with this elder have I heard, face to face with him have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.' "Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled. Non-welcoming, non-reviling, every word and syllable should be well studied, placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya. When placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya, should they not fit in with the Sutta, nor accord with the Vinaya, you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is not the word of the Blessed One and has been wrongly grasped by that elder.' Thus, monks, you should reject it. If they fit in with the Sutta and accord with the Vinaya, then you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is the word of the Blessed One and has been rightly grasped by that elder.' Monks, understand this as the fourth great standard." (Kheminda trans.) ----- They are: 1) The "well-said" (sutta), defined as the whole of the Tipi?aka. 2) The "conforming to the well-said" (suttanuloma), meaning utterances than can be shown to be Dhamma or Vinaya by using either of the two sets of four great standards. 3) The "disquisition on meaning", "commentary" (atthakatha), meaning the works preserved in Sinhalese that the Mahavihara commentators used as their source texts. The contents of these were held to date from the First Council, and so were viewed as authoritative unless contradicted by sutta or suttanuloma. 4) The "personal opinion [of an acariya]" (attanomati), said to be the weakest source of authority. QUOTE and where does Buddhaghosa himself fit on the scale? His commentaries contain samples of all four classes. When he is quoting the Tipitaka it is sutta. When he is drawing an inference from the Tipi?aka it is suttanuloma provided there is no flaw in his reasoning. When he is giving a straight translation from the Maha- atthakatha, Maha-paccari or Kuru??i (his main Sinhalese source texts) then it's atthakatha. When he offers a personal opinion it is attanomati. In a typical Buddhaghosa Sutta commentary I would estimate the proportions to be something like: sutta 15% suttanuloma 15% atthakatha 70% attanomati less than 0.5% In his Vinaya Commentary there is a steep increase in the amount of personal opinion, mainly on account of disagreements between his Sinhalese sources; in these cases he will quote all the opinions he knows of and then express a preference for one or another of them. Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu -------- end quote. Nina. #92776 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:11 pm Subject: age of the Buddhist canonical books truth_aerator Hello Nina, TG and all, >--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi TG more quotes from Rob's forum, > > 1) The "well-said" (sutta), defined as the whole of the Tipi?aka. Here are interesting bits: "... As to the age of the Buddhist canonical books, the best evidence is the contents of the books themselves -- the sort of words they use, the style in which they are composed, the ideas they express. "Any one who habitually reads Pali would know at once that the Nikáyas are older than the Dhamma Sanganí; that both are older than the Kathá Vatthu; that all three are older than the Milinda. And the Pali scholars most competent to judge are quite unanimous on the point, and on the general position of the Pali literature in the history of literature in India. " http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/begin6.htm And the commentaries are of course later then what they comment on. Furthermore, who exactly were the commentators? Do we have names and info on that? Even during the Buddha's time there were monks with perhaps good intentions but those who could have misinterpreted Buddha's teaching. With Best wishes, #92777 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:14 pm Subject: Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Alberto, >-- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Dear Alex > > I can understand your stance on this issue, but I think that as long > as we keep it there will always be all the conditions for concepts to > be the rulers of our kamma. > > Alberto I believe that all things, concepts included, are anicca -> dukkha -> anatta. And you will not be able to change my belief in: anicca -> dukkha -> anatta. I don't want to take partial-eternalistic view. We can agree to disagree. With best wishes, #92778 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: At the moment of path-consciousness, nibbaana is the object, not > the three characteristics. But just before that, in the same process > of cittas, one of the three is penetrated in relation to the dhamma > that appears, and this can be any reality, even lobha. Thus, pa~n~naa > sees that dhamma as impermanent or dukkha or anatta. Then pa~n~naa > has been highly developed and at the same time it is accompanied by > detachment of a high degree. And so it is when nibbaana is the > object. It is the task of pa~n~naa to bring about detachment from > realities. Thank you for the very clear answer! Okay, it seems that insight does proceed detachment, at those moments of path consciousness. However, now I wonder about the phrase "nibbana is the object". How can nibbana be an object as it is supposed to be the exact opposite of objects? Would it be more appropriate to say that "the mind experiences nibbana"? Also, for how many cittas does the mind experience nibbana (or nibbana is the object)? Is it for one, two, or several cittas- or does it vary with the person? Does the practioner this happens to realize what has