#93000 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 11/27/2008 2:29:39 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, (Scott & all), --- On Thu, 27/11/08, _TGrand458@aol. TGr_ (mailto:TGrand458@--- On Thu >>Its hard not to see the clarity of this quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) ..... >>S: Let's be precise here: any "formation" (sa"nkhaara) S: Let's be precise here: any "formatio ......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... >TG: Yes, let's be precise. This is a Nanamoli / Bodhi translation and I highly doubt they would have used "anything" if the term was "sankhara." Are you able to check that? I'm guessing the term in question is "dhamma" ... not "sankhara. .... S: Rest assured, I did check and it was "sankhara". [I also just checked to see whether it was my computer/typing that had the 'hiccups' or yours above and it was yours, lol:-)] ..... ............................................................. TG: I don't know why, but my interface with the DSG does not work right. I've tried some things to fix it but nothing has worked. I commented on the other post about sankhara. ................................................................... TG:> If it is "sankhara, both Bodhi and Nanamoli made a big flaw because all three statements (below) use "anything" and do not distinguish an English difference between sankhara and dhamma. I would find it hard to believe they both erred so dramatically on a crucial passage. But let's see. .... S: I remember BB telling me that in the revision of the translation, there were a lot of changes. My translation is dated 1995 and it says: ".....any formation as permanent...". ".....any formation as pleasurable.".. ".....anything as self......" As you say, there was clearly a flaw in the translation you have which did not attempt to differentiate the terms in translation. ..... .............................................................. TG: Yep. The flaw was either my error or I had another translation. Sorry about that. (More detailed comments in other post.) ....................................................................... TG: >Let's clarify that please. “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as pleasurable – there is no such possibility.” – In reference to the impermanent destructive nature of all formations. (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) ..... S: Are you sure this is the order given in your translation? It should be: 1) permanent 2) pleasurable 3) self ..................................................................... TG: Order is mixed up yes. It was copied from something being used for a different purpose. ............................................................ ...... TG:>>As for Nibbana, it is always spoken of figuratively, not literally. I don't think anyone of us can say with certainty what it is...if anything at all.. What is clear, from the Buddha's teaching, is that it is the end of suffering... and that may be good enough for most of us. ...... >>S: I think it's also very clear that it's the asa"nkhaara (unconditioned) element. ......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... >TG: Just what the heck does that mean? That makes "what Nibbana is" crystal clear to you? You have no doubts? That's a definition. I'm talking about "what it really is in terms of experience or the lack thereof." Do you know for certain? Unless you're an arahat, I'd find it hard to believe that you can know for sure. ..... S: let's keep it sweet:-) I'm discussing the Buddha's teachings and have no reason to doubt this, but forget it! ............................................................. TG: ;-) Yes, but saying "we" know what Nibbana is...and saying we know that the teachings say Nibbana is ...is a totally different thing. Especially when the question I asked is specifically asking about "personal knowledge." So lacking a clear answer to this... I'm "guessing" your answer is no. That "you" don't know what Nibbana is, other than what the texts say it is. I'm in the same boat of course. I think it is unclear whether Nibbana entails some type of "happening" or not. My general impression, from the Suttas, is that it is the "end of experience" period. Howard believes there is something there. I can't say for sure as the Suttas are not 100% definitive on this matter. Anyway, you know I love you deep down right? I just cover it real well. ;-) Those commentaries sometimes fire me up. LOL I'm extremely suspicious of anything that elaborates and interjects material concerning the Suttas...including my own work. .............................................................................. .............. TG: >>Anyway, the gist of the note below as well as the quote above seems to put a chink in your view of concepts. What do you think? ...... >>S: No, I don't think so. Concepts are not sa"nkhara dhammas, ......................... ......... ......... ....... >TG: Sure they are, but that's another old argument. Oh, BTW, do you have a Sutta source to confirm this belief? That's all I need. Do the Suttas state that concepts are not sankhara? .... S: Probably not, they usually talk about the khandhas or other realities which are sankhara dhammas. In any case, I don't play the 'Suttas only' game rules. You could ask Alex:-) ..... ....................................................................... TG: See, from my point of view, the reason the Suttas don't deal with this is because this big CONCEPT VS REALITY outlook is because its a NON-ISSUE in the Suttas. Its a non-issue cause it has nothing to do with what the Buddha was getting at. And yet, it seems to be the crux of your idea of what the Buddha's teachings are about....as based in commentarial lore. To make such a big deal about something the Suttas don't even address would give me pause...to think..."am I on the right track here"? But you guys are "full steam ahead" and even often claim it IS the Buddha's teaching. Argh. Happy Thanksgiving Sarah! Keep the mind tranquil and detached. Like a feather in the wind. ................................................... ......................... ......... ......... .... S:>>but to stress that there is no atta anywhere at all, it is stressed that nothing at all, whether sa"nkhara dhammas, (nibbana), or even concepts, such as 'kasina' can be taken as atta by the wise. In the case of a worldling, concepts or realities can be taken for atta. ......................... ......... ......... ...... >TG: In the case of a worldling anything can be taken as 'self.' Your argument will fall flat if the term in question above turns out to be "dhamma" instead of "sankhara." ..... S: That's why I checked first and it was sankhara, sankhara and then dhamma:-) ..... TG:> If it does turn out to be "sankhara," then we still have the debate as to whether "concepts" are sankhara or not. Let's find out whether the term in question is dhamma or sankhara before engaging in more debate about concepts. ..... S: To be honest, I've been enjoying the holiday whilst you debate with Scott:-) , end of holiday, it seems, unless he kindly joins in with an analysis of each word! More later, time permitting..M Metta, Sarah #93001 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Thanks for your post and scholarship Scott. Its a valuable asset to this group. TG OUT #93002 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/27/2008 9:42:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. " _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://wwhttp://www._ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html) So concepts are made on namarupa & vinnana which are impermanent, dependently arisen, not-self and so on. I also hope that everyone would agree with the right view of that 5 aggregates are anicca-dukkha-agree w 5 aggregates is what samsara is made of. It is impossible to state anything lying outside of 5 aggregates (SN 35.23). "The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html) Concepts are within that "all" which is anicca-dukkha-Concept ...................................................................... TG: Of course you're preaching to the choir here. But yes, any "outgrowth" of a conditioned basis must share the same fundamental principles of that basis ... conditioned, impermanent, afflictive (especially if attached to) and nonself. Happy Thanksgiving! TG #93003 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi TG and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex > TG: Of course you're preaching to the choir here. But yes, >any "outgrowth" > of a conditioned basis must share the same fundamental principles >of that > basis ... conditioned, impermanent, afflictive (especially if >attached to) and nonself. > > > Happy Thanksgiving! > > > TG Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone too. #93004 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" kenhowardau Hi TG (and Nina), -------- N: > > . . . Ignorance of what? Of realities that appear now. TG: > This is dreamland. Ignorance is ignorance of the Four Noble Truths and or conditionality principles of impermanence, affliction, and no-self. You want to think that the Buddha's teaching revolves around "realities as they appear now"...but it doesn't. You don't seem to care a bit that the Suttas don't make these "over-the-top" statements that you claim. I find that odd. What you don't realize is...that by viewing "dhammas" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics" you are interjecting self view upon those "dhammas" which amounts to clinging to self view yourself. What you propose that I follow, IMO, is the death nail of any chance for enlightenment and full detachment. Conditions are dynamic and flow on and alter due to "other" conditions. Any "particular" isolated perception of those conditions just perceives what is hollow, empty, coreless, insubstantial, and like a mirage. Its does NOT perceive any "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." This latter is in fact...EXACTLY what is NOT perceived. > -------------- This teaching has had a great impact on the history of Buddhism, hasn't it? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was first made popular by Nagarjuna in the 8th century, and it led to the Mahayana School and the resultant schism in the sangha. Basically, the idea was that anatta meant 'no inherent characteristic' or 'no own- being.' To my mind it is identical with several other religious schools of thought in which the goal is reunification with God, or oneness with the universe. They say the goal will be achieved if we can just see past the illusion of own-being. (After which we will live happily forever, presumably.) Is that how you see it? Ken H #93005 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:24 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hi Ken, TG and all, >"kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi TG (and Nina), > > This teaching has had a great impact on the history of Buddhism, > hasn't it? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was first >made popular by Nagarjuna in the 8th century, and it led to the >Mahayana School and the resultant schism in the sangha. Basically, ? >the idea was that anatta meant 'no inherent characteristic' or 'no >own- being.' > As I understand it the Mahayanists claim that *Hina*yana teaches emptiness of atta while not teaching emptiness of ALL phenomena. However I believe that "Maha" yanists overlooked that in anatta sutta teachings the Buddha has refuted ANYTHING being self, unconditioned, happiness and so on. Furthermore, the sutta pitaka lays emphasis on practice rather then theory. Theorizing by itself isn't really good and at best it serves as a stepping stone onto the practice, the real boring and hard stuff, you know - shutting up, restraining one senses and realize dispassion, disenchantment, relinquishiment and so on... Not as fun (for kilesas that is) as arguing about who has the best, the only, and the final interpretation of the whole of reality itself. It is one thing to talk about "not self! It can't be possessed! Nothing can be done!" and yet talk about surfing, looking over one's lost sunglasses (and of course going to look for them which IS doing) and so on... With best wishes and hoping you (and me, and all of us) the quickest cessation into nibbana. #93006 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Ken H In a message dated 11/27/2008 5:37:49 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Conditions are dynamic and flow on and alter due to "other" conditions. Any "particular" isolated perception of those conditions just perceives what is hollow, empty, coreless, insubstantial, and like a mirage. Its does NOT perceive any "ultimate realities with their own characteristics.their own characteristics." This latter is NOT perceived. > -------------- This teaching has had a great impact on the history of Buddhism, hasn't it? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was first made popular by Nagarjuna in the 8th century, and it led to the Mahayana School and the resultant schism in the sangha. ............................................................. TG: Here are somea quotes from the SUTTAS ... “However one might ponder It -- (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) And carefully investigate it, It appears but hollow and void When one views it carefully. Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.” (The Buddha . . . circa 600 BC. . . . Connected Discourse of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 953) “…whatever kind of form...whatever kind of feeling…whatever kind of perception…whatever kind of volitional formations…whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form… feeling…perception…volitional formations…consciousness?” (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 952 -- 953) “ . . . each feeling arises in dependence upon its corresponding condition, and with the cessation of its corresponding condition, the feeling ceases.” (Ven. Nandaka instructing nuns at the request of the Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 1122, Advice from Nandaka, Nandakovada Sutta, #146) “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) “Whatever is knowledge of the law of cause, that is also knowledge of that which is by nature perishable, transient, fading away, and tending to cease.” (The Buddha . . . Kindred S, vol. 2, pg. 121-122) ....................................................................... Basically, the idea was that anatta meant 'no inherent characteristic' or 'no own- being.' To my mind it is identical with several other religious schools of thought in which the goal is reunification with God, or oneness with the universe. They say the goal will be achieved if we can just see past the illusion of own-being. (After which we will live happily forever, presumably.) Is that how you see it? ........................................................... TG: Not in the slightest. The goal is to see phenomena as impermanent, afflicted, nonself; to the extent necessary to detach from phenomena, eliminate craving and clinging, and the afflictions that would arise on their account. Happy Thanksgiving Ken TG OUT #93007 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:08 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------- <. . .> A: > As I understand it the Mahayanists claim that *Hina*yana teaches > emptiness of atta while not teaching emptiness of ALL phenomena. -------- I hadn't heard that before. But empty of what? That is the question. ----------- <. . .> A: > Furthermore, the sutta pitaka lays emphasis on practice rather then > theory. Theorizing by itself isn't really good and at best it serves > as a stepping stone ----------- The practice is direct right understanding (satipatthana, panna). ----------------- A: > onto the practice, the real boring and hard > stuff, you know - shutting up, restraining one senses and realize > dispassion, disenchantment, relinquishiment and so on... ----------------- Those things are not the practice that the Buddha taught. Right understanding is never a burden or a bore. -------------------------- A: > Not as fun > (for kilesas that is) as arguing about who has the best, the only, > and the final interpretation of the whole of reality itself. --------------------------- OK, no arguing from now on! :-) -------------------- A: > > It is one thing to talk about "not self! It can't be possessed! > Nothing can be done!" and yet talk about surfing, looking over one's > lost sunglasses (and of course going to look for them which IS doing) > and so on... > > > With best wishes and hoping you (and me, and all of us) the quickest > cessation into nibbana. -------------------- Cessation and nibbana have no appeal to me as an individual or sentient being. What would the sentient being, Ken H, want with cessation? Thare are so many waves yet to be ridden! Ken H is in no hurry to go. Only right understanding (panna) sees the beauty of cessation. Ken H #93008 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:10 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" kenhowardau Hi TG, As Christians are apt to say, the devil himself can quote scripture. :-) It is not mere words that matter, it is the right understanding of them. ------------- TG: Here are some quotes from the SUTTAS ... “However one might ponder It -- (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) And carefully investigate it, It appears but hollow and void When one views it carefully. Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.” (The Buddha . . . circa 600 BC. . . . Connected Discourse of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 953) “…whatever kind of form...whatever kind of feeling…whatever <. . .> ------------- Every time you have quoted these suttas in support of Nagarjuna's heterodoxy their meaning has been explained to you: *Dhammas are devoid of self.* But you ignore it. Plantain trees are not devoid of plantain trees. Dhammas are not devoid of dhammas. Plaintain trees are devoid of heartwood. Dammas are devoid of a lasting self. That is what the suttas are saying. ----------- <. . .> KH: > > To my mind it is identical with several other religious schools of thought in which the goal is reunification with God, or oneness with the universe. They say the goal will be achieved if we can just see past the illusion of own-being. (After which we will live happily forever, presumably.) Is that how you see it? TG: > Not in the slightest. The goal is to see phenomena as impermanent, afflicted, nonself; to the extent necessary to detach from phenomena, eliminate craving and clinging, and the afflictions that would arise on their account. ------------ The followers of Nagarjuna sometimes say that samsara is not inherently bad (or unworthy). They say an arahant would see samsara and nibbana as the same, and it is only clinging, conceit and wrong views that make the samsara "afflicted." Is that what you are saying here? ------------------ TG: > Happy Thanksgiving Ken ------------------ Thanks, TG. Australians don't actually celebrate America's Thanksgiving Day. But it's only a matter of time and some of us will be queueing at McDonald's for a turkeyburger. (Don't let Sarah hear me talking about this!) :-) Ken H #93009 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Ken H In a message dated 11/27/2008 8:10:50 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi TG, As Christians are apt to say, the devil himself can quote scripture. :-) It is not mere words that matter, it is the right understanding of them. ------------- TG: Here are some quotes from the SUTTAS ... “However one might ponder It -- (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) And carefully investigate it, It appears but hollow and void When one views it carefully. Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.” (The Buddha . . . circa 600 BC. . . . Connected Discourse of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 953) “…whatever kind of form...whatever kind of feeling…whatever <. . .> ------------- Every time you have quoted these suttas in support of Nagarjuna's heterodoxy their meaning has been explained to you: *Dhammas are devoid of self.* But you ignore it. ......................................................... TG: #1 I have never quoted these Suttas in support of Nagarjuna's heterodoxy or any other Nagarjuna concern. You keep throwing out Nagarjuna, but I don't mention him and am not interested in what he taught. I post Suttas and deal with Suttas. I never interject Nagaruna's teachings or try to make a case for them one way or another. I don't ignore "devoid of self." Nonself is my strongest focus. I understand it and agree with it. (Although we'd have a different outlook about "dhammas.") But the mere statement, "devoid of self," does not cover the scope that the quote entails. The terms "insubstantial," "hollow," "like a mirage," and "like a conjurers trick" ... as applied to the Five Aggregates .. cannot just be sloughed off with the obligatory and cursory -- "dhammas have "no-self." These terms indicate a very deep understanding of nonself based on insight into conditionality. This understanding realizes that -- not only concepts -- but the "aggregates themselves" are like a mirage and insubstantial. Why are they like a mirage? Because any specific discernment of "them" as "there own thing" is an error. They are not what they appear to be...just as a mirage is not what it appears to be. Because they are based on "something else," they are "hollow of themselves." So the Buddha is making a case for phenomena being insubstantial. And this is pretty much the antithesis of a view that sees it as "ultimate realities." Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. ;-) These are the Suttas, not Nagarjuna. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of this teaching from your quarter. You folks say "dhammas" are "ultimately real." The Buddha says they are "like a mirage." The Buddha has also said the views of existence and non-existence are both wrong. If something is "ultimately real," it sounds like a view of "existence" to me. ............................................................. Plantain trees are not devoid of plantain trees. Dhammas are not devoid of dhammas. Plaintain trees are devoid of heartwood. Dammas are devoid of a lasting self. That is what the suttas are saying. ................................................................... TG: No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that at all. Bubbles, lumps of foam, plantian trunks, , mirages, conjurer's tricks, are all meant to indicate the coreless, insubstantial, ... and deceptive aspects of un-insightfully viewing the aggregates. QUOTE: "Whatever kind of volitional formations there are....a Bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in volitional formations?" It doesn't say "what self" ... it says "what substance." The same is repeated for all the aggregates. This Sutta is directly and deeply dealing with the nature of the aggregates. .................................................................. ----------- <. . .> KH: > > To my mind it is identical with several other religious schools of thought in which the goal is reunification with God, or oneness with the universe. They say the goal will be achieved if we can just see past the illusion of own-being. (After which we will live happily forever, presumably.) Is that how you see it? TG: > Not in the slightest. The goal is to see phenomena as impermanent, afflicted, nonself; to the extent necessary to detach from phenomena, eliminate craving and clinging, and the afflictions that would arise on their account. ------------ The followers of Nagarjuna sometimes say that samsara is not inherently bad (or unworthy). They say an arahant would see samsara and nibbana as the same, and it is only clinging, conceit and wrong views that make the samsara "afflicted." Is that what you are saying here? ................................................... TG: You must have me confused with someone else. The last time I read Nagarjuna, or any Mahayana teachings for that matter, was over 26 years ago. I don't subscribe to his ideas, I don't follow his ideas, and quite frankly, I don't even remember his ideas all that well. I am not familiar enough with the apparent "Mahayana premise" above to get into it...or even care about it. Suffice it to say that THAT is not what I am saying. "My" ideas come from "my internal" understanding of the Suttas. I quote from that to support my points. If that sounds like Mahayana to you, so be it. TG OUT #93010 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:47 pm Subject: Thanks Everybody! reverendagga... Thanks Everybody for the help! i have a new sutta question, if somebody can help me with this i would be very grateful.( i dont have a copy of the M.N. with me on my travels at the moment) In which sutta of the M.N. does Venerable Gotama declare that the only knowledge necessary for a Buddha is the knowledge of the cause and cessation of dukkha? (i believe its in the first 50). Om Namah Dhamma Gotama! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #93011 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:54 pm Subject: Re: More on anatta sprlrt Hi Colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: .... > > Lets consider the FACTS of EXTERNAL vs. INTERNAL. Is the concept > > actually an object IF the thinking was done EXTERNALLY to your mind? > > In other words, if the thoughts were in another mind and merely > > presented to you then you are being spoon fed, a prisoner being > > forced to eat, and we can ask the Irish about Bobby Sands and his > > aversion to eating. Is the process your process or is it the process > > of an External mind? Are you, then, making what is external and > > INTERNAL Truth/REality based on the acceptance and hypnotism of the > > EXTERNAL Truth/Reality? > > ---------------------------- > > > A: You are talking about actions here, not about thoughts/concepts right? > colette: NO, I'm speaking of the mind, the alaya-vijnana, etc. The mind thinks in terms of actions as well as thoughts. A: Yes, but thoughts on their own are not deeds, though they're both (different) types of kamma, i.e. is not enough to think to bend a spoon to have it bent it (for me anyway). ..... colette: You must advertise for the SuperGlue people since you are like glue in that you are clinging heavily when you just add onto the end of the thought that people think of their own self and disregard/discount/disrespect/dis... the self of another person i.e. "which incidentally is the prevailing line of thinking anyway". <....> A: I just think that the self is likely to be, well... selfish Alberto #93012 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:09 am Subject: Harmlessness & Tolerance is the Best Protection! bhikkhu0 Friends: Tender Harmlessness & Patient Tolerance Protects all Beings! The Blessed Buddha was a great friend of tolerance & harmlessness: I am a friend of the footless, I am a friend of the bipeds; I am a friend of those with four feet, I am a friend of the many-footed. May not the footless harm me, may not the bipeds harm me, may not those with four feet harm me, and may not those with many feet harm me. A. II, 72 Among tigers, lions, leopards & bears I lived in the wood. No one was frightened of me, nor did I fear anyone. Uplifted by such universal friendliness I enjoyed the forest. Finding great solace in sweet silent solitude. Suvanna-sama Jataka 540 I am a friend and helper to all, I am sympathetic to all living beings. I develop a mind full of love and delights always in harmlessness. I gladden my mind, fill it with joy, makes it immovable and unshakable. I develop the divine states of mind not cultivated by simple men. Theragatha. 648-9 Thus he who both day and night takes delight in harmlessness sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. SN I 208 He who does not strike nor makes others strike, who robs not nor makes others rob, sharing love with all that lives, finds enmity with none. Itivuttaka 22 As a mother even with her life protects her only son, so let one cultivate infinite, yeah universal, friendliness towards all sentient, living & breathing beings. When one with a mind of true affection feels compassion for this entire world, above, below and across, unlimited everywhere. The one who has left violence, who never harm any being, who never kill nor causes to kill, such one, mild, is a Holy Noble One. Dhammapada 405 The one who is friendly among the hostile, who is harmless among the violent, who is detached among the greedy, such one is a Holy Noble One. Dhammapada 406 He is not Noble who injures living beings. He is called Noble because he is gentle & kind towards all living beings. Dhammapada 270 Tolerance is the highest training. Patience is the best praxis. So all Buddhas say. Dhammapada 184 Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Khuddakapatha 9 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma and clearly sees. Cordial non-violence is happiness in this world harmlessness towards all living beings. Udana 10 .... Have a nice harmless day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Harmlessness & Tolerance is the Best Protection for all! #93013 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:12 am Subject: Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG "Thanks for your post and scholarship Scott. Its a valuable asset to this group." Scott: Thanks, TG, and you're welcome. Sincerely, Scott. #93014 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thanks Everybody! upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 11/28/2008 2:47:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Thanks Everybody for the help! i have a new sutta question, if somebody can help me with this i would be very grateful.( i dont have a copy of the M.N. with me on my travels at the moment) In which sutta of the M.N. does Venerable Gotama declare that the only knowledge necessary for a Buddha is the knowledge of the cause and cessation of dukkha? (i believe its in the first 50). Om Namah Dhamma Gotama! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto ============================ The following final portion of SN 22.86 (Anuradha Sutta - To Anuradha) doesn't quite match what you asked for, but perhaps it is what you had in mind. With metta, Howard ****************************************** "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." #93015 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:10 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" abhidhammika Hello Alex (and any lurking followers of Mahayana) While I believe that you don't need to be reminded on this issue, I would go ahead reminding you anyway regarding Nagarjuna - just in case. Nagarjuna was merely a puthujjana Buddhist commentator. He may be a brilliant thinker writer, and the founder of Mahayana. But, he was merely a puthujjana, so his works (A.t.thakathas) are third-rate in terms of reliability as he had not yet removed his ignorance and other unhealthy mental associates, especially ego conceit (maano). Thus, a follower of Mahayana needs to know that what they are having is the third-hand personal opinions (attanomati) of a puthujjana commentator. To be a Theravadii is a lucky privilege as Theravadiis follow only the original teachings of Gotama the Buddha as preserved in Pali Tipitaka. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #93016 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:31 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hi Suan, > "abhidhammika" wrote: > > Hello Alex (and any lurking followers of Mahayana) > > While I believe that you don't need to be reminded on this issue, I > would go ahead reminding you anyway regarding Nagarjuna - just in > case. You are right here. However just as I don't have reasons to believe that Nagarjuna travelled to the Naga kingdom to find the Ultimate Buddha's teaching, I have similiar reservations about Buddha going to Tusita (or is it Tavatimsa?) heaven and teach super Advanced Teaching of Higher Dhamma or him contemplating Pathana and having his body shine (the only two occasions when His body was emitting rays was on the eve of his Nibbana and Parinibbana - DN16) With best wishes, #93017 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:42 am Subject: Re: Thanks Everybody! truth_aerator Dear Bhante, >-"reverendaggacitto" wrote: > In which sutta of the M.N. does Venerable Gotama declare that the >only knowledge necessary for a Buddha is the knowledge of the cause >and cessation of dukkha? (i believe its in the first 50). As I understand it, the Buddha knows quite a bit. Here is quote from MN12 "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the ten? (1) "Here, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible. (2) the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present, with possibilities and with causes. That too is a Tathagata's power... (3) "the Tathagata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations. That too is a Tathagata's power... (4) "the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power... (5) "the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power... (6)"the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a Tathagata's power.. (7) "the Tathagata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing and the emergence in regard to the jhanas, liberations, concentrations and attainments. That too is a Tathagata's power... (8) "the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, (9) Reckolection of other being's rebirths. (10) "by realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathagata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html With best wishes, #93018 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hi TG and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > ------------- > TG: Here are some quotes from the SUTTAS ... > > â€"However one might ponder It -- (form, feeling, perception, > volitional > formations, and consciousness) > And carefully investigate it, > It appears but hollow and void > When one views it carefully. > Such is this continuum, > This illusion, beguiler of fools > It is taught to be a murderer; > Here no substance can be found.” In Sn 4.15 I believe that the Buddha explains what he meant by the above. In short by the phrase "...no substance can be found" he has meant that nothing is worth to cling to. Nothing of the 5 aggregates can be dependent on. In other words he was talking about Anicca & Dukkha, not just Anatta. "Look at people quarreling. I will tell of how I experienced dismay. Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles, competing with one another as I saw this, fear came into me. The world was entirely without substance. All the directions were knocked out of line. Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn't laid claim to. Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent. And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart. Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions. But simply on pulling it out you don't run, you don't sink.2" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.15.than.html > > I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of this teaching from >your quarter. You folks say "dhammas" are "ultimately real." The >Buddha says they are "like a mirage." The Buddha has also said the >views of existence and non-existence are both wrong. If something >is "ultimately real," it sounds like a view of "existence" to me. You are right TG. What happens is that some people reject one philosophical view only to replace it with another. It is unfortunate that some people cling to existence (of ultimately real dhammas) and to non-existence (of self). "Because entrenchments in views aren't easily overcome when considering what's grasped among doctrines, that's why a person embraces or rejects a doctrine in light of these very entrenchments. but how in connection with what would you argue with one uninvolved? He has nothing embraced or rejected, has sloughed off every view right here every one. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.03.than.html == With best wishes, #93019 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:56 pm Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" kenhowardau Hi TG, ----------- TG: > > > The goal is to see phenomena as impermanent, afflicted, nonself; to the extent necessary to detach from phenomena, eliminate craving and clinging, and the afflictions that would arise on their account. KH: > > The followers of Nagarjuna sometimes say that samsara is not inherently bad (or unworthy). They say an arahant would see samsara and nibbana as the same, and it is only clinging, conceit and wrong views that make the samsara "afflicted." Is that what you are saying here? TG: > You must have me confused with someone else. The last time I read Nagarjuna, or any Mahayana teachings for that matter, was over 26 years ago. I don't subscribe to his ideas, I don't follow his ideas, and quite frankly, I don't even remember his ideas all that well. --------------- Well, I have news for you: the Mahayana understanding of the Dhamma is exactly the same as yours! I didn't know this either until recently, when I heard a radio talk by an Australian professor. BTW, the professor said that Mahayana had "replaced" Theravada. (!) I would almost agree with that, but I happen to know there are still a few of us who prefer the original teaching. But we are an endangered species! :-) Then he explained the so-called "Buddhist" philosophy, and I was amazed to hear the exact same terminology that you, Howard and others have been using. He described a "sea of being" in which nothing had its "own being" and everything was just a mass of conditions. He also said, "You and I have no own-being." So he obviously didn't differentiate between concepts and realities. (Actually, he said "no self-being" rather than "no own-being" but the explanation was the same.) I wanted to shout at the radio, "Anatta means no self, not no self being!" And, "Only paramattha dhammas bear the anatta characteristic - people and things are just concepts!" But there is no getting through to these people. :-) ------------------------ <. . .> TG: > I don't ignore "devoid of self." Nonself is my strongest focus. I understand it and agree with it. (Although we'd have a different outlook about "dhammas.") But the mere statement, "devoid of self," does not cover the scope that the quote entails. ------------------------ Neither of us will ever win this argument, but I still find it very helpful. It helps me to understand how even a slight deviation from the texts can produce an entirely different Dhamma. You must appreciate this too, because you can see how your definition of anatta produces an understanding of the suttas that is entirely different from the one found in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. ------------------------- TG: > The terms "insubstantial," "hollow," "like a mirage," and "like a conjurers trick" ... as applied to the Five Aggregates .. cannot just be sloughed off with the obligatory and cursory -- "dhammas have "no-self." These terms indicate a very deep understanding of nonself based on insight into conditionality. This understanding realizes that -- not only concepts -- but the "aggregates themselves" are like a mirage and insubstantial. ------------------------ Can you see the enormous difference between "no self" and "non-self?" No-self is final. There are only dhammas and all dhammas are not self. Therefore, there is no self. "Non-self" on the other hand leaves the door open. 'There is nothing that has its own self,' leaves some obvious questions to be asked, doesn't it? That's why I was asking you about the "sea of being." Isn't it the same as the "the universal oneness" that some other religions talk about? I certainly get the feeling that Mahayanists see parinibbana as no more ideas of a separate self, just unification with the sea of being. That would surely be the same as reuniting with God or attaining oneness with the universe, etc. A sea of being would have to be some kind of true, or ultimate, self wouldn't it? Ken H > Why are they like a mirage? Because any specific discernment of "them" as > "there own thing" is an error. They are not what they appear to be...just as > a mirage is not what it appears to be. > > > Because they are based on "something else," they are "hollow of themselves." > So the Buddha is making a case for phenomena being insubstantial. And this > is pretty much the antithesis of a view that sees it as "ultimate > realities." Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. ;-) These are the Suttas, not > Nagarjuna. > > #93020 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sprlrt Hi Sarah .... S: there is no one in the world, it is only thinking that there are people and things. What is experienced through the five sense doors are merely rupas, elements, which fall away immediately. However, the memory keeps on conditioning thinking about them, the story of these realities with atta-sa~n~naa, as something that stays, or of many people in the world. However, if there is no thinking now, there are no people, just visible object or sound which appears, for example. S: So, ignorance deceives us, conditioning wrong view of what appears. Only through the development of understanding and detachment will ignorance be prevented from performing this function anymore. Even though there is so much ignorance, right understanding and satipatthana can begin to develop and it is the function of pa~n~naa (right understanding) to be detached as you stress. That's why if there is a desire to concentrate/watch/label/be aware of a particular object, it's not pa~n~naa, but lobha(attachment), instead. A: Yes, concepts of ourself and of other people selves and things are bound to be the objects of thinking until they are replaced by the actual dhammas that makes them up, when the right Path wiht sati, arises and can develop, conditioned by panna acquired through right theory, which, being about dhammas and not concepts, is not for selves, for lobha and clinging. Alberto #93021 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:11 am Subject: Chained Events! bhikkhu0 Friends: Forward & Reverse Causality of the Process of Being: So have I heard: After 7 days of non-stop sitting meditation in the bliss of Awakening, The Buddha in the last watch of the night directed his unified attention to dependent co-arising in both forward & reverse order in this very way: A => B, and non-A => non-B When this is present, then that comes to be... When this emerges, that arises too... When this is absent, then that does not come to be... When this ceases, that vanishes too... When ignorance arises, mental construction also appears.. When mental construction arises, consciousness also comes to be.. When consciousness arises, name-&-form also come in to being.. When name-&-form arises, then the six senses emerge too.. When the six senses arise, then contact is the consequence.. When contact arises, then feeling is assigned too.. When feeling arises, then urge and craving surely follows.. When craving arises, then clinging too becomes dominant.. When clinging arises, then the process of becoming is initiated.. When becoming arises, then rebirth inevitably also appears.. When birth arises, then aging & death, sorrow, distress, pain, grief & despair also arises. This verily is the origin, the causing, the arising of this entire mass of Suffering... Consequently, when this very same ignorance is utterly uprooted & vanished, then mental construction is tranquilized, all stilled, and it ceases & dissolves.. When mental construction ceases, then consciousness itself fades away.. When consciousness ceases, name-&-form also terminate.. When name-&-form ceases, then the six senses come to an end.. When the six senses cease, then contact closes down as well.. When contact ceases, then feeling fades out too.. When feeling ceases, then craving also evaporates.. When craving ceases, then clinging is relinquished too.. When clinging ceases, then becoming essentially stops. When becoming ceases, then this process of endless rebirth is exhausted too.. When birth ceases, then aging, death, sorrow, distress, pain, & depression also finishes. This verily is the cessation, the irreversible End of this whole mass of Suffering... Then, he, the Blessed One, on recognizing the profundity of that sequence, exclaimed: When the appearance of phenomena becomes clearly manifest to this very Noble Friend through rapt meditation, then he is constantly scattering Mara’s - the Evil One's - army, exactly as the sun continuously disperses all darkness, when lighting up the bright sky... Chained Events... <...> Source: The Udana: Inspired utterances by the Buddha: I – 3 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=404214 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net All Phenomena are Chained Events! #93022 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi TG, Many thanks for the retractions and good-natured responses. Just one point here: --- On Fri, 28/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >TG: So I've read the notes and the explanations and its all very interesting. The point you want to make, that "concepts" are meant to be included in the "dhamma" line, is the exact point that Buddhaghosa would NOT ENDORSE! Boddhi and Nanamoli are not saying that "concepts" are included by "dhamma," but merely that "commentaries" are claiming that. ..... S: The "commentaries" refer to Buddhaghosa's commentaries which explain in this context that "dhamma" includes concepts. I quoted the relevant bit of the Pali and the summary translation. ..... TG:> So now its getting clear...apparently Buddhaghosa is not on record of being on your side of this! Nor is Bodhi or Nanamoli backing you up ... only a commentarial interpretation! . ..... S: I'm quoting Buddhaghosa's commentary and am guided by this on the meaning. ..... TG:>So we're back to square one. The commentary vs the Suttas. And as I've just read, you say that the Suttas do not state such. So, you I guess willingly like the "new interpretation" of the commentaries" over the silence of the Suttas. Just so we're clear. ;-) .... S: Everyone will interpret the suttas according to their own way of thinking. I have confidence in the interpretation of the ancient commentators, so I'm guided by this. You have more confidence in your own interpretation or that of modern scholars and that's fine. As you say, back to square one and we're clear :-). From the Sutta: "There are, Aananca, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements." "MA: the conditioned element includes everything produced by conditions and is a designation for the five aggregates. The unconditioned element is Nibbaana." Metta, Sarah ======= #93023 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:22 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > Hi Nina (and Jon), > > > Only one nama or rupa can be understood at a time, thus not all of them > > at one moment. > > James: You seem to be confusing satipatthana with "The All" that the > Buddha taught. ... > > You seem to be saying that because satipatthana requires the viewing > of one rupa, or one nama, as it arises and ceases, I don't think anyone has suggested that the development of satipatthaana involves the awareness of a single instance of nama or rupa as it arises and ceases. What has been said is that awareness takes one object at a time. However, this would be multiple moments of the one object, as I understand it. The arising and falling away of a single nama or rupa would I think require very highly developed panna. > ... then one nama and one rupa is all that exists in samsara. It's not a matter of what exists in samsara; it's a matter of what the world actually is at a given moment. At the moment of seeing, the world is in fact just the visible object being experienced at that moment. But we are unable to perceive this fact (due to lack of developed understanding). Jon PS Hoping the cold is better PPS You may not have seen an earlier reply of mine to you at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92842 #93024 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 and Tiika, part 2. sarahprocter... Hi Larry, You wrote a very nice note to Nina. So what's your next project? Are you continuing with the other Vism chapters or starting a new series on another text? I'd just like to encourage you:-) Metta, Sarah --- On Tue, 25/11/08, LBIDD@... wrote: >Congratulations and thank you very much. This has been a very large project, translating the commentary to 256 paragraphs and explaining virtually everything over the course of many months, beginning in February 2006. #93025 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex (TG & all), --- On Fri, 28/11/08, Alex wrote: >> S: In my translation of MLDB (same page), but maybe a different >edition, it has: "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person >possessing right view could treat any ***formation* ** as permanent > there is no such possibility." A:> I do not think that translating a thing from "sankhara" or "dhamma" changes anything. .... S: I think we've just been considering the significance of the different terms in context. I agree that the terms don't change the realities. ..... A:> Concepts can apply ONLY to 5 aggregates (or vinnana namarupa) which are impermanent conditioned and dependently arisen. Concepts can ONLY arise when there is vinnana + other nama factors are present. This itself makes concepts conditioned. .... S: I'd put it this way: without the khandhas, without namas and rupas arising and falling away, there'd be no concepts. Concepts, however, do not arise and are not conditioned. .... >.S: The footnote to this says: > > "MA: a person possessing right view (di.t.thisampanno) is one possessing the view of the path, a noble disciple at the minimal level of a stream-enterer. 'Formation' here is to be understood as a conditioned formation (sankhata-sankhaara ), i.e., anything conditioned. " >>> A:> Is there anything (other than Nibbana) unconditioned? .... S: Yes, concepts are not conditioned. .... A:> For the sake of Ven. Buddhaghosa I hope he considers EVERYTHING as impermanent, including concepts. ..... S: Concepts are like shadows of realities or dreams. They cannot be said to be impermanent or permanent because they are conceived or imagined, but are not absolute realities. I'll discuss your passage from the Mahaanidaana Sutta separately - maybe tomorrow. Metta, Sarah =========== #93026 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and TG) - Ken, your ego is astounding, with you arrogating to yourself not only what is "true Theravada" but also what is "true Mahayana" based on the writing of one man who doesn't have a clue about the matter. I believe you are off-base on each of Theravada and Mahayana, but it is clear, I think, that the certaintly you have of your own rectitude and of the "heresy" of others is egotistical and insulting. Never do you say "I think", or "I believe," or "It seems to me" as the Buddha taught that a preserver of truth should do, but instead you plunge ahead putting words into the mouths of others, all the while not understanding them, and judging, judging, judging. In a message dated 11/29/2008 1:56:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi TG, ----------- TG: > > > The goal is to see phenomena as impermanent, afflicted, nonself; to the extent necessary to detach from phenomena, eliminate craving and clinging, and the afflictions that would arise on their account. KH: > > The followers of Nagarjuna sometimes say that samsara is not inherently bad (or unworthy). They say an arahant would see samsara and nibbana as the same, and it is only clinging, conceit and wrong views that make the samsara "afflicted." Is that what you are saying here? TG: > You must have me confused with someone else. The last time I read Nagarjuna, or any Mahayana teachings for that matter, was over 26 years ago. I don't subscribe to his ideas, I don't follow his ideas, and quite frankly, I don't even remember his ideas all that well. --------------- Well, I have news for you: the Mahayana understanding of the Dhamma is exactly the same as yours! I didn't know this either until recently, when I heard a radio talk by an Australian professor. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, good! A professor! Whenever I wish to find a person who screws up a religion, I look first for a professor! The exceptions are few and far between. ------------------------------------------- BTW, the professor said that Mahayana had "replaced" Theravada. (!) I would almost agree with that, but I happen to know there are still a few of us who prefer the original teaching. But we are an endangered species! :-) -------------------------------------------- Howard: All quite "special," I imagine. Hmm? ------------------------------------------- Then he explained the so-called "Buddhist" philosophy, and I was amazed to hear the exact same terminology that you, Howard and others have been using. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! Omigod, what shall I do!!!! Whew, I had better hide from the agents of the Inquisition fast! ------------------------------------------- He described a "sea of being" in which nothing had its "own being" and everything was just a mass of conditions. He also said, "You and I have no own-being." So he obviously didn't differentiate between concepts and realities. ------------------------------------------ Howard: You would love to throw in the kitchen sink too, if it weren't so heavy! I don't give a damn what metaphor this guy may use - it has nothing to do with TG or with me, or with Mahayana for that matter! I would NEVER use the expression "sea of being"! It is substantialist, dreamy-fuzzy nonsense, as I see it. That TG and I view conditioned phenomena as empty of self due to interdependence shows that we are in line with the middle-way anatta-view of the Buddha, and not a substantialist belief in true being, let alone belief in a SEA of being! Where is there a "sea of being" when "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick ---- this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately." Where do I see the Buddha teaching a "sea of being" - he who taught in the Uraga Sutta that "This is all unreal," and who taught in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and the Channa sutta a middle-way ontology that refutes both existence and nonexistence? And most of all the Buddha taught that there is no self, no core of identity to be found in any person - not in, among, or outside of any of the elements of the aggregates. In speaking of himself, in particular, the Buddha taught that "the Tathagata" is not to be found as being in form, elsewhere than form, in feeling, elsewhere than feeling, in perception, elsewhere than perception, in fabrications, elsewhere than fabrications, in consciousness, or elsewhere than consciousness. He taught that "the Tathagata" is not some amalgam that is form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness, and, likewise that "the Tathagata" is not some thing which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness. The notion of some essence/identity that is "the Tathagata" (or any other alleged entity) is a fiction according to the buddha. I see this, and I have no question with regard to it. If you think that I view matters differently, then you just haven't been paying attention. ------------------------------------------- (Actually, he said "no self-being" rather than "no own-being" but the explanation was the same.) I wanted to shout at the radio, "Anatta means no self, not no self being!" And, "Only paramattha dhammas bear the anatta characteristic - people and things are just concepts!" But there is no getting through to these people. :-) --------------------------------------------- Howard: IMO, you would do well to engage in introspection, examining your own views more carefully in the light of the Dhamma rather than busying yourself so much with "these people" and what you dream are their attitudes and positions. --------------------------------------------- ------------------------ <. . .> TG: > I don't ignore "devoid of self." Nonself is my strongest focus. I understand it and agree with it. (Although we'd have a different outlook about "dhammas.") But the mere statement, "devoid of self," does not cover the scope that the quote entails. ------------------------ Neither of us will ever win this argument, but I still find it very helpful. It helps me to understand how even a slight deviation from the texts can produce an entirely different Dhamma. You must appreciate this too, because you can see how your definition of anatta produces an understanding of the suttas that is entirely different from the one found in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. ------------------------- TG: > The terms "insubstantial," "hollow," "like a mirage," and "like a conjurers trick" ... as applied to the Five Aggregates .. cannot just be sloughed off with the obligatory and cursory -- "dhammas have "no-self." These terms indicate a very deep understanding of nonself based on insight into conditionality. This understanding realizes that -- not only concepts -- but the "aggregates themselves" are like a mirage and insubstantial. ------------------------ Can you see the enormous difference between "no self" and "non-self?" No-self is final. There are only dhammas and all dhammas are not self. Therefore, there is no self. "Non-self" on the other hand leaves the door open. 'There is nothing that has its own self,' leaves some obvious questions to be asked, doesn't it? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe the Buddha unequivocally taught NO self anywhere in anything! Can I make that any more definite? (I also believe, that none of us is obliged to answer to others of us who set themselves up as self-styled protectors of the faith.) ------------------------------------------------- That's why I was asking you about the "sea of being." Isn't it the same as the "the universal oneness" that some other religions talk about? I certainly get the feeling that Mahayanists see parinibbana as no more ideas of a separate self, just unification with the sea of being. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: You set up a straw man, a term used by one idiot professor who thinks he understands Buddhism, and you use it as cudgel to try to beat down folks whose views don't appeal to you. It would be laughable, Ken, if it weren't so annoying! ------------------------------------------------ That would surely be the same as reuniting with God or attaining oneness with the universe, etc. A sea of being would have to be some kind of true, or ultimate, self wouldn't it? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Who cares! -------------------------------------------------- Ken H > Why are they like a mirage? Because any specific discernment of "them" as > "there own thing" is an error. They are not what they appear to be...just as > a mirage is not what it appears to be. > > > Because they are based on "something else," they are "hollow of themselves." > So the Buddha is making a case for phenomena being insubstantial. And this > is pretty much the antithesis of a view that sees it as "ultimate > realities." Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. ;-) These are the Suttas, not > Nagarjuna. > > ================================ With metta, truly, but accompanied by annoyance ;-), Howard #93027 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:33 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, The cold is better but I am still kinda tired. But, thanks for pointing out this earlier post I missed. I will respond and try to get to the other post (plus I have a post of Nina's that is waiting for a response): --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Yes, of course. We are all the same on this. The world we perceive > is a world of people and things. > > > You can't convince me to not think of people as people just because > > that is written in the Vism. > > I have never suggested we should not think of people as people. That > kind of thinking, as we agreed before, would only be trying to see > things the way we thought they should be seen (and that would be a > kind of wrong view/practice). > > What the Buddha discovered and explained is the world of dhammas, and > the way that this could be experienced. Through the (very gradual) > development of understanding about the world of dhammas, the > perception of a world of people and things is seen for what it is: a > kind of perception only. James: I am not following you here because I see a type of contradiction in what you are saying. I am trying to establish a type of ontology here: do people exist or not (or both exist and not exist depending on how you define "exist")? Now you are saying that it is a "world of dhammas". To me, that establishes the ontology that people don't exist, only dhammas exist. But then you state that people exist as a type of perception. Well, that doesn't really tell me anything. There are true perceptions and there are false perceptions. Which do you consider people to be, a true perception or a false perception? Metta, James #93028 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi James > > > Hi Nina (and Jon), > > > > > Only one nama or rupa can be understood at a time, thus not all > of them > > > at one moment. > > > > James: You seem to be confusing satipatthana with "The All" that > the > > Buddha taught. ... > > > > You seem to be saying that because satipatthana requires the > viewing > > of one rupa, or one nama, as it arises and ceases, > > I don't think anyone has suggested that the development of > satipatthaana involves the awareness of a single instance of nama or > rupa as it arises and ceases. > > What has been said is that awareness takes one object at a time. > However, this would be multiple moments of the one object, as I > understand it. The arising and falling away of a single nama or rupa > would I think require very highly developed panna. James: Okay, that is what I meant but I just wasn't being precise. I meant one object of one doorway at a time, not just one single nama and rupa (if there could even be the delineation of such things I doubt). > > > ... then one nama and one rupa is all that exists in samsara. > > It's not a matter of what exists in samsara; it's a matter of what > the world actually is at a given moment. At the moment of seeing, > the world is in fact just the visible object being experienced at > that moment. But we are unable to perceive this fact (due to lack of > developed understanding). James: This description of the world, or The All, doesn't correspond with what the Buddha taught. He taught that the world was the six senses and their objects, not just one object and one doorway at a time. This is a radical difference so I believe the Buddha would be very clear about that if that is what he meant. And, the Buddha was omniscient so we have to trust what he "saw" in this regard. > > Jon > > PS Hoping the cold is better > PPS You may not have seen an earlier reply of mine to you at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92842 Yeah, I got to that post first. Now I am going to tackle Nina's last post to me if I can find it! :-) Metta, James > #93029 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > PS Hoping the cold is better > > PPS You may not have seen an earlier reply of mine to you at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92842 > > Yeah, I got to that post first. Now I am going to tackle Nina's > last post to me if I can find it! :-) > > I just cannot find your last post to me. As I recall it was rather detailed and must have took considerable effort to write so I would like to respond. Could you please give me the tracking number? Metta, James #93030 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:31 am Subject: An Apology: To Ken & the Group upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - I apologize for the anger I expressed in my last post to you. I'm sorry, Ken. I do think that you missed the boat in several respects, but I missed it far more in my lack of calm and lack of kindness. With metta, Howard #93031 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Apology: To Ken & the Group TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/29/2008 9:32:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Ken - I apologize for the anger I expressed in my last post to you. I'm sorry, Ken. I do think that you missed the boat in several respects, but I missed it far more in my lack of calm and lack of kindness. With metta, Howard .................................................................... TG: I don't know, I thought it was pretty good. ;-) TG #93032 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, May we start from the beginning? What is wrong with considering concepts as impermanent & conditioned? Personally I KNOW that everything in Samsara is inconstant, conditioned and dependently arisen. "Concepts" belong to nama which is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. The basis of concepts (5 aggregates ONLY) is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. The thing that percieves, labels, and makes sense of concepts is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. For example a dog doesn't know and doesn't have concepts of computer, internet, e-mail and so on. These concepts are non-existent FOR A DOG, but they DO "exist" for humans familiar with these things. That is an example of conditioned nature of concepts. As far as I am concerned, there is no eternal "Concept-Land" where concepts live on forever and ever, permanent and not subject to change. Concepts are concieved as you have said, and that concieving is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. With best wishes, #93033 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Apology: To Ken & the Group upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/29/2008 1:41:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: I don't know, I thought it was pretty good. ;-) ============================ Thanks, TG. :-) However, while the objective content of my post can be variously evaluated as folks wish, the anger and the expressing of that anger wasn't "pretty good." With metta, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #93035 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:07 am Subject: Re: An Apology: To Ken & the Group truth_aerator Hello Howard, I briefly read your reply. It didn't appear wrong. Infact you said right things in some places. The Buddha didn't mind telling people when they were wrong, how stupid & misguided they were. Adhamma must be pointed out to show what is Dhamma and what is Adhamma. I believe that the Sutta quotes are the best and most original thing we have today, hence this is why I like to use them. You know there are sayings such as "spare the rod and lose the child", "the father who loves the child spanks the child" , etc etc. ========================== "Not even to Sariputta or Moggallana would I hand over the Order, and would I then to thee, vile one, to be vomited like spittle?" (Vin.ii.188. This incident is referred to in the Abhayarjakumra Sutta, M.i.393). http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/d/devadatta.htm Pretty strong words. So if Buddhism isn't to be lead even by those two giants, then nothing to say about Ken, KS, me or anyone else. The suttas IMHO is the best guide + experience based on Buddhist techniques (as long as it doesn't deviate from the suttas). With best wishes, #93036 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Apology: To Ken & the Group TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/29/2008 12:07:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: "Not even to Sariputta or Moggallana would I hand over the Order, and would I then to thee, vile one, to be vomited like spittle?" (Vin.ii.188. This incident is referred to in the Abhayarjakum(V Sutta, M.i.393). _http://www.palikanohttp://www.palhttp://www.http://www.phtt_ (http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/d/devadatta.htm) Pretty strong words. So if Buddhism isn't to be lead even by those two giants, then nothing to say about Ken, KS, me or anyone else. The suttas IMHO is the best guide + experience based on Buddhist techniques (as long as it doesn't deviate from the suttas). ............................................................... TG: Wow, when you put it this way, I'd be pretty embarrassed to argue against it. TG #93037 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, Alex, All In a message dated 11/29/2008 6:08:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: A:> Is there anything (other than Nibbana) unconditioned? .... S: Yes, concepts are not conditioned. .... A:> For the sake of Ven. Buddhaghosa I hope he considers EVERYTHING as impermanent, including concepts. ..... S: Concepts are like shadows of realities or dreams. They cannot be said to be impermanent or permanent because they are conceived or imagined, but are not absolute realities. I'll discuss your passage from the Mahaanidaana Sutta separately - maybe tomorrow. Metta, Sarah ................................................ TG: Shadows are conditioned! Dreams are conditioned. But lets deal with shadows. Shadows appears when the conditions appear to generate them. Concepts appear when the conditions appear to generate them. Its no big deal, its as plain as day (light). LOL The fact that concepts have a lot to do with delusion is a whole different issue and has gotten all tangled up with a view that concepts are not conditioned. Its a real mess. Alex, what we have to realize is that the entire DSG "religion" is based on this "reality vs concept" premise and there is no way that they will even try to look at the matter in any other way. It would destroy the foundation of their beliefs. TG OUT #93038 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Ken H, All Old TG: > The terms "insubstantial, The terms "insubstantial," "hollow, a conjurers trick" ... as applied to the Five Aggregates .. cannot just be sloughed off with the obligatory and cursory -- "dhammas have "no-self." These terms indicate a very deep understanding of nonself based on insight into conditionality. This understanding realizes that -- not only concepts -- but the "aggregates themselves" are like a mirage and insubstantial. ------------------------ Ken H: Can you see the enormous difference between "no self" and "non-self?" No-self is final. There are only dhammas and all dhammas are not self. Therefore, there is no self. "Non-self" on the other hand leaves the door open. 'There is nothing that has its own self,' leaves some obvious questions to be asked, doesn't it? ..................................................... NEW TG: The term is "nonself," not "non-self." "Nonself" is the latest translation issue from Bhikkhu Bodhi. I use to use no-self but now use either no-self or nonself. I thought about nonself for a long time cause at first it was jarring, but I've decided it is just fine. All Dhammas are nonself, or no-self. Doesn't matter to me. It just means they don't have self. They are conditioned or unconditioned. Understanding causal relationships is the key to understanding no-self. What is caused cannot be self. What does not appear cannot be self. Things are either caused or don't arise...all things are not self. Here endith the lesson. ......................................................................... That's why I was asking you about the "sea of being." Isn't it the same as the "the universal oneness" that some other religions talk about? I certainly get the feeling that Mahayanists see parinibbana as no more ideas of a separate self, just unification with the sea of being. That would surely be the same as reuniting with God or attaining oneness with the universe, etc. A sea of being would have to be some kind of true, or ultimate, self wouldn't it? ....................................................... TG: I don't know, its not my idea. TG OUT #93039 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Ken H, All In a message dated 11/28/2008 11:56:47 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Well, I have news for you: the Mahayana understanding of the Dhamma is exactly the same as yours! I didn't know this either until recently, when I heard a radio talk by an Australian professor. BTW, the professor said that Mahayana had "replaced" Theravada. (!) I would almost agree with that, but I happen to know there are still a few of us who prefer the original teaching. But we are an endangered species! :-) .................................................. TG: By "original teaching" you mean commentaries. What a joke. ............................................... Then he explained the so-called "Buddhist" philosophy, and I was amazed to hear the exact same terminology that you, Howard and others have been using. He described a "sea of being" in which nothing had its "own being" and everything was just a mass of conditions. He also said, "You and I have no own-being." So he obviously didn't differentiate between concepts and realities. ............................................................ TG: And the Buddha calls "concepts" non-realities where? He says "concepts " are unconditioned where? The Buddha discusses "realities" and opposed to "non-realities" where? .................................................................. (Actually, he said "no self-being" rather than "no own-being" but the explanation was the same.) I wanted to shout at the radio, "Anatta means no self, not no self being!" And, "Only paramattha dhammas bear the anatta characteristic - people and things are just concepts!" But there is no getting through to these people. :-) ................................................ TG: God I hope not. LOL .............................................. ------------------------ <. . .> TG: > I don't ignore "devoid of self." Nonself is my strongest focus. I understand it and agree with it. (Although we'd have a different outlook about "dhammas.") But the mere statement, "devoid of self," does not cover the scope that the quote entails. ------------------------ Neither of us will ever win this argument, but I still find it very helpful. It helps me to understand how even a slight deviation from the texts can produce an entirely different Dhamma. You must appreciate this too, because you can see how your definition of anatta produces an understanding of the suttas that is entirely different from the one found in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. ................................................................. TG: Ahhh, the beloved commentaries. If ever there was an 'original source,' its was the commentaries! LOL Is it just me or is this "crazy-land"? LOL TG OUT #93040 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" kenhowardau Hi Howard and TG, Don't worry about any angry words directed at me, I seem to have that effect on people. Not just on you, on people in general - in all walks of life. As my brother-in-law once suggested, I need to learn 'a nicer way of saying things.' In the meantime, it's a cross I shall have to bear. :-) Regarding the "sea of being:" The first time I can remember hearing that term was when Phil dedicated a separate post to it quite recently. As I recall, he had heard it elsewhere and was wondering if it was the same thing that you had been talking about. To my mind he seemed to be on the right track. You had been saying that there was nothing in ultimate reality that experienced, there was only the experiencing. TG had said there were no conditioned dhammas, only conditions. One point you had made repeatedly was that nothing had its "own being." To my mind (and Phil's?) it followed you were saying there was only being. (A sea of being!) Then I heard that radio program explaining how the Sea of Being was a central tenet of Mahayana Buddhism. According to the Mahayana, nothing had self-existence, there was only existence itself. So I assumed that was the same point you were making. Excuse me if I have put one and one together and come up with three. :-) I would be interested to know, however, how the Mahayana understanding differs from yours - so much so that you are insulted by the mere suggestion they are the same. Ken H #93041 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hi TG, Ken and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Ken H, All > .................................................. > > > TG: By "original teaching" you mean commentaries. What a joke. > > > ............................................... > > ------------------------ > Ken: ...and ancient commentaries. > ................................................................. > TG: Ahhh, the beloved commentaries. If ever there was >an 'original > source,' its was the commentaries! LOL TG is right about commentaries except for the fact that it is NOT A JOKE. "Not even to Sariputta or Moggallana would I hand over the Order, and would I then to thee, vile one, to be vomited like spittle?" (Vin.ii.188. This incident is referred to in the Abhayarajakumara Sutta, M.i.393). http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/d/devadatta.htm Buddhism isn't a democracy where a high council can decide what is right and what is not. Buddha is the man! Buddha didn't allow even Sariputta to head his order, nothing to say about commentators who lived 1000 and 2500 years later and never seen Buddha nor heard Him speak. With best wishes, #93042 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Alex and Sarah, A: "I do not think that translating a thing from 'sankhara' or 'dhamma' changes anything." S: "...I'll discuss your passage from the Mahaanidaana Sutta separately - maybe tomorrow." "...This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernability) of this world i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness..." Here is some more: Walshe: Mahaanidaanasutta.m "...Thus far then, Aananda, we can trace birth and decay, death and falling into other states and being reborn, thus far extends the way of designation, of concepts reaches, thus far is the sphere of understanding, thus far the round goes as far as can be discerned in this life, namely to mind-and-body together with consciousness..." ...Ettaavataa kho, aananda, jaayetha vaa jiiyetha vaa miiyetha vaa cavetha vaa upapajjetha vaa. Ettaavataa adhivacanapatho, ettaavataa niruttipatho, ettaavataa pa~n~nattipatho, ettaavataa pa~n~naavacara.m, ettaavataa va.t.ta.m vattati itthatta.m pa~n~naapanaaya yadida.m naamaruupa.m saha vi~n~naa.nena a~n~nama~n~napaccayataa pavattati... Sincerely, Scott. #93043 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and TG) - In a message dated 11/29/2008 4:57:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard and TG, Don't worry about any angry words directed at me, I seem to have that effect on people. Not just on you, on people in general - in all walks of life. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I don't know about that, Ken, but we each have primary responsibility for our own emotions and especially how we act in response to them. The more I've been thinking about my post to you, the more I regret it. If it has "hurt" even you in the slightest, I sincerely apologize. --------------------------------------- As my brother-in-law once suggested, I need to learn 'a nicer way of saying things.' In the meantime, it's a cross I shall have to bear. :-) Regarding the "sea of being:" The first time I can remember hearing that term was when Phil dedicated a separate post to it quite recently. As I recall, he had heard it elsewhere and was wondering if it was the same thing that you had been talking about. -------------------------------------- Howard: I don't recall that, Ken. I do remember him picking up on my using the term 'seamlessness' to refer to the (direct or indirect) interrelationships among phenomena, but I don't recall his using "sea of being." -------------------------------------- To my mind he seemed to be on the right track. You had been saying that there was nothing in ultimate reality that experienced, there was only the experiencing. TG had said there were no conditioned dhammas, only conditions. ------------------------------------------ Howard: What in the world does that have to do with "being"? Along with Buddhaghosa, I acknowledge experiencing, but no experiencers. There are no actors. As for what TG said, he can speak for himself, but so far as I know, every conditioned dhamma is a condition for other So, except for nibbana, conditions and conditioned dhammas are coextensive. ----------------------------------------- One point you had made repeatedly was that nothing had its "own being." To my mind (and Phil's?) it followed you were saying there was only being. (A sea of being!) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Your conclusion is false and it doesn't follow. That no conditioned dhamma has own being is synonymous with its being conditioned. Even *less* than positing own being in dhammas do I posit some universal being or essence, some Brahman-like "sea of being"! I posit conditionality, insubstantiality, and no self - just a network of fleeting, shadows spawning shadows. ---------------------------------------------- Then I heard that radio program explaining how the Sea of Being was a central tenet of Mahayana Buddhism. -------------------------------------------- Howard: That is so far removed from Mahayana that it is laughable. Nagarjuna would double over in pain with laughter. ---------------------------------------------- According to the Mahayana, nothing had self-existence, there was only existence itself. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: It is Vedanta that teaches Existence (Skt 'Sat'), not Mahayana. Mahayana teaches emptiness, a middle way between existence and nothingness with its original sutta basis in the Kaccayanagota Sutta. This Mahayana business is quite irrelevant. ----------------------------------------------- So I assumed that was the same point you were making. Excuse me if I have put one and one together and come up with three. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Ken. I appreciate your saying this. --------------------------------------------- I would be interested to know, however, how the Mahayana understanding differs from yours - so much so that you are insulted by the mere suggestion they are the same. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Mahayana is a HUGE umbrella, and I have no intention of getting into all that is involved. One aspect of Mahayana that I take great exception to is its pretense that the Mahayana Sutras are the word of the Buddha. Also, there are also some remote corners of Mahayana that have little to do with the Dhamma, though not outright contradicting it. But, in any case, I consider the Pali suttas to contain the true teaching of the Buddha, and all else of Buddhism has to be examined to see whether it is useful or not in helping to understand the original, and on that basis I consider myself a Theravadin. -------------------------------------------- Ken H ========================== With metta, Howard #93044 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:06 pm Subject: Children, Dhamma, Kamma christine_fo... Hello all, There is a recent case in the United States which is causing much discussion about just who the Buddha's Teachings about Kamma are meant to apply to in full. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/11child.html?ref=us Some of my friends are questioning whether an eight year old who allegedly planned and shot dead his father and mate is guilty of performing one of the Five Heinous Acts which automatically send one to Hell for immense lengths of time. Many of us in the psycho-social helping professions have doubts about the mental capacity for eight year olds to make decisions about killing in the same way that adults might intend - and this led to further speculation as to how much the Teachings in all areas take into account the levels of understanding of children. hoping for some clarification from dsg friends, metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #93045 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Dear Scott and all, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex and Sarah, > > "...This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, >passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are >means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the >extent >to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to >which the >cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernability) of >this world >i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness..." > > Here is some more: > > Walshe: Mahaanidaanasutta.m > > "...Thus far then, Aananda, we can trace birth and decay, death and > falling into other states and being reborn, thus far extends the way > of designation, of concepts reaches, thus far is the sphere of > understanding, thus far the round goes as far as can be discerned in > this life, namely to mind-and-body together with consciousness..." > > ...Ettaavataa kho, aananda, jaayetha vaa jiiyetha vaa miiyetha vaa > cavetha vaa upapajjetha vaa. Ettaavataa adhivacanapatho, ettaavataa > niruttipatho, ettaavataa pa~n~nattipatho, ettaavataa >pa~n~naavacara.m, > ettaavataa va.t.ta.m vattati itthatta.m pa~n~naapanaaya yadida.m > naamaruupa.m saha vi~n~naa.nena a~n~nama~n~napaccayataa pavattati... > > Sincerely, > > Scott. The paragraph says that concepts reach vinnana & nama-rupa. Since these things are anicca-dukkha-anatta so are the concepts. Nicca cannot be based on Anicca. If it were so, then we would be able to justify Nicca Atta on anicca vinnana-namarupa. What is wrong with considering concepts as impermanent & conditioned? Personally I KNOW that everything in Samsara is inconstant, conditioned and dependently arisen. "Concepts" belong to nama which is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. The basis of concepts (5 aggregates ONLY) is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. The thing that percieves, labels, and makes sense of concepts is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. For example a dog doesn't know and doesn't have concepts of computer, internet, e-mail and so on. These concepts are non-existent FOR A DOG, but they DO "exist" for humans familiar with these things. That is an example of conditioned nature of concepts. As far as I am concerned, there is no eternal "Concept-Land" where concepts live on forever and ever, permanent and not subject to change. Concepts are concieved as you have said, and that concieving is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. With best wishes, #93046 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma truth_aerator Hi Christine, > Here there was a case when a 12 year old girl convinced her 23 (!) year old boyfriend to kill her parents. Obviously there WAS a deliberate intention there although she made someone else to do it. IMHO, It is one thing to accidentally and due to clumsiness to push your parent off the cliff or to play with a loaded gun which accidentally shoots the parent (if there was 0 intent to kill, just negligence & heedlessness). It is quite different from harboring hatred towards one's own parents and either doing it oneself or getting someone to do it. IMHO. With best wishes, #93047 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Ken H, Howard, All In a message dated 11/29/2008 3:47:13 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: TG had said there were no conditioned dhammas, only conditions. ................................................................... TG: If I said that ... it was in a context of not accepting "dhammas" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics. If "dhammas" are viewed as elements of experience/discernment, pure and simple, then of course "dhammas" are conditioned phenomena. I cannot make a blanket statement about "dhammas" in this group because the meaning of "dhammas" is too varied and ambiguous to make assertive statements about it without a proviso. If I considered "dhammas" to be what I think the KS folks do, then I would just say there is no such thing. I can't accept a faulty premise of what dhammas are, and then speak of it as if that faulty premise is an actual thing that could arise or not. TG OUT #93048 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 and Tiika, part 2. lbidd2 Hi Sarah, S: "So what's your next project? Are you continuing with the other Vism chapters or starting a new series on another text? I'd just like to encourage you:-)" L: No new projects in the works. I feel like what we've covered hasn't really soaked in properly. So I'm working on absorbency:-) Larry #93049 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:19 pm Subject: Transience at all times... bhikkhu0 Friends: Transient whether Internal, External, Past, Present or Future!!! At Savatthi The Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus, any eye & any form is impermanent, whether internal, external, past, present or future. Seeing this any educated Noble Disciple becomes indifferent towards any past vision & any past form, he does not search for delight in any future vision nor any future form, & he cultivates disgust for any present vision & present form in order to make it all fade away & cease... Any ear & any sound is impermanent; Any nose & any smell is impermanent; Any tongue & flavour is impermanent; Any body & any touch is impermanent; Any mind & any mental state is impermanent, whether internal, or external, past, present or future. Seeing this any educated Noble Disciple becomes indifferent towards any past mind & any past mental state, he does not search for delight in any future mind nor any future mental state, & he do indeed cultivate disgust for any present mind, mood, mentality & any present mental state so to make it fade away, be all stilled, tranquilized & cease... More on impermanence, inconstancy, & transience (Anicca) Anicca (Impermanence) According to Theravada (Bhikkhu Ñanamoli) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html .... Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. IV 4 The group on the 6 Senses 35:7 Transient in all Three Times. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Transience hails at all times... #93050 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:56 am Subject: Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma christine_fo... Hello Alex, all, Thank you for your response. I understand and empathise with your feelings. But I am wondering, chiefly, about this part of my post: .... "how much the Teachings in all areas take into account the levels of understanding of children". That is, will this little 8 year old go to the Hell Realms upon his death for murdering his father, given the following view of the capacity for someone of his age to only partially understand the result of his action? "Piaget notes increased capacity for reasoning and the ability to organise sequentially and count backwards (subtract) during the period from 6 to 8 years (Piaget1955,1972). The fact that children are learning to read and use language signals their developing cognitive abilities. This development not only facilitates mastery of reading, writing, and arithmetic, it also opens the child's thinking to more accurate comprehension of the mysteries of life and death. Whereas the concept of the body and the spirit confuses the preschool child, who puzzles about how the deceased can simultaneously be in heaven and in a grave at the cemetery (Saravay, 1991) children of 9 or 10 can dramatize a puppet play that expresses the wish to visit their parents in heaven, despite knowing clearly taht they are buried in a cemetery. (Bluestone, 1999). The elementary-school-age child knows that death is final and that it will happen to everybody "sometime". However, children of this age believe that death happens primarily to the elderly and weak who cannot run fast enough to escape the pursuing "ghost, ange, or space creature" who will cause their death (Fox, 1985); Nagy, 1948); 6 - 8-year-olds, therefore, believe that young people their age usually do not die because they can run fast! According to Lonetto, "death for the child from six to eight years old is personified, externalized, and can be avoided if seen in time. Death is not yet finalized; rather, it assumes various external forms (skeletons, ghosts, the death-man)" (1980, p. 100). By 9 or 10 years of age children develop a more realistic perception." Helping bereaved children - By Nancy Boyd Webb p.6 metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > #93051 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma TGrand458@... Hi Chris In a message dated 11/30/2008 1:57:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: Hello Alex, all, Thank you for your response. I understand and empathise with your feelings. But I am wondering, chiefly, about this part of my post: .... "how much the Teachings in all areas take into account the levels of understanding of children". That is, will this little 8 year old go to the Hell Realms upon his death for murdering his father, given the following view of the capacity for someone of his age to only partially understand the result of his action? ................................................... TG: No one can say. None of us can say for sure whether there are any Hell realms...and if there are, no one here can know this kids kamma. To my knowledge, the Buddha did not speak about children in this context so there is no known clear Buddhist answer. But he did say that we are not capable of knowing another persons Kamma...I do believe. Unless the kid was very mentally retarded, and that doesn't appear to be the case, I figure he had a pretty good idea of what he was doing; and the audio I heard shows a real cold as ice personality IMO. I figure he could use a little time in the Big H. Its a learning experience. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I was 8 and much younger, it was pretty clear to me that "off-ing" your parents with a shot-gun was a no no. Multiple loads into two different people and checking to see if Dad was "a little bit alive"? This kid may not only belong in Hell, he may be the CEO. On the other hand, to some extent, he is the victim of conditions. He was raised in a society where ethical standards have dropped radically since I was a kid. Right from Wrong are darn near politically incorrect to discern. TV, movies, media, present a pretty cold, sterile, and impersonal world. Little to no guidance from these quarters...or perhaps just negative guidance. Who knows if he received a wholesome upbringing at home or not. "Not" seems like a good bet, but I hate to lay a possible bad rap on Dad who has had enough bad breaks of late. The kid did what he did based on conditions...but then...we go to heaven or hell or wherever based on conditions as well. So it doesn't work as an excuse. Conditions do what they do and he'll end up where he ends up based on such. You reap what you sow and I don't think it matters whether you've turned 18 or not. OK, so compassion isn't my strong suit. ;-) TG OUT #93052 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma sarahprocter... Hi Chris & all, --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Christine Forsyth wrote: >Some of my friends are questioning whether an eight year old who allegedly planned and shot dead his father and mate is guilty of performing one of the Five Heinous Acts which automatically send one to Hell for immense lengths of time. Many of us in the psycho-social helping professions have doubts about the mental capacity for eight year olds to make decisions about killing in the same way that adults might intend - and this led to further speculation as to how much the Teachings in all areas take into account the levels of understanding of children. ..... S: Thanks for raising a good topic. Here are just a few of my reflections on this: I think we're so used to thinking of kamma in terms of people performing deeds and experiencing results when actually it can only be understood in terms of cittas - kinds of consciousness, accompanied by particular intentions bringing about particular results by way of vipaka cittas and rupas conditioned by such kamma. So, in terms of cittas and intentions, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about an adult, a child, an animal or being in a hell-realm for that matter. Akusala cittas of a particular strength lead to akusala kamma patha which will bring about particular akusala vipaka. Clearly, if the act is an accident and not intended, there is no akusala kamma involved. However, if the act is intended and the akusala is of sufficient strength, ignorance about the true harm of such akusala (because of being young, old, an animal, a deprived upbringing or whatever) doesn't mitigate the effect of the kamma. In fact, I believe it's the opposite - akusala without any knowledge of it being akusala is considered more harmful than the same akusala with knowledge of such. Again, this is why the human birth is so very precious - there is an opportunity to understand such deeply accumulated tendencies which for beings and creatures in woeful planes there is not. This morning, I was explaining to some small, very naughty children (aged 5 and 7) why it's important to treat other people kindly and with courtesy. One reason I gave, with the pictures of Mumbai in front of us, was that we never know what may happen next. Now we have this opportunity. Children can begin to appreciate this at a very young age. I told them about our friend Peter's sudden death, about the funeral arrangements and our plans to attend which we'd had to cancel because of the airport closure. They asked lots of questions about the body, the ashes and bones and whether even children could suddenly die. Anytime at all and so we'd better learn to show respect to others now, I told them. I don't know if it helped, but at least some seeds may have been planted. I'll be glad to hear any further comments. Metta, Sarah ======== #93053 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma christine_fo... Hello TG, all, Thanks for putting forward (somewhat forcefully) your particular point of view TG; ~ it doesn't quite jell with my experience of raising a son and a daughter, and their various capabilities at different ages. I am hoping someone will be able to explain the Teachings on anantarika-kamma a little more, particularly with regard to those who are not of normal adult intelligence - with some references please. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > #93054 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Dear Alex (TG, Scott & all), --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Scott wrote: >>A: "I do not think that translating a thing from 'sankhara' or 'dhamma' changes anything." ..... S: Your point (and TG's, I believe) is that concepts are also conditioned and that the ti-lakkhana also apply to them. In support of this you quoted from the Mahaanidaana Sutta: You wrote: A:> "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. " _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://wwhttp://www._ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html) A: >So concepts are made on namarupa & vinnana which are impermanent, dependently arisen, not-self and so on. I also hope that everyone would agree with the right view of that 5 aggregates are anicca-dukkha-agree w 5 aggregates is what samsara is made of. .... S: "Namarupa and vinnana are impermanent, dependently arisen, not-self and so on" as you say. Concepts about these realities are used for designations and expression but they are not the realities and they are not impermanent and dependently arisen. They are concepts used here for communication. Yes, we all agree that the "5 aggregates are anicca-dukkha......samsara is made of". These 5 aggregates do NOT include concepts, however. Scott has kindly given us another translation of the text above with the Pali: >Walshe: Mahaanidaanasutta. m >"...Thus far then, Aananda, we can trace birth and decay, death and falling into other states and being reborn, thus far extends the way of designation, of concepts reaches, thus far is the sphere of understanding, thus far the round goes as far as can be discerned in this life, namely to mind-and-body together with consciousness. .." >...Ettaavataa kho, aananda, jaayetha vaa jiiyetha vaa miiyetha vaa cavetha vaa upapajjetha vaa. Ettaavataa adhivacanapatho, ettaavataa niruttipatho, ettaavataa pa~n~nattipatho, ettaavataa pa~n~naavacara. m, ettaavataa va.t.ta.m vattati itthatta.m pa~n~naapanaaya yadida.m naamaruupa.m saha vi~n~naa.nena a~n~nama~n~napaccay ataa pavattati... .... Sarah: From B.Bodhi's translation of the commentaries to this: " 'It is to this extent, Aananda, that one can be born....and re-arise....' "Cy. When consciousness is a condition for mentality-materiality, when mentality-materiality is a condition for consciousness, when the two occur as conditions for one another, it is by this much that one can be born...pass away and re-arise, that birth, etc., or repeated death and rebirth-linking, can be discerned. "Sub.Cy. He shows: 'The entire round of sa"msaara occurs by this much - by the five aggregates, here called consciousness and mentality-materiality, occurring with one another as support.' " 'By this much' (ettakena): by this much only. This is a phrase of inclusive emphasis meaning: 'not through anything else besides this, through a self having the intrinsic nature of a subject or agent or through a creator God, etc.'" " 'To this extent that there is a pathway for designation, etc.' "Cy. 'A pathway for designation' (adhivacanapatha): a pathway for an expression used through the application of a mere word regardless of meaning, as in the case of names such as 'Siriva.d.dhaka,' 'Dhanava.d.dhaka,' etc. 'A pathway for language' (niruttipatha): a pathway for an expression used with reference to a reason; thus one is called 'mindful' because one has mindfulness or 'clearly comprehending' because one clearly comprehends. 'A pathway for description' (pa~n~nattipatha): a pathway for an expression used to communicate (an idea) through diverse aspects; thus 'wise, clever, intelligent, subtle, proficient,' etc. These three terms refer to the aggregates which become the basis for designation, language, and description. "Sub.Cy. 'Pathway': a path of application, the domain for its application. Since the terms 'designation,' 'language,' and 'description' here have the same meaning and all statements share the nature of designation, etc., the words 'designation,' etc. - though used with distinction (of meaning) in relation to certain statements - here refer to all statements collectively through their sameness in revealing meaning through description." " 'To this extent that there is a sphere for wisdom, etc.' "Cy. 'A sphere for wisdom' (pa~n~naavacara): that which is to be encompassed by wisdom, that which can be known. 'The round turns': the round of sa"msaara turns. 'This present state of being': this is a name for the five aggregates. 'For describing': for the sake of describing by names, for the description by the names 'feeling.' 'perception,' etc. The meaning is: the five aggregates too are discerned to this extent. 'That is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness': what is meant is, to the extent that mentality-materiality and consciousness occur as conditions for one another. This statement refers back (to all previous phrases preceded by 'to this extent'.) **** Sarah: Lots of terms, labels and descriptions are used, but in the end, it is only the 5 khandhas - the various namas and rupas which can ever be known because it is they that exist and which samsara consists of. Metta, Sarah ======== #93055 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Fri, 28/11/08, Alex wrote: >5 aggregates is what samsara is made of. It is impossible to state anything lying outside of 5 aggregates (SN 35.23). >"The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn35/sn35. 023.than. html >Concepts are within that "all" which is anicca-dukkha- anatta. .... S: Sorry, Alex, but this "All" refers to the ayatanas. These refer to the same realities as the descriptions of the Elements or the Khandhas [although nibbana is never included in the latter]. Concepts are not part of the "All" to be known with insight. Knowing concepts means thinking about concepts.. However much they're thought about, even with very pure cittas (as in the development of samatha), such knowing will never bring about detachment from the idea of self or any kind of liberation. Metta, Sarah ======== #93056 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Thu, 27/11/08, Alex wrote: A:> There IS a person named such and such, it is just that that person is anicca-dukkha- anatta. "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn22/sn22. 022.than. html .... S: [See lots more on this under 'Burden' in U.P.]. Here's an extract from one I wrote a long time ago: >"Spk: Thus, by the expression 'the carrier of the burden,' he shows the person to be a mere convention. For the person is called the carrier of the burden because it 'picks up' the burden of the aggregates at the moment of rebirth, maintains the burden by bathing, feeding, seating, and laying them down during the course of life, and then discards them at the moment of death, only to take up another burden of aggregates at the moment of rebirth." ..... >S: I think we should read suttas like this in the context of all the other suttas in Khandhasa.myutta which stress again and again that the only conditioned dhammas which exist at this very moment are the 5 khandhas, no separate person. >SN22:94 Flowers: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." ..... Metta, Sarah ======== #93057 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Serious questions regarding ParaNibbana & Arhatship sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Thu, 27/11/08, Alex wrote: >Thank you for your reply. The follow up question: How can pariNibbana be an object of the mind? ..... S: If you're referring to khandha-parinibbaana (or an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana), it refers to the cessation of the khandhas, the 'no-more-continuing' of the khandhas at the death of the arahat. Therefore, only a concept, a vague idea of parinibbana can be the object of the mind now. Even for the arahat, the last citta, cuti citta experiences the same object experienced during life by the patisandhi and bhavanga cittas. After that, there is no further citta to experience anything. .... >I accept that non-greed non-hate non-delusion CAN be an object of the mind. However a full and complete termination of 5 khandas and all consciousness itself cannot be an object of the mind. ..... S: See above. .... >Consciousness is always of something and Nibbana isn't some *thing*. ..... S: At moments of lokuttara cittas arising, nibbana is the object. It's a reality. I recommend you look at the section under 'Nibbana' in Nyantiloka's dictionary. Let me know if anything isn't clear/you disagree with any of it.. (I can't get the link to work now). ..... A:> The Buddha has also said something similiar to this that there cannot be "pure" consciousness and it is always consciousness OF something where paraNibbana isn't some thing to be aware of. ..... S: Perhaps you can find the quote you're referring to. Lokuttara cittas are very "pure". Yes, consciousness has to have an object and yes paranibbana (or cessation of the khandhas) is not "some thing to be aware of". Thanks for these further questions. Let's discuss it further if you'd care to. Metta, Sarah p.s See also "Nibbana and Parinibbana" and "Parinibbana" in U.P. - lots of textual (inc. sutta) detail, I'm sure. ======= #93058 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma szmicio Dear Sarah > S: Thanks for raising a good topic. Here are just a few of my reflections on this: > > I think we're so used to thinking of kamma in terms of people performing deeds and experiencing results when actually it can only be understood in terms of cittas - kinds of consciousness, accompanied by particular intentions bringing about particular results by way of vipaka cittas and rupas conditioned by such kamma. -------------------------------------------------------------------- L: No person in it. Just conditioned realities. This active power which 'do something' is the same contitioned as vipaka. We can't do anything, but can listening and considering more, when condtions are present. I think about sankhara khandha, becouse some of this cetasikas has 'active power' and perform kamma. I've found some difficulties in paticcasamupada. The Buddha said: avija paccaya sankhara, sankhara paccaya vinjana. What Buddha means by sankhara? Is it sankhara khnadha or conditioned realities- sankhara/sankhata? -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > So, in terms of cittas and intentions, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about an adult, a child, an animal or being in a hell- realm for that matter. Akusala cittas of a particular strength lead to akusala kamma patha which will bring about particular akusala vipaka. Clearly, if the act is an accident and not intended, there is no akusala kamma involved. -------------------------------------------------------------------- L: What do you mean by intended? Which cetasika chose what is intended or not? There is intention(cetana), but it's conditioned as well. So no one at all. But there is intention. But what is the function of intention in javana proccess? When we talk about intention we mean 'this intention which is good intention to do something or bad intention to do something else'? Or maybe cittas thinks? -------------------------------------------------------------------- > However, if the act is intended and the akusala is of sufficient strength, ignorance about the true harm of such akusala (because of being young, old, an animal, a deprived upbringing or whatever) doesn't mitigate the effect of the kamma. In fact, I believe it's the opposite - akusala without any knowledge of it being akusala is considered more harmful than the same akusala with knowledge of such. -------------------------------------------------------------------- L: What level of knowing kusala do you mean? What kind of knowladge? Only pa~n~na can now akusala/kusala. Usually we dont't know it. Just thinking about what is good and what's bad. just pa~n~na which is so rare.Sarah can you say something more about those kind of pa~n~na which knows what's kusala or not? It's not pa~n~na of vipassna,isn't it? --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Children can begin to appreciate this at a very young age. I told them about our friend Peter's sudden death, about the funeral arrangements and our plans to attend which we'd had to cancel because of the airport closure. They asked lots of questions about the body, the ashes and bones and whether even children could suddenly die. Anytime at all and so we'd better learn to show respect to others now, I told them. > I don't know if it helped, but at least some seeds may have been planted. -------------------------------------------------------------- L: We are the same as those children. We hear Dhamma because of conditions, we consider it in the correct way, because of conditions, we undersand it because of conditions. because seed was planted Best wishes Lukas #93059 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:27 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > > What the Buddha discovered and explained is the world of dhammas, > > and the way that this could be experienced. Through the (very gradual) > > development of understanding about the world of dhammas, the > > perception of a world of people and things is seen for what it is: a > > kind of perception only. > > James: I am not following you here because I see a type of > contradiction in what you are saying. I am trying to establish a > type of ontology here: do people exist or not (or both exist and not > exist depending on how you define "exist")? Now you are saying that > it is a "world of dhammas". To me, that establishes the ontology > that people don't exist, only dhammas exist. But then you state > that people exist as a type of perception. Well, that doesn't > really tell me anything. There are true perceptions and there are > false perceptions. Which do you consider people to be, a true > perception or a false perception? I'm not at all sure that the question you'd like an answer to ('Do people exist?') is one the Buddha spoke on. And I suspect the reason for that is that the answer is not going to help with the development of the path. In any event, the answer will very much depend, as you suggest, on how "exist" is defined. What do you hope to achieve by pursuing the question? BTW, I did not say that "people exist as a type of perception". I said that the perception of a world of people and things is just that: a kind of perception (only). To my understanding, the enlightened being still perceives a world of people and things, but not with any trace on an idea of those people and things having existence in the ultimate sense, i.e., in the sense that dhammas can be said to exist (albeit only momentarily). Hoping this clarifies. Jon #93060 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:28 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > > It's not a matter of what exists in samsara; it's a matter of what > > the world actually is at a given moment. At the moment of seeing, > > the world is in fact just the visible object being experienced at > > that moment. But we are unable to perceive this fact (due to lack > > of developed understanding). > > James: This description of the world, or The All, doesn't correspond > with what the Buddha taught. He taught that the world was the six > senses and their objects, not just one object and one doorway at a > time. This is a radical difference so I believe the Buddha would be > very clear about that if that is what he meant. And, the Buddha was > omniscient so we have to trust what he "saw" in this regard. To my understanding, the Buddha taught that the All is the 6 worlds of the 6 sense doors. The implication is that only one object is known at a time. Is it your understanding that the Buddha taught that the 6 worlds are known simultaneously? If so, we may need to look at some sutta passages on the matter. Jon #93061 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma christine_fo... Hello Sarah, Thank you for this post. It helps me to begin considering the eight year old from the pov of beginingless time, and the uncountable rebecomings this particular flux of consciousness has undergone. I can understand that the eight year old could possibly have brought to this life-time kammic accumulations and latent tendencies that I cannot possibly know. It may be that many of the previous rebirths included much killing, so that planning to kill his father arose out of strong habitual tendencies. Still ... it is hard to unhook from only seeing a very young boy, and the feelings which arise when thinking of my own son at that age. I am shocked to read in your post that Peter died unexpectedly - I am sending you an email about this. I have been away at a Retreat with Patrick Kearney at Bodhi Forest Monastery - so have missed a few weeks news. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > #93062 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, Thank you for your reflections and comments --- On Sun, 30/11/08, szmicio wrote: >>S: I think we're so used to thinking of kamma in terms of people performing deeds and experiencing results when actually it can only be understood in terms of cittas - kinds of consciousness, accompanied by particular intentions bringing about particular results by way of vipaka cittas and rupas conditioned by such kamma. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >L: No person in it. Just conditioned realities. This active power which 'do something' is the same contitioned as vipaka. .... S: Yes, no person in it, just conditioned realities. Kamma is not the same as vipaka, but maybe I misunderstand what you say here. .... L:> We can't do anything, but can listening and considering more, when condtions are present. I think about sankhara khandha, becouse some of this cetasikas has 'active power' and perform kamma. ..... S: In particular, the cetana cetasika which the khandha is named after. .... L:> I've found some difficulties in paticcasamupada. The Buddha said: avija paccaya sankhara, sankhara paccaya vinjana. What Buddha means by sankhara? Is it sankhara khnadha or conditioned realities- sankhara/sankhata? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - S: It refers particularly to the (past) kamma, i.e cetana, which conditioned the rebirth consciousness and other vipaka cittas of this life. .... >>S: So, in terms of cittas and intentions, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about an adult, a child, an animal or being in a hell- realm for that matter. Akusala cittas of a particular strength lead to akusala kamma patha which will bring about particular akusala vipaka. Clearly, if the act is an accident and not intended, there is no akusala kamma involved. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >L: What do you mean by intended? Which cetasika chose what is intended or not? There is intention(cetana) , but it's conditioned as well. So no one at all. But there is intention. ..... S: Yes, the conditioned cetana (intention) in the javana process which was accumulated to be of sufficient strength with all factors in place (i.e. knowing there was a living being, intending to kill, death taking place etc). Of course, many such processes are involved for such kamma to occur. ..... >L: But what is the function of intention in javana proccess? When we talk about intention we mean 'this intention which is good intention to do something or bad intention to do something else'? Or maybe cittas thinks? .... S: When we talk or think generally about intention, it's different from the intention in the javana process which co-ordinates the other mental factors and furthermore, 'wills' the kusala or akusala. In the Atthasalini it refers it gives several analogies, such as that of the general who leads the soldiers by example and encourages them to fight. [See more under 'cetana' in "Cetasikas" by Nina.] ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >>S: However, if the act is intended and the akusala is of sufficient strength, ignorance about the true harm of such akusala (because of being young, old, an animal, a deprived upbringing or whatever) doesn't mitigate the effect of the kamma. In fact, I believe it's the opposite - akusala without any knowledge of it being akusala is considered more harmful than the same akusala with knowledge of such. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >L: What level of knowing kusala do you mean? What kind of knowladge? Only pa~n~na can now akusala/kusala. .... S: As you suggest, there are different degrees and kinds of knowing or pa~n~naa. The greater the knowledge the more precious. If it is that of satipatthana which understands kusala and akusala dhammas as anatta, it's most beneficial. The sotapanna cannot be re-born in a lower realm, for example. .... L:> Usually we dont't know it. Just thinking about what is good and what's bad. just pa~n~na which is so rare.Sarah can you say something more about those kind of pa~n~na which knows what's kusala or not? It's not pa~n~na of vipassna,isn' t it? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - .... S: Any kind/level of panna is kusala. It may just be some wise considering with calm about what is good and what is bad, like a child or someone who has never heard the teachings might do. There can be moments of samatha when there is wise reflection on death or the development of metta in a day. This is not the panna of vipassana as you say. Even if kusala is known as kusala and akusala as akusala, there isn't the understanding of dana or metta as a dhamma which is anatta. ..... >>S: Children can begin to appreciate this at a very young age. I told them about our friend Peter's sudden death, about the funeral arrangements and our plans to attend which we'd had to cancel because of the airport closure. They asked lots of questions about the body, the ashes and bones and whether even children could suddenly die. Anytime at all and so we'd better learn to show respect to others now, I told them. > I don't know if it helped, but at least some seeds may have been planted. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >L: We are the same as those children. We hear Dhamma because of conditions, we consider it in the correct way, because of conditions, we undersand it because of conditions. because seed was planted .... S: Yes, you're right. We're just like those children. There are just moments of wise and unwise reflection, moments of kusala and akusala with seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching in between. Most of the time, like those children, we're just concerned with our own welfare, our own pleasures, without any consideration of others, without any understanding of what appears now. But, as you say, the seeds have been planted and we need to hear the Dhamma again and again. It never is enough, given the accumulations for akusala and the strong latent tendencies for all that is harmful. Thanks, Lukas. The seeds are there for wise reflection and direct understanding of the realities now. Metta, Sarah ======= #93063 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:14 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex I meant to reply to this post of yours some time ago, but got distracted by other things. Sorry for taking so long. > > 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. Thanks, but my question was whether it is your understanding that all insight requires the prior attainment of jhana, or whether it is only all enlightenment that requires prior jhana. I don't think you've addressed this question in your reply (above). The question arises because in an earlier post you said: > But insight HAS to be based on Jhana according to that Sutta. I was wondering whether you really meant to say "enlightenment" instead of "insight", which was your previous position (I think). Jon #93064 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi TG Just butting in if I may. > Being mindful of the aggregates and elements and the conditions pertaining > thereto is one thing. It is a good thing! > > "Seeing" them [aggregates and elements] as "ultimate realities with > their own characteristics" as if that were the goal, I don't recall Nina talking about a goal of "seeing" the aggregates as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." I think what has been said is this: The development of insight is the direct experiencing of dhammas by panna of the level that sees them as they truly are, namely, as anicca, dukkha and anatta. These 3 characteristics (anicca, dukkha and anatta) are characteristics that inhere to aggregates and elements, to all conditioned dhammas. In addition, each dhamma has a characteristic that is unique to that particular dhamma, that makes it that dhamma and not some other. Jon #93065 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Christine Forsyth wrote: >Thank you for this post. It helps me to begin considering the eight year old from the pov of beginingless time, and the uncountable rebecomings this particular flux of consciousness has undergone. I can understand that the eight year old could possibly have brought to this life-time kammic accumulations and latent tendencies that I cannot possibly know. It may be that many of the previous rebirths included much killing, so that planning to kill his father arose out of strong habitual tendencies. ..... S: Yes, isn't this exactly what we read about again and again in the Teachings? Strong habitual tendencies which manifest in lifetime after lifetime. Of course, when it comes to wholesome tendencies such as that of wisdom, the same applies, but these are rarer. ..... C:> Still ... it is hard to unhook from only seeing a very young boy, and the feelings which arise when thinking of my own son at that age. .... S: I know. Again, I think it's because of sanna that we have such strong associations and ideas. Actually, young children can be very cruel, cutting up insects and so on, in complete ignorance of the akusala being accumulated.. I think we also tend to be influenced by modern social/phsychological theories concerning genetics and environment, all of which misses the mark as we know with regard to the true causes of tendencies, to kamma and vipaka. .... C:> I am shocked to read in your post that Peter died unexpectedly - I am sending you an email about this. I have been away at a Retreat with Patrick Kearney at Bodhi Forest Monastery - so have missed a few weeks news. .... S: It was only a week ago. You may like to read this message which I wrote on the day I heard. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92914 Yes, we were all shocked. It's hard to accept that it was just the result of kamma, but that again is because we think of the person, our dear, easy-going friend with a keen interest in the Dhamma. In terms of cittas, cuti-citta can come anytime at all, conditioned by past kamma. As I said, we had planned to go to the funeral, especially the cremation today and spent much of the week making and changing bookings without success.. Unfortunately, as far as I know, his son, Saul, was also unable to get a flight in, or Maeve. Peter's brother did manage to arrive before the airport was closed, however. I was just searching for the link of my earlier message above when I came across a note referring to an accident Peter had exactly two years ago when he nearly lost his life. Appropriately, Jon wrote to him at the time to say he found it a "timely reminder that life is very fragile and out of control." I know Peter appreciated this truth. I hope your retreat went well. That's in the Blue Mountains isn't it? Metta, Sarah ====== #93066 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma szmicio Dear Sarah, > Thank you for your reflections and comments > > --- On Sun, 30/11/08, szmicio wrote: > >>S: I think we're so used to thinking of kamma in terms of people > performing deeds and experiencing results when actually it can only be > understood in terms of cittas - kinds of consciousness, accompanied by > particular intentions bringing about particular results by way of > vipaka cittas and rupas conditioned by such kamma. > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - > >L: No person in it. Just conditioned realities. This active power > which 'do something' is the same contitioned as vipaka. > .... > S: Yes, no person in it, just conditioned realities. Kamma is not the same as vipaka, but maybe I misunderstand what you say here. > .... L: Yeah.A little misunderstanding. I mean kamma and vipaka are both conditioned but in different way. So no control at all, just conditions. I find this topic very interesting and useful to discuss dhamma. We usually thinks about ourselfs that we can control "our kamma" and we take it for ours. We think that we are performing metta and all kusala. But it's not true. I think its good to know that dhammas perform the function of kamma. No one there. Just conditioned realities. No one can change things. Best wishes Lukas #93067 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Transience at all times... upasaka_howard Hi, all - In a message dated 11/30/2008 12:47:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Bhikkhu Samahita quotes the Buddha: At Savatthi The Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus, any eye & any form is impermanent, whether internal, external, past, present or future. Seeing this any educated Noble Disciple becomes indifferent towards any past vision & any past form, he does not search for delight in any future vision nor any future form, & he cultivates disgust for any present vision & present form in order to make it all fade away & cease... Any ear & any sound is impermanent; Any nose & any smell is impermanent; Any tongue & flavour is impermanent; Any body & any touch is impermanent; Any mind & any mental state is impermanent, whether internal, or external, past, present or future. Seeing this any educated Noble Disciple becomes indifferent towards any past mind & any past mental state, he does not search for delight in any future mind nor any future mental state, & he do indeed cultivate disgust for any present mind, mood, mentality & any present mental state so to make it fade away, be all stilled, tranquilized & cease... ============================== I don't know the Pali, but assuming that this is a correct translation into English I wish to point out something: Here the Buddha says that with regard to sights, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily sensations, and mind-door objects, seeing the impermanence of such, "an educated noble disciple" becomes indifferent to a past or present occurrence, avoids grasping after any future occurrence, and "so (as) to make it fade away, (and ) be all stilled, tranquilized & cease," s/he cultivates distaste for such. This suggests to me purposeful, intentional, goal-directed action. The disciple, having seen the ungraspable nature of phenomena, is said to avoid attachment to phenomena in order to cultivate, i.e., with the aim of cultivating, distaste and conditioning the fading away of states. Here we have intentional, goal-driven action on the part of the aspirant. With metta, Howard /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #93068 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:30 am Subject: Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma truth_aerator Hello Christine, >Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Alex, all, > > > But I am wondering, chiefly, about this part of my post: .... "how > much the Teachings in all areas take into account the levels of > understanding of children". If there isn't intention to murder one's parents, then it *probably* isn't an *intentional* killing. As I understand it the Jains would disagree. For them murder is murder regardless of intention. "In common law jurisdictions, murder has two elements or parts: 1) the act (actus reus) of killing a person 2)the state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton. " "For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter[17] constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.[18]" " 40.15 Mental disease or defect. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong." Maybe it could be argued that it wasn't murder due to defect (young age, undeveloped mind). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder How can an 8 year old kill his/her parents? Can you please provide examples of what has happened? It *may* be that accidental killing (ex: playing with loaded guns) isn't considered to be volitional kamma of killing a parent. But making plans to murder one's parents IS IMHO an intention. Your post below IS interesting. > That is, will this little 8 year old go to the Hell Realms upon his > death for murdering his father, given the following view of the > capacity for someone of his age to only partially understand the > result of his action? > > "Piaget notes increased capacity for reasoning and the ability to > organise sequentially and count backwards (subtract) during the > period from 6 to 8 years (Piaget1955,1972). The fact that children > are learning to read and use language signals their developing > cognitive abilities. This development not only facilitates mastery > of reading, writing, and arithmetic, it also opens the child's > thinking to more accurate comprehension of the mysteries of life and > death. Whereas the concept of the body and the spirit confuses the > preschool child, who puzzles about how the deceased can > simultaneously be in heaven and in a grave at the cemetery (Saravay, > 1991) children of 9 or 10 can dramatize a puppet play that expresses > the wish to visit their parents in heaven, despite knowing clearly > taht they are buried in a cemetery. (Bluestone, 1999). > The elementary-school-age child knows that death is final and > that it will happen to everybody "sometime". However, children of > this age believe that death happens primarily to the elderly and weak > who cannot run fast enough to escape the pursuing "ghost, ange, or > space creature" who will cause their death (Fox, 1985); Nagy, 1948); > 6 - 8-year-olds, therefore, believe that young people their age > usually do not die because they can run fast! According to > Lonetto, "death for the child from six to eight years old is > personified, externalized, and can be avoided if seen in time. Death > is not yet finalized; rather, it assumes various external forms > (skeletons, ghosts, the death-man)" (1980, p. 100). By 9 or 10 years > of age children develop a more realistic perception." Helping > bereaved children - By Nancy Boyd Webb p.6 > > metta > Chris With best wishes, #93069 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma truth_aerator Hi Sarah, Christine and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Chris & all, > ..... > S: Thanks for raising a good topic. Here are just a few of my >reflections on this: > > I think we're so used to thinking of kamma in terms of people >performing deeds and experiencing results when actually it can only >be understood in terms of cittas - kinds of consciousness, >accompanied by particular intentions bringing about particular >results by way of vipaka cittas and rupas conditioned by such kamma. >>> If most people start thinking about people in terms of just elements then many people would not mind killing or cheating or doing what they like because "Hey there is no one there to be hurt!" . Advanced teachings must come later when the proper moral and wisdom groundwork has been laid. > > So, in terms of cittas and intentions, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about an adult, a child, an animal or being in a hell- realm for that matter. Akusala cittas of a particular strength lead to akusala kamma patha which will bring about particular akusala vipaka. Clearly, if the act is an accident and not intended, there is no akusala kamma involved. > There was a story of a blind Arahant who accidently (he didn't see!) stepped on many insects killing them. There was NO Kamma there. Only the Jains would consider unintentional killing as doing bad Kamma and they used to argue quite a bit with Buddhists regarding this. With best wishes, #93070 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Scott, TG and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex (TG, Scott & all), > > > --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Scott wrote: > >>A: "I do not think that translating a thing from 'sankhara' or > 'dhamma' changes anything." > ..... >S: Your point (and TG's, I believe) is that concepts are also >conditioned and that the ti-lakkhana also apply to them. In support >of this you quoted from the Mahaanidaana Sutta: > > .... > S: "Namarupa and vinnana are impermanent, dependently arisen, not- >self and so on" as you say. Concepts about these realities are used >for designations and expression but they are not the realities and >they are not impermanent and dependently arisen. How can concepts not be realities if we speak about them even NOW! Even mirage & hallucinations are real (although their content isn't). How could "Concepts about these realities are used" if these concepts don't exist as you say! If we talk about concepts, then they "exist" as figures of speech, speech which as you know made up of the certain sense bases, elements, sense faculties - WHICH DO EXIST. > They are concepts used here for communication. And what do we use for communication? The 5 aggregates. With best wishes, #93071 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi Sarah, Concepts are elements of the mind and are mind made. There cannot be concepts outside of the mind and those elements on which concepts are based. Please don't convince us the Platonic forms exist. What's next, an Atta that exist outside of 5 Khanadas, 12 ayatanas and 6 consciousness? With best wishes, #93072 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Hi Sarah, I didn't mean it differently. A concept of a person is based on 5 khandas, just like a concept of anything is based on 5 khandas. Buddha has never denied conventional people and situations. The whole sutta pitaka is testament to that. Just remember the conditioned, impermanent, inconstant, stressful and Anatta nature of everything. > #93073 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:05 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon, >--- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > Thanks, but my question was whether it is your understanding that all > insight requires the prior attainment of jhana, or whether it is only > all enlightenment that requires prior jhana. There are definite suttas that one must perfect Jhana for Anagamiship and not to mention Arahatship. With path to stream entry it is more complicated. Since stream entry doesn't cut off or weaken lust & hatred (2 of the hindrances for Jhana) Jhana doesn't play as much role, although it certainly can help, especially today. While it is true that in MN2 and AN2.x it states that two conditions must be met for achieving right view (synonymous with stream entry) that do not specifically include Jhana. Jhana does help one to prepare, soften and clean the mind for insight required for Stream Entry. With best wishes, #93074 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, Alex, Fellow Conceptualists In a message dated 11/30/2008 3:53:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: "Namarupa and vinnana are impermanent, dependently arisen, not-self and so on" as you say. Concepts about these realities are used for designations and expression but they are not the realities and they are not impermanent and dependently arisen. They are concepts used here for communication. Yes, we all agree that the "5 aggregates are anicca-dukkha.S: "Namarupa and vinnana are impermanent, dependently arisen, not-self and so ............................................ TG: (<------ I learned that from you and now conditionality is rearing its ugly head.) ;-) Concepts are mental phenomena. They are based on the body/mind complex. Whatever concept arises will be based on conditions. You are formulating concepts about this topic now because reading this post is a condition that is causing related concepts to arise. When you read a different post about a different topic, these concepts will fall and different concepts regarding that topic will arise...due to conditions. ( Of course a whole lot more conceptual activity is going to happen in between...in accordance with conditions.) And concepts are continually rising and falling (altering) based on conditional interactions. Mindfulness can see it happening and see the causal relationship. Concepts are just another conditioned phenomena ... mental phenomena, and they have the same conditioned, impermanent, no-self, and most definitely affliction nature when grasped. Concepts consist only of mental phenomena. They are a conditionally relative network consisting of memories of perceptions, attention, etc. They are often on the side of delusion when the mind takes whatever is conceived to be or represent a "self" or "entity" and anything "of its own." Or when the mind conceives of any arisen phenomena as permanent. The concept that concepts are not conditioned and are permanent is a blatant example of such delusion. Whooops. ;-) The irony is -- is that you are actually "substantializing" concepts too ... by giving them this special permanent/non-existent status. Somehow, through your viewpoints, you've managed to turn a "non-existent" into an permanent entity!!! Only the commentaries could have done that. LOL My concepts are not your concepts. They differ as our conditions differ. Its just internal mental phenomena completely dependent on conditions and as impermanent as those conditions. Would there be any conceptualization going on, on Earth, if it weren't for the sun? OMG, Concepts here are dependent on the sun (heat). Among multifarious other conditions. TG OUT #93075 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, All In a message dated 11/30/2008 4:00:33 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Concepts are not part of the "All" to be known with insight. Knowing concepts means thinking about concepts.. However much they're thought about, even with very pure cittas (as in the development of samatha), such knowing will never bring about detachment from the idea of self or any kind of liberation. ........................................................................... TG: This statement (last sentence) applies equally to all conditioned phenomena. If you focus on feeling, perception, consciousness, whatever ... it is not detaching. It is a "means" to develop detachment...by seeing its unsatisfactoriness. Concepts can be used as fodder for that as well...to a point. The concept of the Buddha, dhamma, etc can reduce attachment. It will REQUIRE concepts to lead to a practice that leads to detachment. There are good concepts and bad concepts. But ultimately we will want to detach from concepts, and all the elements and aggregates as well. TG OUT #93076 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 11/30/2008 6:29:20 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: I don't recall Nina talking about a goal of "seeing" the aggregates as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics.a ..................................................... TG: Oh yes, this has been repeated by her, Sarah, and others ad nauseam in this group. Though as of late, we see less "ultimate" and just "realities with their own characteristics." You've managed below to throw in the "own characteristics" yourself in a more subtle fashion. ........................................................... I think what has been said is this: The development of insight is the direct experiencing of dhammas by panna of the level that sees them as they truly are, namely, as anicca, dukkha and anatta. These 3 characteristics (anicca, dukkha and anatta) are characteristics that inhere to aggregates and elements, to all conditioned dhammas. In addition, each dhamma has a characteristic that is unique to that particular dhamma, that makes it that dhamma and not some other. ............................................................... TG: What is important is impermanence, affliction and nonself insight. I'd agree with that. Actually, I don't mind your descriptions...much. The last sentence shows signs of an entity view creeping in. I'd reject the notion that anything "has" anything of its own. Things appear differently merely due to the conditions that have emerged at that place and time. TG OUT #93077 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:50 am Subject: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Sarah & Alex) - In a message dated 11/30/2008 1:56:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Concepts are mental phenomena. ============================= But, TG, Sarah and some others here are using the word 'concept' differently from the way you and I and most speakers of English use the word. We use 'concept', as you say, to refer to a mental event, specifically to a pattern of thinking. But the admirers of Khun Sujin use it to refer to what is imagined/projected by such a pattern of thinking, and typically that is not something that is present! If I am "thinking of the Buddha," there is no Buddha present, only the particular pattern of thinking. And when I am "thinking of pain," at that very moment of thinking, there is no actual pain experienced, though there may have been shortly before. As I see the matter, they are simply misapplying the word 'concept'. It's as if when you speak of a house, they take you to be talking about a car, and so, one can hardly expect the two of you to be saying the same things about "the house". You will say it has a chimney, but they will say you're crazy - it has no chimney, it has an exhaust pipe! With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #93078 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/30/2008 10:39:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: If most people start thinking about people in terms of just elements then many people would not mind killing or cheating or doing what they like because "Hey there is no one there to be hurt!" . Advanced teachings must come later when the proper moral and wisdom groundwork has been laid. ................................................ TG: This is a very important point you make. Also, roughly, the 8 years old boy confessed to shooting his dad and a tenant with a shot gun. He shot him, reloaded and shot him again. Then he checked him to see if he was "a little bit alive." Then he shot a tenant once or twice as well and killed him. A double murder with multiple reloadings. The kid was as cool as a cucumber during his statement...from the sound of the audio tapes. I have a lot more compassion for the rest of society than this kid. I think the Suttas and Vinaya have some suitable descriptions of what should be done to this kid. ;-) Alas, nothing we'll be done and another lesson for the rest of the kids that "anything goes." TG OUT #93079 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/30/2008 10:45:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: How can concepts not be realities if we speak about them even NOW! Even mirage & hallucinations are real (although their content isn't). .................................................. TG: I know what you mean, but I'd say their content is real too. The content of a mirage, for example, is a blue sky, flat surface, hot day, a 5 aggregate system to perceive it, etc. Its delusional sure, but there are conditions forging that delusion. And those conditions are the content. Good points below. TG OUT ................................................. How could "Concepts about these realities are used" if these concepts don't exist as you say! If we talk about concepts, then they "exist" as figures of speech, speech which as you know made up of the certain sense bases, elements, sense faculties - WHICH DO EXIST. > They are concepts used here for communication. And what do we use for communication? The 5 aggregates. #93080 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/30/2008 10:56:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Sarah, Concepts are elements of the mind and are mind made. There cannot be concepts outside of the mind and those elements on which concepts are based. Please don't convince us the Platonic forms exist. What's next, an Atta that exist outside of 5 Khanadas, 12 ayatanas and 6 consciousness? .......................................................... TG: Don't tempt them. ;-) TG OUT #93081 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 11/30/2008 2:48:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: What is important is impermanence, affliction and nonself insight. I'd agree with that. Actually, I don't mind your descriptions...much. The last sentence shows signs of an entity view creeping in. I'd reject the notion that anything "has" anything of its own. Things appear differently merely due to the conditions that have emerged at that place and time. =============================== I was fine with you on this paragraph ... up to the last sentence. What are these "things" that only appear differently, and what are the conditions that have emerged that make these "things" appear differently? Are they not all simply phenomena? A phenomenon indeed arises in dependence on conditions. but does it merely APPEAR different. Some conditions lead to warmth and others to hardness, but whatever those conditions may have been, the warmth and the hardness don't merely APPEAR different from each other - they ARE different. The facets of a diamond are interdependent and seamlessly interconnected, but they are not all one and the same facet merely appearing differently. Your last sentence almost sounds like you are mystically hypothesizing a single, universal phenomenon that appears in various disguises. I know this is not your meaning, but it reminds me of Shiva doing his dance of creation, or of the Prophet Elijah now appearing as a beggar and now as a king in Jewish folk tales. So, I think a clarification of that sentence might be helpful all around. With metta, Howard #93082 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:16 am Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/30/2008 12:51:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: But, TG, Sarah and some others here are using the word 'concept' differently from the way you and I and most speakers of English use the word. We use 'concept', as you say, to refer to a mental event, specifically to a pattern of thinking. But the admirers of Khun Sujin use it to refer to what is imagined/projected by such a pattern of thinking, and typically that is not something that is present! If I am "thinking of the Buddha," there is no Buddha present, only the particular pattern of thinking. And when I am "thinking of pain," at that very moment of thinking, there is no actual pain experienced, though there may have been shortly before. ............................................... TG: I understand what you're saying Howard, and I understand that THAT'S what they mean. But the "projected non-existent" isn't anything at all. Its a delusion to even regard "it" as a permanent or unconditioned. Its a creation of a discussion based around a delusion of something that is misapprehended. So by clearly saying concepts are only mental phenomena, I deny this misapprehension of a "non" projected thing/nothing. It is an fake issue, forged by misapprehension, and is only a distraction. The danger of this "projected" idea of concepts, is that its meant to further justify and substantiate the "ultimate realities" of Dhammas. Its all related to a substantialist view of phenomena. ................................................................ As I see the matter, they are simply misapplying the word 'concept'. ........................................ TG: Exactly. ............................................. It's as if when you speak of a house, they take you to be talking about a car, and so, one can hardly expect the two of you to be saying the same things about "the house". You will say it has a chimney, but they will say you're crazy - it has no chimney, it has an exhaust pipe! ..................................................... TG: In this case the meaning of what they are saying is not throwing me. I know what they mean. I reject it. TG OUT #93083 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:21 pm Subject: Re: Children, Dhamma, Kamma christine_fo... Hello all, I thought I would also share with you the response I had from Dhammanando Bhikkhu on this matter. I had asked the same question: "I am wanting some information on how this particularly applies to someone who commits one of these acts, but is either too young or mentally impaired to truly understand/know the full impact of their intentional action (kamma)". Bhante replied: "The short answer is that it would depend on whether the immaturity or mental impairment of the child was such as would prevent the arising of the five factors stated in my previous post. If we start with intentional killing in general: since an infant is certainly capable of making an effort that will cause a living being to die (e.g. squeezing a ladybird), the question of whether he is able to commit the akusala kammapaṭha of intentional killing will depend upon whether his maturity permits the arising of a perception of a living being and an akusala consciousness directed toward killing. In the case of very young infants this would seem to be ruled out in the Samanamandika Sutta (MN.78): "...a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion `body,' so how should he do an evil action beyond mere wriggling? A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion `speech,' so how should he utter evil speech beyond mere whining? A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion `intention,' so how should he have evil intentions beyond mere sulking? A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion `livelihood,' so how should he make his living by evil livelihood beyond being suckled at his mother's breast?" I suspect the age at which a child will be able to generate the requisite mental factors will vary from one person to another, but the Pali texts seem to regard seven years as typical (or six really, given that the convention was to calculate age from the date of conception rather than birth). Ngasena's remarks on seven being the minimum age for ariyan attainment may be pertinent here: "If, O king, one under seven years of age could feel passion about things exciting to passion, could go wrong in things leading to iniquity, could be befooled in matters that mislead, could be maddened as to things that infatuate, could understand a wrong view, could distinguish between content and discontent, could think out virtue and vice, then might insight be possible to him. But the mind of one under seven years of age, O king, is powerless and weak, mean, small, slight, obscure, and dull, whereas the essential principle of Nirvana is transcendental, important, weighty, wide-reaching, and extensive." So it would seem that the potential for culpability begins when one can feel passion about things exciting to passion etc. Once a child's faculties have matured to that point then he becomes capable of performing akusala kammapathas including intentional killing that will yield a vipaka of dukkha. And since the difference between a child's squashing a ladybird and his putting rat's poison into his mother's tea is merely a matter of degree, I can't see any non- arbitrary grounds for ruling out the possibility of his falling into an nantariya-kamma. Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu P.S., I've received a pm asking me what the ten akusala kammapaṭha are. The term means "unwholesome courses of action" and they are the chief means by which unwholesome kamma is accumulated, any one of which may lead to rebirth in the lower realms. Three bodily: 1. Killing living beings (Pali: pṇtipta, Skt. prṇtipta). 2. Taking with thieving intent what is not given (adinndna, adattdna). 3. Sexual misconduct (kmesu micchcra, kmamithycra). Four verbal: 4. False speech (musvda, mṛṣvda). 5. Divisive speech (pisuṇ vc, piuṇvkya). 6. Harsh speech (pharus vc, paruṣvkya). 7. Frivolous speech (samphappalpa, saṃbhinnapralpa). Three mental: 8. Unrighteous greed, covetousness (abhijjh, abhidhy). 9. Malice (bypda, vypda). 10. Wrong view (micch diṭṭhi, mithy dṛṣṭi or mithy darana)." metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #93084 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/30/2008 1:07:39 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Things appear differently merely due to the conditions that have emerged at that place and time. =============================== I was fine with you on this paragraph ... up to the last sentence. What are these "things" that only appear differently, and what are the conditions that have emerged that make these "things" appear differently? Are they not all simply phenomena? .......................................... TG: Of course. No big deal to me. You want to change the word "things" to "phenomena"? Fine. .................................................... A phenomenon indeed arises in dependence on conditions. but does it merely APPEAR different. Some conditions lead to warmth and others to hardness, but whatever those conditions may have been, the warmth and the hardness don't merely APPEAR different from each other - they ARE different. .............................................................. TG: Here's maybe a language issue that applies. When I say "appear," I mean "arise." You are perhaps interpreting "appear" purely phenomenologically, but I am not. "Appear" has a less substantial feeling to it than "arise" IMO. But it has the drawback of what has happened here. ..................................................................... The facets of a diamond are interdependent and seamlessly interconnected, but they are not all one and the same facet merely appearing differently. Your last sentence almost sounds like you are mystically hypothesizing a single, universal phenomenon that appears in various disguises. ......................................................... TG: I do see the things that arise as "outgrowths" of interactions/conditions. Most fundamentally as interactions of the Four Great Elements...which I consider the Four Great Momentums. Probably, if anything, my outlook is the antithesis of anything mystical. And yet it is still magical in a way...i.e. phenomena. TG OUT #93085 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:45 pm Subject: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) truth_aerator Hi Howard, TG, Sarah and all >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, TG (and Sarah & Alex) - > > In a message dated 11/30/2008 1:56:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > TGrand458@... writes: > > Concepts are mental phenomena. > ============================= > But, TG, Sarah and some others here are using the word 'concept' > differently from the way you and I and most speakers of English use the word. We use > 'concept', as you say, to refer to a mental event, specifically to a pattern > of thinking. But the admirers of Khun Sujin use it to refer to what is > imagined/projected by such a pattern of thinking, and typically that is not > something that is present! If I am "thinking of the Buddha," there is no Buddha > present, only the particular pattern of thinking. And when I am "thinking of > pain," at that very moment of thinking, there is no actual pain experienced, > though there may have been shortly before. But thinking of the Buddha IS MENTAL CITTAS CALLED THINKING. These cittas DO exist. Whenever we think or imagine something, we imagine 5 aggregate or at least internally verbalise some thing or some concept. It is impossible to think or imagine something outside of 5 khandas! Thinking about concepts IS THINKING. That thinking, that traincars of thoughts does exist. Some of the concepts are considered the be a base of infinite space for example. These aruppa planes are percieved through the mind and these things are impermanent. With best wishes, #93086 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:08 am Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/30/2008 3:16:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/30/2008 12:51:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: But, TG, Sarah and some others here are using the word 'concept' differently from the way you and I and most speakers of English use the word. We use 'concept', as you say, to refer to a mental event, specifically to a pattern of thinking. But the admirers of Khun Sujin use it to refer to what is imagined/projected by such a pattern of thinking, and typically that is not something that is present! If I am "thinking of the Buddha," there is no Buddha present, only the particular pattern of thinking. And when I am "thinking of pain," at that very moment of thinking, there is no actual pain experienced, though there may have been shortly before. ............................................... TG: I understand what you're saying Howard, and I understand that THAT'S what they mean. But the "projected non-existent" isn't anything at all. Its a delusion to even regard "it" as a permanent or unconditioned. Its a creation of a discussion based around a delusion of something that is misapprehended. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, though we have to be careful here. There is some complexity to the matter, I think. When we think of the pain just felt, the thought-of pain is merely imagined/projected and is nonexistent But there *was* a felt pain, and the current thinking is related to that, and in a sense it refers to it. Likewise, if, when, sitting in my room, I think of the huge tree on my front lawn, there is just the thinking-about-the-tree. But in the past, interrelated namas and rupas occurred that served as the basis for this present thinking, and in the future similar namas and rupas will occur, enabling me to cognize "that tree" at that time But I do quite agree with you: Though at any time, the aggregation of namas and rupas that enable cognizing the tree while I "look at it," is a genuine collection of interrelated phenomena, "the tree" projected by that thinking is nonexistent - an imagined fiction that is neither permanent nor impermanent nor conditioned nor unconditioned, because there just ain't no such thing, the only realities being the thinking and the aggregation of namas and rupas that is the basis for that thinking. ----------------------------------------------- So by clearly saying concepts are only mental phenomena, I deny this misapprehension of a "non" projected thing/nothing. It is an fake issue, forged by misapprehension, and is only a distraction. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree. The aggregation of rupas (and namas, IMO) that is the basis for our "seeing" or recalling or thinking about "a tree" exists, and the concept that is a particular pattern of thinking based on that aggregation exists (or did exist), but "the tree being thought of" is not the same as the aggregation, and, in fact, is a fiction. We may speak of "the tree being thought of" and think there is some such thing, but in reality there's just the thinking process. So, there is the aggregation that is basis (actual), the thinking (actual), and the what is being thought of (non-existent). An analogy: There's a photograph of Chancellor Merkel of Germany addressing the Reichstag, and someone looking at the photo says "Hey, there's Chancellor Merkel addressing the Reichstag!". The "realities" involved are the Chancellor and the members of the Reichstag sitting in the chamber at some time in the past (corresponding to the aggregation that is the basis), the photograph of them (corresponding to the concept or pattern of thinking), and "the Chancellor and Reichstag members in the photograph" (nonexistent). ---------------------------------------------- The danger of this "projected" idea of concepts, is that its meant to further justify and substantiate the "ultimate realities" of Dhammas. Its all related to a substantialist view of phenomena. ................................................................ As I see the matter, they are simply misapplying the word 'concept'. ........................................ TG: Exactly. ............................................. It's as if when you speak of a house, they take you to be talking about a car, and so, one can hardly expect the two of you to be saying the same things about "the house". You will say it has a chimney, but they will say you're crazy - it has no chimney, it has an exhaust pipe! ..................................................... TG: In this case the meaning of what they are saying is not throwing me. I know what they mean. I reject it. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure - for to speak of an alleged something that doesn't actually exist at all as having or lacking any property whatsoever is to speak nonsensically. (Don't anyone bring up asserting that a unicorn has a single horn. That's just describing a thought pattern/concept.) --------------------------------------------- TG OUT #93087 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > I'm not at all sure that the question you'd like an answer to ('Do > people exist?') is one the Buddha spoke on. And I suspect the reason > for that is that the answer is not going to help with the development > of the path. In any event, the answer will very much depend, as you > suggest, on how "exist" is defined. What do you hope to achieve by > pursuing the question? James: I pursue the question because Nina posted a statement under the "Series Survey Quote" series which stated that people and pens and other such objects don't exist. I am asking the question to get to the heart of what that is really supposed to mean. Do I think this has anything to do with the path? No, not really. Would you rather talk about something else? How was your weekend?? :-) > > BTW, I did not say that "people exist as a type of perception". I > said that the perception of a world of people and things is just > that: a kind of perception (only). James: Okay, I am going to assume that you mean a type of false perception. > > To my understanding, the enlightened being still perceives a world of > people and things, but not with any trace on an idea of those people > and things having existence in the ultimate sense, i.e., in the sense > that dhammas can be said to exist (albeit only momentarily). James: This seems very contradictory to me: Beings don't exist like dhammas exist, which then only exist momentarily. > > Hoping this clarifies. James: Still a bit murky on my end. :-) > > Jon > Metta, James #93088 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:14 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > To my understanding, the Buddha taught that the All is the 6 worlds > of the 6 sense doors. The implication is that only one object is > known at a time. Is it your understanding that the Buddha taught > that the 6 worlds are known simultaneously? James: No, it is my understanding that they exist simultaneously but they are only known through one doorway at a time. You seem to be confusing satipatthana with existence. If so, we may need to > look at some sutta passages on the matter. James: The Buddha already stated that even though he was omniscient that didn't mean he knew everything at one time. That is impossible. That is not at all what I am suggesting. > > Jon > Metta, James #93089 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:27 pm Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/30/2008 4:08:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Yes, though we have to be careful here. There is some complexity to the matter, I think. When we think of the pain just felt, the thought-of pain is merely imagined/projected and is nonexistent But there *was* a felt pain, and the current thinking is related to that, and in a sense it refers to it. Likewise, if, when, sitting in my room, I think of the huge tree on my front lawn, there is just the thinking-about-front lawn, there is just t interrelated namas and rupas occurred that served as the basis for this present thinking, and in the future similar namas and rupas will occur, enabling me to cognize "that tree" at that time But I do quite agree with you: Though at any time, the aggregation of namas and rupas that enable cognizing the tree while I "look at it," is a genuine collection of interrelated phenomena, ................................................. TG: Up to here full agreement. ............................................................ "the tree" projected by that thinking is nonexistent ............................................................ TG: There is no tree "projected" by that thinking ... other then as mental phenomena tapping in to memories...due to contiguously related conditions. Its a "mental picture" and is never anything other. Its mental content. It does arise and cease in dependence on conditions. The "projection" is the concept, memory in progress. ..................................................................... - an imagined fiction that is neither permanent nor impermanent nor conditioned nor unconditioned, because there just ain't no such thing, the only realities being the thinking and the aggregation of namas and rupas that is the basis for that thinking. ----------------------------------------------- ......................................................................... TG: To me this unnecessarily confuses the matter by trying to "play ball" in a non-existent park. Why make the trip? ;-) I realize others are making and embracing that trip. Their whole religion is built around the idea so will be near impossible for any of them to ever realize it or see it. I think the best approach for me is not to cater to or even sympathize with their delusional outlook. But rather nip it in the bud...with Barney Fife Buddhism. :-) ...................................................................... So by clearly saying concepts are only mental phenomena, I deny this misapprehension of a "non" projected thing/nothing. It is an fake issue, forged by misapprehension, and is only a distraction. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree. The aggregation of rupas (and namas, IMO) that is the basis for our "seeing" or recalling or thinking about "a tree" exists, and the concept that is a particular pattern of thinking based on that aggregation exists (or did exist), but "the tree being thought of" is not the same as the aggregation, and, in fact, is a fiction. .......................................................... TG: This is very good. Makes me think. Its a fiction if it is not recognized for what it really is...a concept. But the same applies to all experiences when they are "taken" to be something they are not...such as permanent, self, etc. Those are fictions too. Concepts actually arise and they're only fictions if they are misapprehended as being something beyond mere memories, conditions. They couldn't fool the Buddha and I'll be damned if I'll let them fool me. LOL ........................................................ We may speak of "the tree being thought of" and think there is some such thing, but in reality there's just the thinking process. ...................................................... TG: Yes! ................................................. So, there is the aggregation that is basis (actual), the thinking (actual), and the what is being thought of (non-existent)( .................................................... TG: This part I don't like. I just don't see a "non-existent" in the process. What is being thought of is the reflection on the memory. ....................................................... An analogy: There's a photograph of Chancellor Merkel of Germany addressing the Reichstag, and someone looking at the photo says "Hey, there's Chancellor Merkel addressing the Reichstag!". The "realities" involved are the Chancellor and the members of the Reichstag sitting in the chamber at some time in the past (corresponding to the aggregation that is the basis), the photograph of them (corresponding to the concept or pattern of thinking), and "the Chancellor and Reichstag members in the photograph" (nonexistent)a .................................................................. TG: But the actual Chancellor and the Reichstag aren't supposed exist in the photograph. Its like making up a false scenario, and then saying the false scenario doesn't exist. Likewise, the "tree" is not supposed to exist in the concept thereof. An unnecessary exercise IMO. My wife just called ... her best friend just died at age 51. Wake up call. No condolences necessary please, just a reason to keep making a strong effort while we have a chance. Thanks Howard for all your thought provoking posts. TG OUT #93090 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Couldn't help but notice: TG: "I do see the things that arise as 'outgrowths' of interactions/conditions. Most fundamentally as interactions of the Four Great Elements...which I consider the Four Great Momentums..." Scott: I'd love to read that essay outlining the whole fantastic theory... Sincerely, Scott. #93091 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/30/2008 8:40:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Couldn't help but notice: TG: "I do see the things that arise as 'outgrowths' of interactions/interactions/conditions. Most fundamentally as i Four Great Elements...which I consider the Four Great Momentums...F Scott: I'd love to read that essay outlining the whole fantastic theory... Sincerely, Scott. ................................................ TG: I bet you would! :-) #93092 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:37 pm Subject: Funeral of Peter Swan rjkjp1 Sukinder , Ivan Kevin, and me, and many, many others attended the funeral service for Peter at Wat That Thong in Bangkok . On Tuesday we listened to monks chanting, and on Saturday, as suggested by Khun sujin, Sukin , Ivan, Num and myself presented robes and requisites(bought by donors) to the 4 monks who were chanting. Yesterday was the burning of the body and at that there was a presentation of Dhamma books and also chanting from the Abhidhamma by monks. Marisi, Peter's Thai wife, welcomed many of the attendees and mentioned that she intended to keep coming to the English discusions on Saturdays at the Dhamma study Group in Bukkalo. We missed seeing Sarh and Jon, Nina W., and Tom and Bev all of whom were unable to make it due to the bizarre protests in bangkok. (My daughter, up for New Zealand, attended the discussion on Saturday and it looks like she might be still here for the next one.) Robert #93093 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:35 pm Subject: I-Me-Mine-Ego-belief is Death Bondage! bhikkhu0 Friends: Belief in an Ego is a Bondage linking to Death! At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said: Bhikkhus, the uninstructed ordinary person regards form as self, or self as possessing a form, or form as inside self, or self as inside a frame of form... This, bhikkhus, is called an uninstructed ordinary person, who is bound by bondage to form, who is bound by inner and outer bondage, who neither sees the near shore, nor the far shore, who grows old in bondage, who dies in bondage, who goes from this world to the next other world in bondage... Such one regards feeling, perception, mental construction & consciousness as a self or self as having feeling, perception, construction & consciousness, or feeling, perception, construction & consciousness as being inside a self, or a self as hidden inside feeling, perception, construction & consciousness!!! Such one, Bhikkhus, is called an uninstructed ordinary person who is bound by bondage, by clinging, by inner chains to feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness... Such one, Bhikkhus, bound by both inner & outer bondage, who neither sees this near shore, nor the far shore, who grows old in bondage, who dies in bondage, will pass on in bondage to the next world still in bondage!!! ... Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:117 III 165 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net I-Me-Mine-Ego-belief is Death Bondage! #93094 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Apology: To Ken & the Group sarahprocter... Hi Alex (TG, Howard & all), --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Alex wrote: >I briefly read your reply. It didn't appear wrong. Infact you said right things in some places. >The Buddha didn't mind telling people when they were wrong, how stupid & misguided they were. ..... S: I think you missed the point of Howard's apology. Regardless of whether what we say is the truth or not, what is important, as Howard appreciates so well, is the citta (the consciousness) and the mental states at this very moment as we communicate or go about our various chores. The teachings all come back to the present moment and to these various mental states. This is why the development of right understanding and awareness is so important. I appreciated Howard's kind reflections and words of friendship. He understood that the real problem was not (and never is) what others say, do or believe, but "our own" akusala (unwholesomeness) arising now. These are the opportunities for metta, for kindness and for gentle speech -when we are associating with other friends. Metta, Sarah ========= #93095 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:26 am Subject: Re: Funeral of Peter Swan jonoabb Hi Rob Many thanks for this report of the funeral service. We were very sorry not to have been able to make it to Bangkok. Your description of the proceedings is appreciated. Jon PS I had not realised that domestic travel was also so badly affected. Your daughter may be with you for quite a while yet! #93096 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Dear Alex, I appreciate this sincere message with good questions. --- On Sun, 30/11/08, Alex wrote: >May we start from the beginning? .... S: A good idea. Let's do so. .... >What is wrong with considering concepts as impermanent & conditioned? ..... S: Conventionally speaking, nothing wrong at all. However, we're studying the Buddha's teachings, the Dhamma, which is about the understanding of realities - the elements, the khandhas, the ayatanas. It is the understanding of namas and rupas. The reason is that these are the realities which make up our lives and which can be directly known by insight, not just by thinking about concepts. When the Buddha referred to dhammas as impermanent and conditioned, it was to these dhammas he was referring. For example, now seeing arises, hearing arises. They arise by conditions and fall away immediately. We may think now about a ghost or a pen. Again, the thinking arises and falls away. We cannot say this of the concepts that were thought about - the ghost or the pen. It's very important to distinguish the thinking from the object that is thought about. The thinking is real and can be directly known. The idea is not. ..... >Personally I KNOW that everything in Samsara is inconstant, conditioned and dependently arisen. "Concepts" belong to nama which is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. ..... S: Thinking is nama. The mental states that accompany that thinking is nama.. The idea, such as 'ghost' or 'pen' is not nama and it doesn't have the attributes of nama. ..... >The basis of concepts (5 aggregates ONLY) is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. The thing that percieves, labels, and makes sense of concepts is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. ..... S: Yes, "the 5 aggregates ONLY", the "basis" for such concepts are impermanent etc as you say. The cittas and cetasikas (i.e the namas) which perceive, label, and make sense of the concept are impermanent and so on. Without these khandhas, without such thinking, there'd be no concepts, but this doesn't make the concepts into realities with the same characteristics. .... A:> For example a dog doesn't know and doesn't have concepts of computer, internet, e-mail and so on. These concepts are non-existent FOR A DOG, but they DO "exist" for humans familiar with these things. That is an example of conditioned nature of concepts. ..... S: All such concepts - a dog, a computer, internet and so on only exist in a conventional sense. In reality, there are just the 5 khandhas - ONLY! What is imagined or thought to exist is just an idea. The thinking is real, the sanna is real, the vitakka is real, but 'the dog', the 'computer' and so on can only ever be conceived or thought of. ..... A:> As far as I am concerned, there is no eternal "Concept-Land" where concepts live on forever and ever, permanent and not subject to change. .... S: No one has ever suggested this during the 9 years and over 90,000 messages on DSG ! ..... A: Concepts are concieved as you have said, and that concieving is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. .... S: Yes! Correct:-). So it's very important to appreciate that now, at this very moment, there can be direct awareness of that thinking or conceiving, but not of the concepts. A good discussion. Pls take it even further back to basics and the beginning if it's still not clear or if you still disagree. It's a major breakthrough to understand this point. Without it, we'll just be swimming in the ocean of concepts for ever. Metta, Sarah ======== #93097 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:45 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "I do see the things that arise as 'outgrowths' of interactions/conditions. Most fundamentally as interactions of the Four Great Elements...which I consider the Four Great Momentums..." Scott: I guess that essay will never be presented here in its entirety, but one can focus on the little bits of theory that are presented piece-meal, such as in the above. I still think it would be good to simply give the reader the opportunity to see the whole theory in one go. I suspect that the theory might have a certain inner consistency, given that the whole project seems to have to do with a stoic, isubstantialist denial of the actuality of dhammas ('things' as you allow) with characteristics (sabhaava). 'The Great Elements,' as far as I can determine, are known in the suttas as 'mahaa-bhuuta' or 'dhaatu. One would have to replace 'dhaatu' with something else, in order to preserve the particular theoretical stance that is presented in dribs and drabs. I suppose 'momentum' is as good as anything else one could have made up. As is the wont, however, to question such impositions, such an innovation is not seen in the suttas. What Paa.li word is being translated as 'momentum?' I'd be surprised if such a change can be justified and will be shown, if ever you rise to the occasion to present the complete theory, to be an entirely post-hoc and wholesale re-writing of the Dhamma. It does seem evident that these dhaatu are not simply 'earth' (pa.thavii), 'fire' (tejo), 'water' (aapo,) and 'wind' (vaayo) in a literal sense. These four are conascent, and include the derived elements, as I understand it; these refer to characteristics. There are aspects, at least within the PTS PED definition, which point to a certain complexity: "Dhaatu (f.)...Closely related to dhamma in meaning *B 1b...only implying a closer relation to physical substance...1. a primary element, of which the usual set comprises the four pa.thavii, aapo, tejo, vaayo (earth, water, fire, wind), otherwise termed cattaaro mahaabhuutaa(ni)...2. (a) natural condition, property, disposition; factor, item, principle, form. In this meaning in var. combns & applications, esp. closely related to khandha. Thus mentioned with khandha & aayatana (sensory element & element of sense -- perception) as bodily or physical element, factor...As such (physical substratum) it constitutes one of the lokaa or forms of being..." *Under 'dhamma': "(b) objective: substratum (of cognition), piece, constituent (=khandha), constitution; phenomenon, thing, 'world,' cosmic order (as the expression of cosmic sense, as under a & 2). Thus applied to the khandhas: vedanaadayo tayo kh...; to ruupa vedanaa sa~n~naa sankhaaraa vi~n~naa.na S...=sankhaaraa..." Scott: Without doubt these 'physical' dhaatu are shown to serve as condition for existence. The snippet of theory posited above is not in any way an improvement on the way in which the elements are shown to serve as condition in the Abhidhamma. As the view would seem to have it, nothing serves as condition because there are only conditions, and hence, such realities as dhaatu have to be recast as insubstantial - 'momentums' in this case, but 'momentums' of nothing. 