happened or does it go by so fast that there is no realization? I hope I am not bothering you with my questions. Metta, James #92779 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:41 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > since the Indian summer did not last long, I might come in as well. > The forecast is cold weather, wet snow, night frost. But I can face > the cold. James: :-) I like your extension of the metaphor. I welcome your coming back to this subject. > Op 14-nov-2008, om 8:58 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > Have I directly realized anatta? > > No, I haven't. However, I don't believe that denying the existence > > of people will get me there anytime sooner. I see that as placing > > the emphasis in the wrong direction. > ------- > N: It helps to keep in mind what is explained in Vis. Ch XVII in the > context of D.O. If one wrongly sees continuity one tends to > eternalism, a person who exists. One should also see diversity, the > arising of a new dhamma, time and again. If one wrongly sees > diversity, one denies continuity. There is continuity in the series > of cittas arising and falling away. One citta is succeeded by a next > one and thus all inclinations, good and bad are accumulated from > moment to moment. That is why we can speak of the character of this > or that individuality. Balance is necessary. > Perhaps this answers your questions? James: I am aware of what the Vism. states in regards to persons and I don't agree with what it states. This is a personal choice and I won't try to convince you to reject those parts of the Vism. However, I mainly look to what the Buddha said in this regard. So, no, that doesn't answer my questions. > > > > James: Well, this is where I keep losing you but I keep trying to > > reach some sort of understanding. When you say "person", what > > exactly do you mean? You say person of a whole, but I don't know > > exactly what that means. > -------- > N:We are used to think of a person who exists, our whole life. But > through the dhamma we can learn a new approach, and this becomes > clearer when there can be a beginning of awareness of one dhamma > appearing through one doorway at a time through one of the six doors, > instead of joining together many impressions through the different > doorways we remember and think about. James: The Buddha taught that "The All" is what we see, hear, taste, feel, smell, and cognize. Nina, what you seem to be overlooking is that "cognize" part. What we cognize is also "The All"- there isn't a reality different than that. It seems to me that you are creating a disconnect between the senses and cognition to create a new type of reality. As the Buddha said, what you are suggesting is "beyond reach". > We have to know that seeing is, different from thinking of a person, > this is a beginning of understanding one dhamma at a time, not more > than one. James: As I explained above, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, and cognizing are all connected to determine what "The All" is. If you disconnect seeing from cognizing you are rejecting "The All" that the Buddha taught, so I can't accept that. This is what the Buddha meant when saying not to be lost in > the outward appearance of things and the details, and that is: lost > in a whole of impressions. James: You are completely misinterpreting what the Buddha said in this regard. He said to guard the sense doors and to not be attracted to the details of objects (men, women, cars, yahts, etc.) in order to subdue desire. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of objects. This causes us to mistakenly think that a > person exists. James: Again, paying attention to details has nothing to do with existence, it has to do with desire. We meet people and take it for granted that they are > there already. But they are cittas arising and falling away and rupas > that change all the time, from head to toe. James: I really cannot imagine what you are talking about. This is as close to what I am imagining that you are thinking: when we view a person there isn't really a person, there is just one nama and one rupa (this is because you disconnect senses from cognition). So, one nama and one rupa, like fireflies, blinking on and off in the physical location of where the supposed "person" is located. Is this what you imagine? I just don't know what to make of that. Metta, James #92780 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,314 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 314. There is no one, even in a dream, who has got out of the fearful round of rebirths, which is ever destroying like a thunderbolt, unless he has severed with the knife of knowledge well whetted on the stone of sublime concentration, this Wheel of Becoming, which offers no footing owing to its great profundity and is hard to get by owing to the maze of many methods. And this has been said by the Blessed One: 'This dependent origination is profound, Aananda, and profound it appears. And, Aananda, it is through not knowing, through not penetrating it, that this generation has become a tangled skein, a knotted ball of thread, root-matted as a reed bed, and finds no way out of the round of rebirths, with its states of loss, unhappy destinies, ... perdition' (D.ii,55). Therefore, practising for his own and others' benefit and welfare, and abandoning other duties: Let a wise man with mindfulness So practise that he may begin To find a footing in the deeps Of the dependent origin. The seventeenth chapter (concluding) 'The Description of the Soil in which Understanding Grows' in the Treatise on the Development of Understanding in the 'Path of Purification' composed for the purpose of gladdening good people. ******************** 314. ida~nhi atigambhiirato agaadha.m. naanaanayagahanato duratiyaana.m. ~naa.naasinaa samaadhipavarasilaaya.m sunisitena, bhavacakkamapadaaletvaa, asanivicakkamiva niccanimmathana.m. sa.msaarabhayamatiito, na koci supinantarepyatthi.. vuttampi heta.m bhagavataa -- ``gambhiiro caaya.m aananda pa.ticcasamuppaado gambhiiraavabhaaso ca. etassa caananda dhammassa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamaya.m pajaa tantaakulakajaataa kulaaga.n.thikajaataa mu~njapabbajabhuutaa apaaya.m duggati.m vinipaata.m sa.msaara.m naativattatii''ti (mahaava0 95; sa.m0 ni0 1.2.60). tasmaa attano vaa paresa.m vaa hitaaya ca sukhaaya ca pa.tipanno avasesakiccaani pahaaya, gambhiire paccayaakaarappabhede idha pa.n.dito. yathaa gaadha.m labhetheva-manuyu~nje sadaa satoti.. iti saadhujanapaamojjatthaaya kate visuddhimagge pa~n~naabhaavanaadhikaare pa~n~naabhuuminiddeso naama sattarasamo paricchedo. #92781 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,314 nichiconn re: #92780 Path of Purity, pp.706-7 Therefore this wheel of life, being very deep Is fathomless, a jungle of pathways {read naanaanayagaha.nato} Impassable. It may not be severed E'en by the sword of knowledge sharpened on The noble stone of fixity of thought. This awful danger of repeated births Is ever present like the falling disc {asanivicakka.m = asanima.n.dala.m. Cf. PTS Dict. s.v.} Of thunderbolt. Not e'en {read supinantare pyatthi (= pi + atthi)} in a dream can there Be such a one as has transcended it. [586] For this has been said by the Blessed One: "Deep, Aananda, is this causal law, and it looks deep too. It is through not understanding this law, through not penetrating it, that this generation has become a tangled skein, a matted ball of thread, like to mu~nja-grass and rushes, unable to overpass the state of woe, the evil way, the downfall, the repeated round of births." {Diigha ii, 55. Cf. Dialogues ii, 50.} Hence abandoning all other duties and practising to the end that he may bring benefit and happiness to himself and others, The wise and mindful one here should Be always heedful of the deep And varied causal mode {read paccayaakaarao as one compound}, that he May get therein a foothold firm. Thus is ended the seventeenth chapter called the Exposition of the Plane of Understanding in the section of the development of Understanding in the Path of Purity composed for the gladdening of good folk. #92782 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:09 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear Anyone, "Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…" (The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. 5, pg. 4)..." Scott: Does anyone know the name of the sutta from which this excerpt was culled? Sincerely, Scott. #92783 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:30 pm Subject: Then more easy to let Go! bhikkhu0 A good Friend noted: >it's tough to let go…!!! Please then remember what the Buddha once pointed out: Only suffering arises… Only suffering ceases!!! Seeing this, one understands that Nothing is Worth Clinging to… Then it is much more Easy to Let Go, when realizing, that it is only suffering, one separates from. Nothing really good is thus lost. Relinquishing all is: Absolute Freedom; Highest Happiness; Supreme Peace… Yeah! Nothing is Worth Clinging to… The deepest kind of craving & clinging is to that of ever (re)becoming into a new existence! Clinging to being in existence itself… Makes one die again and again… And Suffer again and again… All phenomena are sure to cease. All being in existence will be cut off. All becoming is therefore truly a Terror. The Terror of Being in existence! Trapped into re-becoming & Death: ..... Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #92784 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/20/2008 7:16:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Dear Alberto and Alex, Concepts do not have the three characteristics, but still, they have to be seen as not self, as Kh Sujin once said. There isn't anything that is self. Nina ========================= How is seeing concept (whatever that is) as not-self, which you say must happen, not seeing anatta as applying to concepts? With metta, Howard ............................................................ TG: You mean to tell me you don't recognize the Abhidhammika-dippsy-doodle when you see it? ;-) TG #92785 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sprlrt Hi TG, Alex, All I think that, in Dhamma terms, philosophy employ concepts of concepts (avijjamana pannati) to explain other concepts/pannati, while the Dhamma employ concepts of non-concepts/dhammas (vijjamana pannati) to explain the dhammas, which are real and not concepts/pannati Alberto > #92786 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Mon, 17/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >More importantly, I think we are at the crux of the matter between your approach to Dhamma and mine. In a passage such as this...you highly focus of the "object" being discussed. .... Sarah: hardly surprisingly when the passage quoted from is a commentary on a description of visible object: "Scott: Here's some preliminary material from Dhammsa"ngani (pp. 167-168) for our consideration: "[617] What is that [material] form which is the sphere of [visible] shape (ruupa.m ruupaayatana.m)?......" Sarah: this comes under the section on visible object under Rupas in Dhsg. "Atthasaalinii (p. 414-416) regarding sappa.tigha. m - 'visible' and 'reacting': "In the exposition of 'visible object' colour is just 'coloured appearance'; or it shines - hence appearance. 'Evident to visual cognition' is the meaning of the compound term. 'Visible' is [literally] co-vision; the meaning is, it is to be seen by visual cognition. 'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact....." ..... TG: I highly focus on the "conditional circumstances" of the phenomena being discussed. Your view leads you to see "objects" as real. My view leads me to see "conditional processes" as relative...and the so-called "objects" as 'coreless apparitions. ' ..... Sarah: Yes, not just 'my view', but the Dhammasangani refers to these rupas in the introduction to the section as being those dhammas (along with nibbana) which are not kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya. They are real. Even in the section on voidness in the Dhammasangani, it makes it clear that the various dhammas arise because of conditions, are impermanent and utterly void of atta. There is no question of the various dhammas enumerated in such detail as being unreal. ...... TG:> The issue I raised, from the Atthasaalinii, dealt with conditional behavior. Such behavior takes place irregardless of the "object" being discussed. ..... Sarah: Without understanding the particular dhammas as realities - in this case, visible object and eye-sense as rupas, seeing consciousness, contact and other mental factors as namas - there will never be an understanding of their conditioned nature, as I see it. The Buddha didn't spend his time teaching about the conditioned nature of apparitions or dreams which can only be dreamt about, but don't actually exist. He taught about the 5 khandhas which can be directly known and which are conditioned because they exist when they arise before falling away immediately. ..... TG:> Insight focuses on -- "impermanence, affliction, and no-self." These are all principles of conditionality. ..... S: Impermanence, affliction, and no-self OF visible object, seeing and other dhammas. It is not the Impermanence, affliction, and no-self of fantasies that is to be known. ..... TG:> Most certainly impermanence and no-self are not objects. Affliction, which might be considered an "object" when it arises, is here spoken of as a principle. ..... S: Of course the ti-lakkhana (the 3 characteristics) are not objects. They are characteristics of realities, of objects to be known. ..... TG:> Here is my statement and question again... >I can completely agree with the above. The terms "friction," "friction of impact," "reacting," "co-reaction, " and "striking" exactly in line with my vision of dhamma. And very important terms to consider at all times and in all situations IMO. Question... Does the above description confirm that visual-object is NOT the "stuff" we interpret "out in space," but rather, the energy, or momentum, or photons, or rupa, etc., whatever you wish to call it,' that strike the eye? .... S: Visual-object, a rupa, is the only dhamma which impinges on or 'strikes' they eye(-sense). ..... TG:> Here is the passage from the Atthasaalinii. .. >'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of impact...Thus all visible objects, though of different sorts, such as blue-green, etc., are not specifically divided as regards their characteristic of striking the eye, ..... S: In other words, regardless of the visible object, at the moment of impinging on the eye-sense, it may be a condition for seeing consciousness to occur. There is the coming together of the inner and outer ayatanas at such a moment when all the conditions are in place for seeing consciousness to experience visible object. Metta, Sarah ======= #92787 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Thu, 20/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >BTW, I was just thinking, it seems odd to me that Sarah and Scott, being such "purists" that they don't want to consider even basic understandings from science. Yet...happily accept Abhidhamma commentarial thought from anonymous authors ... which were basically trying to create a science out of the Suttas. Very interesting! ..... S: Very interesting as you say. I assume you're not referring to our recent discussions on the Atthasalini? I ask because, as you know, the Atthasalini is a commentary compiled by Buddhaghosa about whom you recently wrote: "TG: Buddhaghosa was not attempting to suggest anything himself. He merely was compiling the Buddhist understandings that were current at his time. If anything, I think he was taking great care not to include his views." Metta, Sarah ======== #92788 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha sarahprocter... Hi TG, (& Howard) --- On Thu, 20/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >BTW Sarah, I'm still hoping on a clarification from you about the Four Great Elements. It was my understanding that it was an Abhidhamma point of view that they don't exists independent of each other but are always connected in all phenomena... even though one or the other are predominant at any given time. So how can heat alone be the cause of rupa? As Howard says...there are no "sole" causes. I agree. ..... S: I thought I had addressed this good point in other messages to Alberto and Howard. Nina did as well as I recall. As you suggest, the Four Great Elements cannot arise independently of each other, but always arise together in a kalapa (group), along with at least four other rupas. However while these rupas always condition each other by sahajata paccaya (conascence condition), outside the body, only temperature produces such kalapas of rupas. It is in this sense it is given as the 'sole' cause of their arising, although as you and Howard rightly point out, there is always more than one condition at work, such as conascence condition in this example. I appreciated the clarification on this point. Metta, Sarah ======== #92789 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:13 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma translations szmicio First I want to thank Nina for her last bhikkhu Dhammadaro quotes. They were very helpful. Dear Dhamma Friends I have to ask once more. Does anyone know where I can find any abhidhamma translations? Where can i find Atthasalini in english? Best wishes Lukas #92790 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:54 am Subject: mentality and materiality szmicio Dear Dhamma Friends How can we know nama? How can we know rupa? Thinking of nama is diffrent from experiencing the characteristic of nama, which is real. What are the conditions to seeing nama as nama, rupa as rupa? Even when there is sati and panja, there are still conditions for taking it for self. sati-sampajana is the most of each kusala but it still can be an object for akusala. dear frinds there is so much thinking about stories and concepts in daily life with akusala. Best wishes Lukas #92791 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma translations sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, [I only have a few minutes because we're expecting Jessica, Eric (the taxi driver) and a few other Chinese friends round for dhamma discussion at our place any moment...] --- On Fri, 21/11/08, szmicio wrote: >Dear Dhamma Friends I have to ask once more. Does anyone know where I can find any abhidhamma translations? Where can i find Atthasalini in english? .... S: The Atthasalini transl can only be bought from the PTS in U.K. unless you find a second-hand copy somewhere. If you're going to buy books from the PTS it's worth considering becoming a member, then you get a free book every year... The Atthasalani (Expositor) was one of the very first texts I bought from the PTS - it seemed expensive to me at the time, but since then I've had over 30 years good use of it. For the Dhammasangani, I don't recommend the PTS translation. Better to find a copy of the one by U Kyaw Khine. We got one copy from Myanmar after searching on-line (very cheaply) and one copy from Amazon or Pariyatti in the States - also cheaper than the PTS one. I wouldn't recommend you spend your precious funds on the Patthana which is v.expensive and v.difficult to read. A better investment, imho, would be U Narada's 'Guide to Conditional Relations' from the PTS. It's a one volume summary and again very helpful indeed. Anyway, these are just my quick comments. Metta, Sarah ============ #92792 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:17 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Okay, I've found this, I think: "Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…" (The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. 5, pg. 4)..." Scott: Its in A"nguttaara Nikaaya, Book of Tens, the Cetanaakaraniiyasutta.m. Bh. Bodhi renders the passage: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection..." Iti kho bhikkhave dhammaavadhamme abhisandenti, dhammaavadhamme paripuurenti apaaraapaara.m gamanaayaati. Scott: The sutta excerpt is brought in, as I understand it, to support the view that there is no 'on/off'; or 'arising and falling away'; or, essentially, no truth to the Abhidhamma assertion that a state arises and falls away prior to the arising of a subsequent state. The view suggests, rather, that states 'swell' or simply remain but demonstrate some ongoing and persistent tendency towards increase while remaining present. See below: TG: "...I don't see a 'digital type' on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps." Scott: So, the above argument suggests a very fast gradual swelling and receding of 'conditions.' Again, 'conditions' are treated, in the view, as if they are something other than the way one state or another has an effect on one state or another. The excerpt from the Cetanaakaraniiyasutta.m. is brought in to support this idea. The sutta begins thus: "For one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is no need for an act of will: 'May non-remorse arise in me!' It is a natural law, monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is virtuous." "Siilavato bhikkhave siilasampannassa na cetanaaya kara.naaya.m 'avippa.tisaaro me uppajjatu' ti. Dhammataa esaa bhikkhave ya.m saalavato saalasampannassa avippa.tisaaro uppajjati. Scott: The same pattern is repeated in relation to 'one who is glad of heart' and 'joy;' 'one of serene body' and 'happiness;' 'one who is happy' and 'concentration;' 'one who is concentrated' and 'knowing and seeing things as they really are,' etc. The context, then, shows that the Buddha is teaching about how it is a 'natural law' ("Dhammataa (f.)..conformity to the Dhamma-niyaama (see niyaama), fitness, propriety; a general rule, higher law, cosmic law, general practice, regular phenomenon, usual habit...") that the presence of one state is condition of the arising of another. The sutta isn't meant to demonstrate that there are alterations in persistent states. The key words seem to be 'abhisandenti' and 'paripuurenti.' From the PTS PED: "1. The primary meaning of abhi is that of taking possession and mastering, as contained in E. coming by and over -- coming, thus literally having the function of (a) facing and aggressing = towards, against, on to, at (see II. 1, a); and (b) mastering = over, along over, out over, on top of (see II. 1, b). 2. Out of this is developed the fig. meaning of increasing, i. e., an intensifying of the action implied in the verb...II. Lit. Meaning. -- 1. As single pref.: (a) against, to, on to, at.." "Sandati [syand; Dhtp 149: passavane] to flow..." "sandaapeti to cause to flow..." "Puureti [Caus. to fill...puuraapeti to cause to fill..." Scott: The sense of 'flowing onto' or 'increasing' or 'strengthening' or 'developing' seems to be meant here. The meaning is a figurative - i.e. not literal - one. The view takes this literally to refer to states that persist and increase over time (or very quickly). TG: "...I don't see a 'digital type' on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps." Scott: The sutta is referring, at least, to proximity and contiguity conditions (anantara and samanantara-paccaya), if not others. Sincerely, Scott. #92793 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:26 am Subject: Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, all - I've been thinking a lot about time recently. I've always just viewed it as "the flow of events," which, while possibly a valid way to view it, really isn't much more than a throw-away line. As I ponder time, I find it an impossible-to-fathom mystery, and I find myself vacillating within fractions of a second between viewing it as mere illusion and viewing it as real. (I laugh at how this sentence itself presumes time.) Here is the problem, as best I can formulate it in speech: It is crystal clear to me that "the past" is illusory and non-existent. (We may say and think that various events DID occur, but when that "did" is examined, I can't honestly say what it could mean. There is just the thinking now.) The future is also clearly non-existent. (We may conceptualize and hypothesize that certain events WILL occur, and even have assurance that some WILL occur, but when that "will" is examined, again I can't honestly say what it would mean.) Thus, there is no past, and there is no future, but only thinking ("recollection" and "projection"), which like everything else, occurs "now". On the other hand, with regard to occurrence right "now," I note that there is no duration to "now" whatsoever -- it is a zero-dimensional point - what one Zen master called a "pivot of nothingness." For if "now" had extension "in time" and there were change within "now," then that would not be right now! Also, on the other hand, there IS change. Certainly there is change to the content of consciousness. But change requires time (or IS time), and time requires more than just "now," for what event can occur in zero time! So, past is illusion, future is illusion, present is timeless(LOL!) and ungraspable, and yet there is change. And I think it wrong to look for individual details within what I've said for challenging, for no matter what valid challenging there might be, a genuine conundrum with regard to time and change remains. There is a great mystery-of-emptiness to time, the seeming of an outright contradiction that perhaps is the very basis for su~n~nata (anicca-dukkha-anatta). It seems to me to be a mystery unsolvable by thought, but only fathomable by immersion right at the "pivot of nothingness" with all thought put aside and only supramundane, bright wisdom breaking through to reveal the truth. With metta, Howard #92794 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:37 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > James: Well, I thought it was new ground and now it seems like you > are back-peddling. Is it somehow unseemly to have agreement with > me? :-) I'm not sure why my saying there was nothing new is supposed to be back-peddling, or not agreeing. Maybe your ideas have changed (for the better, of course ;-)). > > Whoa there James. How is "viewing people as the five khandhas", > as > > you advocate here, any different in essence from "viewing people > as > > composed of separate parts", which we agreed above to be a kind of > > wrong view/practice? > > James: We had no such agreement!! Where did I agree to such a > thing?? Hey, keep your hat on ;-)) I was referring to this earlier exchange: "Jon: I agree with what I think you're saying here. If we say, "That's not a person it's really a number of separate parts attached together in a particular way", that is not the development of the understanding of not-self as taught by the Buddha. That is just trying to see things as we think they should be seen ;-)) "James: YES! EXACTLY!!" To my understanding, "just trying to see things as we think they should be seen" must be wrong view/practice of some kind. Now who's doing the back-peddling! ;-)) > It doesn't matter how you view people- it is just a view. > It doesn't mean anything. It isn't until insight that the truth is > known. A view can be something that is consciously arrived at by intellectual reasoning, in which case I'd agree it doesn't really mean anything. But views are also held at much deeper and subtler levels, and may not be apparent to their "owner". These views I think are very significant when it comes to an understanding of the teachings and the development of insight. > James: The person is the starting point. Dhammas or khandas cannot > be the starting point as that approach is too advanced to be a > starting point. I don't quite understand this. If we understand from the teachings that dhammas or khandhas are the way things are, while ideas of people and things are of a different order altogether, then that intellectual understanding is the starting point. > > Yes, people (including you and me) believe in a lasting self. > > James: So you admit that we are people, you and me? Well obviously I do think of us as people. But at the same time I understand the teachings to say that ideas of people and things are conventional perceptions imputed to dhammas. > This > > belief is wrong view. It is a belief rooted in ignorance of the true > > nature of dhammas and the Four Noble Truths. It is dispelled > > (eventually) by the development of insight knowledge (the knowledge > > that sees dhammas as they truly are). > > James: Okay, no disagreement- but I don't see your point either. My point is simply that it is ignorance of dhammas that conditions wrong view, and it is the understanding of dhammas that eradicates it. Jon #92795 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? upasaka_howard Hi, James and Nina - In a message dated 11/20/2008 8:10:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: At the moment of path-consciousness, nibbaana is the object, not > the three characteristics. But just before that, in the same process > of cittas, one of the three is penetrated in relation to the dhamma > that appears, and this can be any reality, even lobha. Thus, pa~n~naa > sees that dhamma as impermanent or dukkha or anatta. Then pa~n~naa > has been highly developed and at the same time it is accompanied by > detachment of a high degree. And so it is when nibbaana is the > object. It is the task of pa~n~naa to bring about detachment from > realities. Thank you for the very clear answer! Okay, it seems that insight does proceed detachment, at those moments of path consciousness. However, now I wonder about the phrase "nibbana is the object". How can nibbana be an object as it is supposed to be the exact opposite of objects? Would it be more appropriate to say that "the mind experiences nibbana"? Also, for how many cittas does the mind experience nibbana (or nibbana is the object)? Is it for one, two, or several cittas- or does it vary with the person? Does the practioner this happens to realize what has happened or does it go by so fast that there is no realization? I hope I am not bothering you with my questions. Metta, James =================================== James, there is another element of Nina's reply that grabs my attention. Yo wrote that just before the moment of path-consciousness, "in the same process of cittas, one of the three is penetrated in relation to the dhamma that appears, and this can be any reality, even lobha." It seems that you are saying here that there can be a citta in which wisdom can penetrate the anicca or the dukkha or the anatta of the known object of consciousness , even with that object being lobha. But that would seem to make that mind state kusala in part (due to the cetasika of p~n~na) and akusala (due to the lobha). Can you explain this apparent problem, Nina? With metta, Howard #92796 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:47 am Subject: dhamma discussion with Jessica and friends sarahprocter... Dear All, Jessica, her friends Amos and Amy, Eric and Govind all came round to our flat for Dhamma discussion this evening. Eric is the taxi-driver we once had an interesting journey with: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/61881. It had been left as a surprise for him that he'd met us before. We just 'met' Jessica here on DSG a few weeks ago and I'd met her 'live' while Jon was away recently. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92069 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92110 Jessica is actually giving a series of talks on MN suttas, based on B.Bodhi's talks, but in Chinese. For this, she has to actually do quite a lot of translating of the suttas into Chinese which is of course a great task. Govind is an Indian shipping Captain who comes from near Sarnath (!!)originally. Amos is a stock-broker, so the Dhamma refuge is particularly appreciated at this time! We joked about how he has more time for Dhamma study nowadays. We sat around informally on the floor and talked about namas and rupas and how the understanding of the ti-lakkhana (3 characteristics) has to be of the characteristics of these namas and rupas. But were namas and rupas actually taught in the suttas or was this just a later Abhidhamma/commentarial gloss, we were asked. Whether we talk about namas and rupas or khandhas or ayatanas or dhatus, the teachings are about understanding seeing and visible object, tangible objects, thinking and other realities. So much of what we take for existing, for being real are only concepts, such as 'the table' or 'the grapes' which our friends kindly brought and which were sitting on the table in front of us. If we talk about being aware of the body or postures or 'everything', we need to consider more about what awareness is, what can actually be known and what the subtle teaching on anatta is pointing to. A child knows there are different postures or a body - we don't need a Buddha's wisdom to tell us about this. There was lots of discussion on meditation - all our friends have 'a meditation practice', so of course we discussed more about bhavana, about samatha and vipassana. Again we were asked if these terms were used in the suttas, so started discussing satipatthana which everyone agreed was important. Back to now - this was the main theme of the evening. Never mind how busy we are, how distracted, what is arising - all conditioned dhammas are dukkha, the refuge is in the understanding now, not in any practice at another time.. Does the practice lead to changes in lifestyle, character and so on for the better? Jon stressed the goal is the development of understanding - this is what enlightenment is. Who knows what dhamma will arise next? Are there subtle expectations, wishing for particular changes? We had discussion about 'making knowledge intuitive', how the practice and changes can't be described in words and other points along these lines. However, the Buddha did describe the practice and understanding in words and without pariyatti, no patipatti. At one point my copy of SN came out and Amos thought it looked like one of his college text books with so many markers in it. Did we spend a lot of time studying? Actually, we don't, but when friends like Alex raise the same kinds of points, it encourages us to check the texts:). Doing - lots on doing and all motivated by an idea of someone doing, whether trying to focus on an object, setting up particular conditions or trying to have awareness. Seclusion - surprisingly, everyone agreed that in the highest sense it refers to the momentary mental seclusion, free of hindrances, regardless of the situation. Also, everyone agreed that lay people were never told to go to quiet forests or practice anapanasati. Lots more, but I'm tired now. It was all very lively and enjoyable and we plan to meet again after Jessica returns from Myanmar. She may also be able to join us in Bangkok in February and is keen to meet Nina then, having read the messages here. If Jessica or our other new friends are reading this, please add any of your own comments or further reflections of anything from the discussion. Thanks again to all who joined. Metta, Sarah ============= #92797 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:58 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Scott: Further, in regards to: Cetanaakaraniiyasutta.m. "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection..." Iti kho bhikkhave dhammaavadhamme abhisandenti, dhammaavadhamme paripuurenti apaaraapaara.m gamanaayaati. Scott: Concerning 'dhammaavadhamme,' the sense of the word 'dhamma' seems to be that of (PTS PED): "Dhamma1...1. Psychologically; 'mentality' as the constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of phenomena. It is that which is presented as 'object' to the imagination & as such has an effect of its own: -- a presentation (Vorstellung), or idea, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a psycho -- physical phenomenon, or sensation (re -- action of sense -- organ to sense stimulus). The mind deals with ideas as the eye deals with forms: it is the abstraction formed by mano, or mind proper, from the objects of sense presented by the sense -- organ when reacting to external objects. Thus cakkhu 'faculty of sight' corresponds to ruupa 'relation of form' & mano 'faculty of thought' (citta & ceto its organ or instrument or localisation) corresponds to dhamma 'mentalized' object or 'idea'..." Scott: The indeclinable 'va' is: "Va3 (indecl.) [for eva, after long vowels] even, just (so), only; for sure, certainly..." Scott: This confirms the sense that we are discussing conditionality - 'dhammavadhamme;' with the presence of one state, even so or certainly, this will serve as condition in some fashion for another state; whether by conascence or contiguity or whatever other condition(s) is (are) appropriate The difference in the way conditions are considered traditionally (and correctly) versus the way in which the view would have them is great. Sincerely, Scott. #92798 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 21-nov-2008, om 14:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > just before the moment of path-consciousness, "in the same > process of cittas, one of the three is penetrated in relation to > the dhamma that > appears, and this can be any reality, even lobha." It seems that > you are > saying here that there can be a citta in which wisdom can penetrate > the anicca > or the dukkha or the anatta of the known object of consciousness , > even with > that object being lobha. But that would seem to make that mind > state kusala in > part (due to the cetasika of p~n~na) and akusala (due to the > lobha). Can you > explain this apparent problem, Nina? ------- N: First there is a process of cittas accompanied by lobha, and when that has fallen away, mahaakusala cittas with understanding and awareness of lobha can arise, and its characterisric can be penetrated: it is seen as impermanent, dukkha or anatta, and in that same process enlightenment can occur, lokuttara cittas experiencing nibbaana can follow. Actually, it can be just like now: lobha arises so often, even slightly, we like all the objects seen, heard, etc. and when that process has fallen away, lobha can be object of awareness and understanding. Akusala cannot occur at the same time as kusala, but it can be object of understanding. That is also shown in the satipatthanasutta under mindfulness of dhammas, where the hindrances and other akusala dhammas are included as objects of satipatthana. This is an important point, because some people think that akusala should not be an object of understanding. It must, otherwise it cannot be eradicated. Instead of feeling annoyed about one's akusala it is an excellent material to be studied. We do not try to change akusala, but to understand it. Nina. #92799 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:38 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma translations szmicio Dear Sarah, what do you think about Vibhanga? Which translation is the best?