'Momentum' is a concept derived from Newtonian physics, is it not - equal to the product of an object's mass and its velocity? I suppose, given what I've read of the theory (TG's, not Newtons), an insubstantialist would need to posit 'forces'. But even the Newtonians consider 'mass' to be part of the picture. Within the view in which there are no distinguishable dhammaa but only 'conditions' or 'forces' it is very difficult to imagine what it is that is 'moved' by these 'forces.' In the absence of any further description, to suggest that 'things' - which will never be described and will no doubt be said to have no existence - 'arise as outgrowths of interactions/conditions' which are then said to be a function of 'interactions' of dhaatu or elements - reconceptualised as simply 'momentums' - is to suggest a completely untenable and unsupportable theory. Sincerely, Scott. #93098 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:47 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sarahprocter... Hi James, You wrote to Nina: --- On Sat, 29/11/08, buddhatrue wrote: >I just cannot find your last post to me. As I recall it was rather detailed and must have took considerable effort to write so I would like to respond. Could you please give me the tracking number? ..... S: I think this was Nina's last message to you: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92966 (btw, I just put 'nina', 'james' in the good search space on the homepage to find it.) [Ken H, Howard & all, while searching there, I also pulled out this one of Phil's that Ken was referring to re the 'Sea of Being' or 'Ground of Being' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91015] Metta, Sarah ====== #93099 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:19 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > There are definite suttas that one must perfect Jhana for Anagamiship > and not to mention Arahatship. > > With path to stream entry it is more complicated. Since stream entry > doesn't cut off or weaken lust & hatred (2 of the hindrances for Jhana) > Jhana doesn't play as much role, although it certainly can help, > especially today. > > While it is true that in MN2 and AN2.x it states that two conditions > must be met for achieving right view (synonymous with stream entry) > that do not specifically include Jhana. Jhana does help one to prepare, > soften and clean the mind for insight required for Stream Entry. Thanks for this. To summarise the above: (a) jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor for enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). (b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of anagami and arahant. Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this point correctly? Jon #93100 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:23 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > > BTW, I did not say that "people exist as a type of perception". I > > said that the perception of a world of people and things is just > > that: a kind of perception (only). > > James: Okay, I am going to assume that you mean a type of false > perception. As I mentioned in my previous post, the enlightened being still perceives a world of people and things (although not with the idea of people and things that have existence in the ultimate sense). I don't think this could be called a type of false perception. > > To my understanding, the enlightened being still perceives a world of > > people and things, but not with any trace on an idea of those > people > > and things having existence in the ultimate sense, i.e., in the > sense > > that dhammas can be said to exist (albeit only momentarily). > > James: This seems very contradictory to me: Beings don't exist like > dhammas exist, which then only exist momentarily. I think the problem is the absence of a definition of "exist". But no I'm not volunteering to come up with one ;-)) Whatever your definition, however, I understand the position to be that "people" and "things" do not exist in the same way that dhammas can be said to exist, i.e., in that their characteristics can be the object of direct experience. Jon #93101 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex (TG & all), --- On Mon, 1/12/08, Alex wrote: >Concepts are elements of the mind and are mind made. There cannot be concepts outside of the mind and those elements on which concepts are based. ..... S: Let's stick to the elements which the Buddha taught about. Recently you and TG referred us to the Bahudhaatuka Sutta, "The Many Kinds of Elements", MN 115. Here are a few quotes, (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl): "When Aananda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements, skilled in the bases, skilled in dependent origination, skilled in what is possible and what is impossible, in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer." S: So what does it mean to be "skilled in the elements"? Does it mean to be skilled in concepts as elements? I don't think so: " 'But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in the elements?' "There are, Aananda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element; .......the body element, the tangible element, the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements." S: The dhaatus (elements) only refer to realities, not to concepts, just as the khandhas and the ayatanas (translated as bases in the first line of the quote from the sutta above) only refer to realities. As the translators' note to the above quote says: "The mind-object element (dhammadhaatu) includes the subtle material pheonomena not involved in sense cognition, the three mental aggregates of feeling, perception, and formations, and Nibbaana. It ***does not include concepts, abstract ideas, judgements, etc. Though these latter are included in the notion of mind-object (dhammaaramma.na), the mind-object *element* includes only things that exist by their own nature, not things constructed by the mind***." In the sutta, the elements are classified in many different ways. Finally it says: "There are, Aananda these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements." S: Here the conditioned element refers to the 5 khandhas and the unconditioned element to nibbana. This is 'The All' to be known. The khandhas, 'the conditioned element' referred to here, represent the only dhammas which are conditioned, which arise and fall away. There is no room for concepts here amongst these dhammas (as Alberto would say). This is why, as in this sutta which Scott recently quoted, the teachings only refer to the arising, alteration and falling away of the khandhas (unless they are using a simile or analogy to illustrate a point, such as with the rotting away of the ship): Scott:> SN 22 37 (5) Aanandasutta.m >"...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an arising is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m). With feeling...perception...volitional formations...consciousness an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned..." >"...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa kho, aananda, uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya... sa"khaaraana.... vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho, aananda, dhammaana.m uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayatiiti." ..... Metta, Sarah =========== #93102 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > > To my understanding, the Buddha taught that the All is the 6 > worlds > > of the 6 sense doors. The implication is that only one object is > > known at a time. Is it your understanding that the Buddha taught > > that the 6 worlds are known simultaneously? > > James: No, it is my understanding that they exist simultaneously but > they are only known through one doorway at a time. Let's take the last part of your statement first. Yes, only one of the 6 worlds is ever known at a given moment. So the idea we have of a world of people and things is a product of thinking which assembles the experiences of the 6 worlds, occurring at different moments, into a composite whole. As regards the statement that the 6 worlds exist simultaneously, that's not how I would understand the teachings. The 6 worlds spoken of by the Buddha are 6 separate moments of consciousness; they could never "exist" simultaneously for an individual. Jon #93103 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" jonoabb Hi TG > TG: ... Actually, I don't mind your descriptions...much. The last > sentence shows signs of an entity view creeping in. I'd reject the notion > that anything "has" anything of its own. As I said in a previous post, I think you are mistaken in ascribing views by reference to specific words used. There is no basis for it in the teachings, as far as I'm aware. Besides, your list of "substantialist" words keeps expanding; now it includes "has" ;-)) Jon #93104 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/30/2008 10:28:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/30/2008 4:08:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Yes, though we have to be careful here. There is some complexity to the matter, I think. When we think of the pain just felt, the thought-of pain is merely imagined/projected and is nonexistent But there *was* a felt pain, and the current thinking is related to that, and in a sense it refers to it. Likewise, if, when, sitting in my room, I think of the huge tree on my front lawn, there is just the thinking-about-front lawn, there is just t interrelated namas and rupas occurred that served as the basis for this present thinking, and in the future similar namas and rupas will occur, enabling me to cognize "that tree" at that time But I do quite agree with you: Though at any time, the aggregation of namas and rupas that enable cognizing the tree while I "look at it," is a genuine collection of interrelated phenomena, ................................................. TG: Up to here full agreement. ............................................................ "the tree" projected by that thinking is nonexistent ............................................................ TG: There is no tree "projected" by that thinking ... other then as mental phenomena tapping in to memories...due to contiguously related conditions. Its a "mental picture" and is never anything other. Its mental content. It does arise and cease in dependence on conditions. The "projection" is the concept, memory in progress. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I know. That is why I put "the tree" in quotes. And 'projected' really just means "imagined". When thinking of a tree, there is just a particular pattern of thinking, and no tree. ------------------------------------------------ ..................................................................... - an imagined fiction that is neither permanent nor impermanent nor conditioned nor unconditioned, because there just ain't no such thing, the only realities being the thinking and the aggregation of namas and rupas that is the basis for that thinking. ----------------------------------------------- ......................................................................... TG: To me this unnecessarily confuses the matter by trying to "play ball" in a non-existent park. Why make the trip? ;-) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: It is important to provide clear analysis and understanding. That something doesn't exist but it seems that this is not so, the matter needs to be analyzed. That's what the Buddha did with "selves", showing what really is present, and that there is nothing more than that. ---------------------------------------------- I realize others are making and embracing that trip. Their whole religion is built around the idea so will be near impossible for any of them to ever realize it or see it. I think the best approach for me is not to cater to or even sympathize with their delusional outlook. But rather nip it in the bud...with Barney Fife Buddhism. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: The truth needs to be made clear by whatever means work - out of kindness if nothing else. There is a confusion when something is called a concept, is thought of as a shadow and also as unconditioned and permanent, when in fact there is no such thing at all. And the reasons for the confusion need to be put out there by showing what actually exists (contingently and fleetingly, of course) that leads to that confusion. ---------------------------------------------- ...................................................................... So by clearly saying concepts are only mental phenomena, I deny this misapprehension of a "non" projected thing/nothing. It is an fake issue, forged by misapprehension, and is only a distraction. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree. The aggregation of rupas (and namas, IMO) that is the basis for our "seeing" or recalling or thinking about "a tree" exists, and the concept that is a particular pattern of thinking based on that aggregation exists (or did exist), but "the tree being thought of" is not the same as the aggregation, and, in fact, is a fiction. .......................................................... TG: This is very good. Makes me think. Its a fiction if it is not recognized for what it really is...a concept. But the same applies to all experiences when they are "taken" to be something they are not...such as permanent, self, etc. Those are fictions too. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: As soon as we are engaged in thinking, what seems to be "the object" is only a mental projection/concoction, and not existent. The thinking may well be based on experienced phenomena, but what seems to be projected by the thinking isn't really anything at all - it just seems that there is something, and that seeming is part of the thinking. Even when thinking about a sensation just felt, all that is present is a particular pattern of thinking that is related to and engendered in part by the sensation that WAS felt. --------------------------------------------- Concepts actually arise and they're only fictions if they are misapprehended as being something beyond mere memories, conditions. --------------------------------------------- Howard: As often as possible, it's probably best to avoid even using the term 'concept', because of the danger in thinking that there is some shadow-thing other than a process of thought that the term refers to. ---------------------------------------------- They couldn't fool the Buddha and I'll be damned if I'll let them fool me. LOL ........................................................ We may speak of "the tree being thought of" and think there is some such thing, but in reality there's just the thinking process. ...................................................... TG: Yes! ................................................. So, there is the aggregation that is basis (actual), the thinking (actual), and the what is being thought of (non-existent)( .................................................... TG: This part I don't like. I just don't see a "non-existent" in the process. What is being thought of is the reflection on the memory. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: The phrase 'what is being thought of'', when not referring (indirectly) to a single experienced phenomenon or aggregation of experienced phenomena that is basis for the thinking, but instead is intended to refer to a shadow-something, has no actual referent at all. There exist just the interrelated phenomena (rupas and namas) that are basis for the thinking, and the thinking - nothing else. And that point has to be made, just as selves need to be pointed out to be non-existent. At some point, a person needs to be told "Santa is unreal, and despite the fact that I use the name 'Santa', there still is no Santa!" ------------------------------------------------- ....................................................... An analogy: There's a photograph of Chancellor Merkel of Germany addressing the Reichstag, and someone looking at the photo says "Hey, there's Chancellor Merkel addressing the Reichstag!". The "realities" involved are the Chancellor and the members of the Reichstag sitting in the chamber at some time in the past (corresponding to the aggregation that is the basis), the photograph of them (corresponding to the concept or pattern of thinking), and "the Chancellor and Reichstag members in the photograph" (nonexistent)a .................................................................. TG: But the actual Chancellor and the Reichstag aren't supposed exist in the photograph. Its like making up a false scenario, and then saying the false scenario doesn't exist. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Since the false scenario IS imagined, the falsity needs to be pointed out. ------------------------------------------------ Likewise, the "tree" is not supposed to exist in the concept thereof. An unnecessary exercise IMO. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Unnecessary for whom? One could say that since there is no self, there's no need to talk about self. Well, there IS the need to point out that it is a fiction and why it is. That's exactly what the Buddha did - that plus providing a variety of additional means to go beyond that fiction. ---------------------------------------------- My wife just called ... her best friend just died at age 51. Wake up call. No condolences necessary please, just a reason to keep making a strong effort while we have a chance. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Jesus! Well, please forgive me, but I'm very sorry to hear this, and I do hope you will convey that to your wife. How terrible! Yes, TG, there is urgency. Now is the time to do what needs to be done. --------------------------------------------- Thanks Howard for all your thought provoking posts. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) Likewise. ---------------------------------------------- TG OUT ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #93105 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Away Wednesday Through Wednesday upasaka_howard Hi, all - We're flying early Wednesday to Texas to visit our son & his family, to return late at night the following Wednesday. I will have internet access while there but limited time for discussions. I will check my email, though - so please don't hesitate to write. I will reply to posts during that week or at least upon our return. With metta, Howard #93106 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Re: An Apology: To Ken & the Group buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > I apologize for the anger I expressed in my last post to you. I'm sorry, > Ken. I do think that you missed the boat in several respects, but I missed > it far more in my lack of calm and lack of kindness. > I don't understand this apology. Are you apologizing for using harsh speech or for experiencing anger? It seems more like you are apologizing for eperiencing anger and, I think, you don't need to apologize to anyone for that. When you experience anger you just hurt yourself, not Ken or anyone else. Here is part of a sutta: This secret place, with anger's aid, Is where mortality sets the snare. To blot it out with discipline, With vision, strength, and understanding, To blot each fault out one by one, The wise man should apply himself, Training likewise in the true Dhamma; "Let smoldering be far from us." Then rid of wrath and free from anger, And rid of lust and free from envy, Tamed, and with anger left behind, Taintless, they reach Nibbana. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.060.nymo.html Anger must be overcome with rationality. As you were writing the post to Ken, and it was a very looong post, you must have felt the anger rising in you. At that point, you should realize...through rationality...that you are harming yourself. You are destroying your equanimity. And at that point, you should stop writing the post and delete it. Apologizing after the fact is all well and good, but who does it benefit? Ken wasn't really hurt by your anger, you were hurt by it. So, it would be better to just not write to Ken if he makes you angry. Anyway, that's what I think. Metta, James #93107 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 1:28 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Phil & Ken) - In a message dated 12/1/2008 7:47:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: [Ken H, Howard & all, while searching there, I also pulled out this one of Phil's that Ken was referring to re the 'Sea of Being' or 'Ground of Being' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91015] ============================== Thank you for this, Sarah. Ken, for your possible interest, my reply in msg # 91022 was the following: ___________________________ Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/5/2008 6:00:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _philco777@..._ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?postID=QnOIySBc5aqBXqIW8W0I\ S8-hRdCeQYIRN5l-cuXa4ah29pZI3HLK5ZxFOkcfeg-NK66IXF1qllvgkyL3 SQ) writes: Howard, is the "net of Indra" you wrote about something like a "ground of being?" ============================== No, I would say it is not. The metaphor pertains to interdependency of dhammas, with each being a fleeting, contingent, point within an interconnected network of inseparable phenomena. A ground of being notion, accepted in only some Zen traditions, is probably a borrowing from Vedanta. With metta, Howard ----------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #93108 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 6:30 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > I think the problem is the absence of a definition of "exist". But > no I'm not volunteering to come up with one ;-)) James: Actually, the Buddha already gave a sutta defining "exists" and he stated that whatever is impermanent and subject to change which the wise of the world agree as existing, he also states that it exists. (Unfortunately, there isn't too much agreement among the wise of the world about what truly exists! ;-)) > > Whatever your definition, however, I understand the position to be > that "people" and "things" do not exist in the same way that dhammas > can be said to exist, i.e., in that their characteristics can be the > object of direct experience. James: Again, this seems to be blending satipatthana and existence. Please address this issue as we keep coming back to it. > > Jon > Metta, James #93109 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 6:40 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi James > > > > To my understanding, the Buddha taught that the All is the 6 > > worlds > > > of the 6 sense doors. The implication is that only one object is > > > known at a time. Is it your understanding that the Buddha taught > > > that the 6 worlds are known simultaneously? > > > > James: No, it is my understanding that they exist simultaneously > but > > they are only known through one doorway at a time. > > Let's take the last part of your statement first. Yes, only one of > the 6 worlds is ever known at a given moment. So the idea we have of > a world of people and things is a product of thinking which assembles > the experiences of the 6 worlds, occurring at different moments, into > a composite whole. James: One of those six worlds is the mind and mental objects. I don't believe that when we "know" a person or a pen it is the result of thinking, it is a mental object. It forms automatically. > > As regards the statement that the 6 worlds exist simultaneously, > that's not how I would understand the teachings. The 6 worlds spoken > of by the Buddha are 6 separate moments of consciousness James: I don't see how you could come to that interpretaion. The sutta doesn't say anything about "separate", it just lists them: What is the All? Okay, you have this and this and this and this, etc. ; they could > never "exist" simultaneously for an individual. James: Again, I don't see the connection between satipatthana and existence. > > Jon > Metta, James #93110 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Apology: To Ken & the Group upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/1/2008 9:20:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, budd hatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > I apologize for the anger I expressed in my last post to you. I'm sorry, > Ken. I do think that you missed the boat in several respects, but I missed > it far more in my lack of calm and lack of kindness. > I don't understand this apology. Are you apologizing for using harsh speech or for experiencing anger? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Both, but mostly apologizing for expressing anger. I also apologize to others and to myself for not having done what needs to be done to be further beyond anger than I am. -------------------------------------------- It seems more like you are apologizing for eperiencing anger and, I think, you don't need to apologize to anyone for that. When you experience anger you just hurt yourself, not Ken or anyone else. -------------------------------------------- Howard: When the anger is strong enough and defenses weak enough, the anger gets expressed in harsh speech, which hurts others as well as myself. -------------------------------------------- Here is part of a sutta: This secret place, with anger's aid, Is where mortality sets the snare. To blot it out with discipline, With vision, strength, and understanding, To blot each fault out one by one, The wise man should apply himself, Training likewise in the true Dhamma; "Let smoldering be far from us." Then rid of wrath and free from anger, And rid of lust and free from envy, Tamed, and with anger left behind, Taintless, they reach Nibbana. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.060.nymo.html Anger must be overcome with rationality. As you were writing the post to Ken, and it was a very looong post, you must have felt the anger rising in you. At that point, you should realize...through rationality...that you are harming yourself. You are destroying your equanimity. And at that point, you should stop writing the post and delete it. Apologizing after the fact is all well and good, but who does it benefit? Ken wasn't really hurt by your anger, you were hurt by it. So, it would be better to just not write to Ken if he makes you angry. Anyway, that's what I think. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly your prerogative! ;-) ----------------------------------------- Metta, James ========================= With metta, Howard #93111 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 6:53 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > You wrote to Nina: > > --- On Sat, 29/11/08, buddhatrue wrote: > >I just cannot find your last post to me. As I recall it was rather > detailed and must have took considerable effort to write so I would > like to respond. Could you please give me the tracking number? > ..... > S: I think this was Nina's last message to you: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92966 > > (btw, I just put 'nina', 'james' in the good search space on the homepage to find it.) Thanks for this information. I did use the search engine and I found that post but I thought I had already responded. I guess the cold made me really spacey. I have bookmarked and will respond later as I am going to bed now. Metta, James #93112 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 3:55 am Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 12/1/2008 7:00:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: TG: But the actual Chancellor and the Reichstag aren't supposed exist in the photograph. Its like making up a false scenario, and then saying the false scenario doesn't exist. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Since the false scenario IS imagined, the falsity needs to be pointed out. ------------------------------------------------ ....................................................... TG: Agreed. You use your tactics and I'll use my tactics and I'll get the Scotland afore ye. ;-) ........................................................... Likewise, the "tree" is not supposed to exist in the concept thereof. An unnecessary exercise IMO. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Unnecessary for whom? One could say that since there is no self, there's no need to talk about self. Well, there IS the need to point out that it is a fiction and why it is. That's exactly what the Buddha did - that plus providing a variety of additional means to go beyond that ficti ........................................................................ TG: Humm, cut you off...oh well. Just my thinking ... I think the Buddha made the facts of 'self delusion' clear not be spending much time pointing out the 'self delusion aspects,' but by spending time pointing out what conditions were doing. My idea is, rather than step into their deluded framework, is to beat the drum saying that conditions are doing this....and THAT thing is a delusional imagination. I don't reinforce the "delusional imagination" in order to deny it. I use to, but not now. I've got you for that. ;-) Its probably a mute point cause I don't think they're going to see it anyway. :-/ Very interesting conversation. I think we're in very good agreement here in terms of how we see the matter. Just have a different approach in discussing it. I'm satisfied. LOL TG OUT #93113 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 9:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, >sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex, >For example, now seeing arises, hearing arises. They arise by >conditions and fall away immediately. We may think now about a ghost >or a pen. Again, the thinking arises and falls away. We cannot say >this of the concepts that were thought about - the ghost or the pen. >It's very important to distinguish the thinking from the object that >is thought about. The thinking is real and can be directly known. >The idea is not. > ..... As Howard has said, there may be miscommunication on what is meant by a concept. While it is true that there isn't anything that is "thing- in-itself" and that every "whole" (such as a person) is made up of the parts, the idea no matter how deluded and label "ghost, person" DOES exist. What the idea points to (thing in itself) doesn't exist outside of imagination, true. But even here the non-exist object that is being pointed to, does exist in delusive mind as an imagination and ceases to haunt the Arahant. So the delusive concepts that don't point to real thing-in-itself do assail a worldling, but not an Arahant. This sense the concepts are impermanent. > >Personally I KNOW that everything in Samsara is inconstant, > conditioned and dependently arisen. "Concepts" belong to nama which > is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen. > ..... > S: Thinking is nama. The mental states that accompany that thinking >is nama.. The idea, such as 'ghost' or 'pen' is not nama and it >doesn't have the attributes of nama. > ..... We may have miscommunication here. GHOST is spelled G H O S T, the letters, the sounds, the thought does exist. But what it refers to, doesn't. > >The basis of > concepts (5 aggregates ONLY) is impermanent, conditioned and > dependently arisen. The thing that percieves, labels, and makes > sense of concepts is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. > ..... > S: Yes, "the 5 aggregates ONLY", the "basis" for such concepts are >impermanent etc as you say. The cittas and cetasikas (i.e the namas) >which perceive, label, and make sense of the concept are impermanent >and so on. Without these khandhas, without such thinking, there'd be >no concepts, but this doesn't make the concepts into realities with >the same characteristics. > .... But the hallucination DOES exist (although it is misperception & misapprehension) especially if we break into "seeing", "thinking", imagining, craving or hating it due to not-understanding, etc . Thank you very much for replying. With best wishes, #93114 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 9:52 am Subject: Re: Jhana truth_aerator Hi Jon, >"jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > Thanks for this. To summarise the above: > (a) jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor for > enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). > (b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of > anagami and arahant. > > Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this point > correctly? > > Jon Mastery of Jhana isn't a prerequisite for ditthisampanno (equivalent to stream entry) although momentary Jhana may occur through practice. This assumes that Yoniso Manasikaro (one of 2 conditions for stream) doesn't imply Jhana although Jhana would help if paired with right view. With best wishes, #93115 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, Alex, Howard, All In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:24:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Alex (TG & all), --- On Mon, 1/12/08, Alex <_truth_aerator@truth_ae_ (mailto:truth_aerator@...) > wrote: >Concepts are elements of the mind and are mind made. There cannot be concepts outside of the mind and those elements on which concepts are based. ..... S: Let's stick to the elements which the Buddha taught about. Recently you and TG referred us to the Bahudhaatuka Sutta, "The Many Kinds of Elements", MN 115. Here are a few quotes, (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl): "When Aananda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements, skilled in the bases, skilled in dependent origination, skilled in what is possible and what is impossible, in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer." S: So what does it mean to be "skilled in the elements"? Does it mean to be skilled in concepts as elements? I don't think so: ...................................................... TG: The above comment is arbitrary. Skilled in the elements means a full range of understandings. No-one is saying it is specifically to know concepts as elements. However, part of being skilled in the elements is to know mental content. How it arises, changes, and ceases. ......................................................... " 'But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in the elements?' "There are, Aananda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element; .......the body element, the tangible element, the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements." S: The dhaatus (elements) only refer to realities, not to concepts, just as the khandhas and the ayatanas (translated as bases in the first line of the quote from the sutta above) only refer to realities. .............................................................. TG: This is preposterous! You quote the Sutta and make a comment that has nothing to do with the quote. As if your comment was drawn from the quote. Here is just an interjection of personal view, derived from the commentaries no doubt, and arbitrarily slapped onto a Sutta quote that says no such thing. In fact, a concept would fall into the category of "mind-object-element." Such an element may or may not be delusional. Here is Nyanatiloka's Dictionary description of mind-object-base (ayatana) -- "it may be physical or mental, past, present, or future, real or imaginary" That settles the issue. LOL ................................................................. As the translators' note to the above quote says: "The mind-object element (dhammadhaatu) includes the subtle material pheonomena not involved in sense cognition, the three mental aggregates of feeling, perception, and formations, and Nibbaana. It ***does not include concepts, abstract ideas, judgements, etc. Though these latter are included in the notion of mind-object (dhammaaramma.As the translators' note to the above quote says: "The mind-object element (dhammadhaatu) includes the subtle material pheonome ........................................................... TG: Good Try!!! This "note of the translator" is merely the translator saying what Abhidhamma says about it. I.E. -- "...according to Abhidhamma..." "What Abhidhamma says about it" is the issue!!! The above note is full of interior self contradiction. Concepts and such are included in the notion of "mind-object," but not mind-object-element"? That makes sense...NOT. So now Abhidhamma is dabbling in what NOTIONS are or are not. Utterly ridiculous stuff. They obviously are very confused. What's just as bad if not worse... Here Abhidhamma is taking about "things existing by their own nature." I'll say it again -- "THINGS EXISTING BY THEIR OWN NATURE." What utter nonsense. Even Abhidhamma knows better than this...I thought. A SELF by any other name would smell as sweet. ;-) Then it says that "things constructed by the mind" don't qualify as "element." NEWS FLASH TO ABHIDHAMMA -- everything is a construction. The GD 12 Fold Chain is a construction by the mind for goodness sakes! LOLOLOL You got to love the Abhidhamma for if nothing else, comic relief! ............................................................. In the sutta, the elements are classified in many different ways. Finally it says: "There are, Aananda these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements." S: Here the conditioned element refers to the 5 khandhas and the unconditioned element to nibbana. This is 'The All' to be known. The khandhas, 'the conditioned element' referred to here, represent the only dhammas which are conditioned, which arise and fall away. There is no room for concepts here amongst these dhammas (as Alberto would say). .................................................................... TG: The last line another wild arbitrary comment to a Sutta that says nothing of the kind!!!! Its just MADE UP STUFF. Can't find a Sutta that says what they want to hear, so they make it up and pretend they have Sutta evidence as support! Bad bad bad. .................................................................... This is why, as in this sutta which Scott recently quoted, the teachings only refer to the arising, alteration and falling away of the khandhas (unless they are using a simile or analogy to illustrate a point, such as with the rotting away of the ship): Scott:> SN 22 37 (5) Aanandasutta. >"...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an arising is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati)(uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discer( an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.m). With fa~n~nathatta. formations..formations...consciousness an arising is discerne discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned...d >"...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa kho, aananda, uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.p pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya..pa~n~naayati. Vedanpa~ vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho, aananda, d pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.p pa~n~naayatiiti.p ..... .................................................................... TG: NOTHING! Nothing there to support their contention. Very interesting to note you are dealing with a Sutta that states -- "an alteration of that which stands is discerned." Not theorized as some billionth of a second happening, but actually discerned. Wouldn't Scott say -- How can something stand and change through time...this must be permanence view.... I'll have to run it by Scott. ;-) My advice...denounce the Suttas as heresy and get it over with. Whenever you try to use them for support of dhammas theory, realities vs concepts, etc., its just a mess and they harm your position far more than support it. TG OUT :-) #93116 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Scott TG: What gives below...isn't this what you call "permanence view"? In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:24:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: >"...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an arising is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati)(uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discer( an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.m). With fa~n~nathatta. formations..formations...consciousness an arising is discerne discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned...d >"...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa kho, aananda, uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.p pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya..pa~n~naayati. Vedanpa~ vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho, aananda, d pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.p pa~n~naayatiiti.p ....................................................................... TG: Buddha: "...with consciousness (and the other aggregates) an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned...d Now be honest, If I had said this you'd be trumpeting that I was presenting "permanence view" right? How can something alter through time and still stand as the "same thing"...that's got to be permanence view. Take it up with the Buddha buddy! ;-) TG OUT #93117 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 12/1/2008 1:30:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: How can something alter through time and still stand as the "same thing"...that's got to be permanence view. Take it up with the Buddha buddy! ;-) ========================== My understanding, for what it is worth: Whatever supposedly alters while remaining the "same thing" is mere convention - a useful fiction. There actually are no "things" that last at all, and anicca is radical change/impermanence with nothing remaining at all. As I see it, anicca as it actually is, is already emptiness. I think that "thing thinking" is useful for navigating "the everyday world" but should be taken with a grain of salt, for ultimately it is invalid and misleading. With metta, Howard #93118 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 10:58 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi James, I appreciate your effort finding my post, and I forgot what I wrote. I am just back today from a trip. I thought later on that I had forgotten to wish you good recovery from your cold. I meant to tell you: eat your daily ration of 200 gram of veg, and fruits, that keeps the doctor away. Nina. Op 1-dec-2008, om 15:53 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > I did use the search engine and I > found that post but I thought I had already responded. I guess the > cold made me really spacey. I have bookmarked and will respond > later as I am going to bed now. #93119 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Scott In a message dated 12/1/2008 11:51:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: How can something alter through time and still stand as the "same thing"...that'thing"...that's got to be permanence view. Take it up w buddy! ;-) ========================== HOWARD: My understanding, for what it is worth: Whatever supposedly alters while remaining the "same thing" is mere convention - a useful fiction. There actually are no "things" that last at all, and anicca is radical change/impermanence with nothing remaining at all. .................................................... TG: Of course this question to Scott was just a reiteration of what I think Scott's premise is. I agree 100% with what you wrote here Howard. Though we recognize an object as "continuing," it is actually in the process of changing all the time and has nothing of its own...ever. It is mere convention to think of it as "the same thing." TG #93120 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 9:39 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon, >--- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > Thanks for this. To summarise the above: > (a) jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor for > enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). > (b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of > anagami and arahant. > > Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this point > correctly? > > Jon slight correction a)jhana mastery does not seem to be a prerequisite for insight development for sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). It may be the case that jhana, at least of momentary kind, occur just before stream path and/or stream fruition. The above assumes that Yoniso Manasikaro doesn't include Jhana. 2 conditions for ditthipanno 1) Voice of another 2) Yoniso manasikaro MN2 and AN2.? However all drastically changes for Anagami and especially Arhatship. With best wishes, #93121 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 12:52 pm Subject: Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi TG, Sarah and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > In fact, a concept would fall into the category of "mind-object- >element." Such an element may or may not be delusional. EXACTLY. > Here is Nyanatiloka's Dictionary description of mind-object-base >(ayatana) -- "it may be physical or mental, past, present, or >future, real or imaginary" > > > > That settles the issue. LOL It does settle the issue, Sarah. The mind contents may refer to "real or imaginary" , but that doesn't change the fact that mental content exists and is fully conditioned. With best wishes, #93122 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "What gives below...isn't this what you call 'permanence view'? ...Buddha: '...with consciousness (and the other aggregates) an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned...Now be honest, If I had said this you'd be trumpeting that I was presenting 'permanence view' right?" Scott: Yes, you likely would be presenting 'permanence view.' The view doesn't accept the momentary arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas, nor does it accept that dhammas have characteristics. And no, this is not 'permanence view.' It is in reference to the moment, as you know and simply have chosen to reject. TG: "How can something alter through time and still stand as the 'same thing'...that's got to be permanence view..." Scott: This is clarified by the Abhidhamma to be in reference to the moment of presence between the arising and falling away of a conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated. A given dhamma comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere. It is 'here' while it is here, for these sub-moments. Sincerely, Scott. #93123 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:54:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "What gives below...isn'TG: "What gives below...isn't this wha ...Buddha: '...with consciousness (and the other aggregates) an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned...which stands is discerned...Now be hon be trumpeting that I was presenting 'permanence view' right?" Scott: Yes, you likely would be presenting 'permanence view.' .............................................................................. So what you are saying is that you just repudiate the Suttas period? I guess from your perspective, the Buddha was a very sub-standard teacher as his teaching, apparently according to you, taught permanence view ... and it took the Abhidhamma and commentaries to straighten things out. Alright! I have to give you credit for being consistent in that when I reiterate the Suttas and you call it "permanence view," that you accuse the Suttas of the same when they say the same. Its amazing, but admirable in its consistency. ....................................................................... The view doesn't accept the momentary arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas, nor does it accept that dhammas have characteristics. And no, this is not 'permanence view.' It is in reference to the moment, as you know and simply have chosen to reject. ............................................. TG: Ah yes, the Commentaries to the rescue!!! With their special views unfound in the Suttas. ................................................. TG: "How can something alter through time and still stand as the 'same thing'...that'thing'...that's got to be Scott: This is clarified by the Abhidhamma ......................................................... TG: Good thing. That Buddha was such a "klutz" in his dissemination of the teaching, that nobody could have understood that what he really meant was something totally different than he was saying. LOL And while we're at it, let's just bypass saying these are our interpretations of what the Buddha meant, and just give him direct credit for a whole bunch of things he never said. THAT'S keeping it real! ............................................................ to be in reference to the moment of presence between the arising and falling away of a conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated. A given dhamma comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere. It is 'here' while it is here, for these sub-moments. ............................................................ TG: Comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. Brings a tear to my eye. What an amazing grasp of conditionality and causal principles!!! Do you have a new strategy maybe? Hurling softballs in hopes that I'll spill the beans on something else? ;-) TG OUT #93124 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 7:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...Do you have a new strategy maybe? Hurling softballs in hopes that I'll spill the beans on something else? ;-)" Scott: No, not a strategy, I don't thing, but I have requested that you put the gist of the view you present in the form of an essay such that it can be made more clear. If you don't wish to do this, that's fine. I've not found the replies to recent posts to have adequately addressed the concerns at all in any cogent or well thought-out manner. They seem to be more knee-jerk and rhetorical. So no, I'm rather hoping you'll buckle down and present yourself in the scholarly manner I'm sure you're capable of. I don't hope for agreement - just good discussion. Sincerely, Scott. #93125 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 7:26 pm Subject: Wonderful Paritta chanting philofillet Hi all I shared this first at another group, but I decided to rejoin DSG in order to share something that has deeply impressed me in the last little while. I stumbled across it while looking for something else, but what a treasure. Please go to the following link and scroll down to "Burmese style paritta chanting" towards the bottom of the page. http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-chant.htm They are chanted in Pali (with English interspersed) by the wonderful Sayadaw U SIlananda. I think they are extraordinarily beautiful, inspirational, comforting and protective, irregardless of whether one believes in the more metaphyisical protective aspects. They will also be very helpful to Pali students. I am especially hopeful that Nina will enjoy these. Sometimes, Nina, I worry that because you have been deprived of "formal meditation" you will also be deprived of comforting practices to help you deal with the onset of old age. I am worried that you have accumulated a lot of intellectual understanding but that with the onset of physical pain and approach of death that intellectual understanding will evaporate and you will be left without wise ways to deal with physical agony. Formal meditators develop ways of dealing with pain that I am worried you are without. I don't expect you to start meditating, but I hope that these parittas will be helpful for you when hard times come. Of course they will come to all of us, but for some reason I worry about you the most. Because I care about you and am grateful to you, of course. I know from experience (Matheesha linking us to Bhikkkhu Bodhi's Majhima Nikkaya talks) that the gift of a Dhamma "link" can be hugely important, so I am hopeful that this link will be of benefit to people out there. Metta, Phil p.s Still away from discussing here, but will pop by to share helpful things if I come across any. I want to practice Dana. I want to be a person who practices Dana. I want to be a better person. I want to be a morally upgraded person. I cling to these notions...and thank the Buddha for that! :) #93126 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 7:38 pm Subject: More links re parittas philofillet Hi again The full English and Pali texts to the parittas can be found here after a little searching around. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammayut/chanting.html Also the introduction to this book provides a comprehensive explanation of parittas for those like myself were unaware of them: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/protection.htm Metta, Phil #93127 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 11:36 pm Subject: Majjhima Nikaya/ For Alex and everybody reverendagga... Hi Alex! i know the Buddha knew quite a bit. Isn't there something in the M.N.(Wisdom Publishers Ed.) where the Venerable Gotama declares that the only NECESSARY knowledge for a Budda is the cause and cessation of dukkha? Am i wrong on this? Om Namah Dhamma Gotama! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #93128 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Dec 1, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Detailed instructions sprlrt Hi The Dhamma gives all the possible indications on the only path which leads out of samsara, satipatthana. Maybe during our beginningless but possibly not endless journey we've heard these explanations many times before, or maybe we're hearing them for the first times in this round of existence. Do we regard dhammas as me and people, as mine and things, as concepts? If so, would those "dhammas" require a Sammasambuddha to be uncovered? Aren't the dhammas far more subtle and elusive than that? According to the Puggala pannati, of the four types of persons who can understand the Dhamma, only two types still remain in our days: neyya puggala, people who require guidance and have to study and develop a great deal of panna to attain nibbana, and padarama puggala, who cannot attain nibbana in this round of existence in spite of all study. In our position how can we afford to skip the Abhidhamma pitaka, in which all dhammas are explained in lenghty details, and jump straight into the Sutta pitaka, which takes for granted an in depth knoledge of dhammas, with any chance of understanding correctly its indications? Alberto #93129 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:06 am Subject: Re: Majjhima Nikaya/ For Alex and everybody christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: > Isn't there something in the M.N.(Wisdom Publishers Ed.) > where the Venerable Gotama declares that the only NECESSARY > knowledge for a Budda is the cause and cessation of dukkha? > Hello Venerable Aggacitto, Perhaps this is what you are refering to?: MN 63 - Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta ~ The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya {snip} So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. "And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me. "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Malunkyaputta delighted in the Blessed One's words. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html metta and respect, Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #93130 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts nilovg Hi Alex (and Larry), Op 1-dec-2008, om 21:52 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Here is Nyanatiloka's Dictionary description of mind-object-base > >(ayatana) -- "it may be physical or mental, past, present, or > >future, real or imaginary" > > > > > > > > That settles the issue. LOL -------- N: Not at all. Whatever is an element, dhaatu, is reality, not pa~n~natti. The same for aayatana, it only includes reality. Ven. Nyanatiloka and also Ven. Bodhi have made a mistake here. They confuse dhaatu with mind-object. Dhammaaramma.na includes concepts, but dhammadhaatu does not. This was discussed before. I think Sarah mentioned this to Ven. Bodhi. When you touch your chair, the element of hardness may appear and you do not have to name it or think about it. It can be directly experienced without having to think of it. It is just hardness and hardness is always hard, no matter how you name it in whatever language. It is a reality with its distinct characteristic. This is not so with chair. You have to think about it, name it, even within a very short moment. You are bound to cling to your chair. Is it comfortable? We do not only cling to realities, we also cling to concepts. Larry, you gave me the example of the word "I" we cling to. Clinging is not eradicated when we realize it, it arises again and again. It is like licking a sharp knife smeared with honey, like playing with dung as a child does, or jumping after a fairy and then going over a cliff. Nina. #93131 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:02 am Subject: Vis. studies. nilovg Hi Larry, -------- Sarah: "So what's your next project? Are you continuing with the other Vism chapters or starting a new series on another text? I'd just like to encourage you:-)" L: No new projects in the works. I feel like what we've covered hasn't really soaked in properly. So I'm working on absorbency:-) --------- N: Yes, let us. Can you share your absorbency with us, anything special you want to go over again or you find that has not soaked in? I can't get enough of it. ------- Nina. #93132 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 8, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, Sri Lanka is the country where the teachings have been preserved after Buddhism declined in India and therefore it is not surprising that relics of the Buddha have been enshrined in stupas of this country. We had an opportunity to visit the stupa where the relic of the Buddhas forehead-bone had been enshrined, the stupa of Seruwawila which is not far from Trincomali, on the East coast. Seruwawila is said to be one of the sixteen places in Sri Lanka the Buddha visited himself. He came three times to Sri Lanka and visited Seruwawila during his third visit. He predicted that in this place his forehead-bone relic would be enshrined. We went to Seruwawila in a van, together with the group of monks. An elderly Singhalese monk received us in Seruwawila and he gave an account of the history of the relic in Singhalese which was translated into English. Mah-Kassapa had in India given the relic to Mah-Nanda, an enlightened monk. Mah-Nanda brought the relic to Sri Lanka where it was kept in Tissrma, the first monastery in Sri Lanka, which was founded by King Devanampiya Tissa and later on developed into the Mah-vihra. King Kkavanna Tissa, King Dutthagmas father, had the stupa constructed in Seruwawila where the relic was transferred. The relic chamber was securely built into the stupa and covered by masonry, and the stupa was covered by another one, the outer stupa, so that the relic could never be taken away. Later on the place of this stupa became unknown for several centuries and it was inaccessible because of the jungle around it. In 1923 it was rediscovered and restored. A vihra was built and a road constructed so that it could become once again a place of worship. We payed respect in walking around the stupa three times and then we sat down near the stupa for a Dhamma discussion. When we were in Kandy we payed respect to the Buddhas Tooth relic in the Dawada Maligawa, the Temple of the Sacred Tooth. When we pay respect to the relics of the Buddha, kusala cittas may arise, but also akusala cittas are bound to arise. We may have attachment to the idea that there is something left of the Buddha. Some people have aversion towards the idea of a relic. One of my friends had aversion each time when she was inside the Tooth Temple. Paying respect to the Buddhas relics is only meaningful if we recollect his excellent qualities. The relics can remind us directly of his excellent qualities because they are what remained of his body, the body of a Buddha endowed with thirtytwo bodily characteristics each one of which was conditioned by kamma. ******* Nina #93133 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:53 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, Q. : What is the meaning of studying characteristics? S. : When sati is aware and someone considers the characteristic of whatever appears, that reality can be known as nma, which experiences something, or as rpa which does not experience anything. Then one studies the characteristic of non-self of that reality. It is nma or rpa, non-self. This kind of study is different from thinking about terms or naming realities. When pa is developed to the degree that it is more accomplished, it can penetrate the three general characteristics of nma and rpa: impermanence, dukkha and anatt. Q. : When my eyes are open I am seeing, but I do not pay attention to anything else. How can there be sati? S. : We cannot prevent the arising and falling away of cittas which succeed one another, that is their nature. When sati arises it can be aware of whatever reality appears naturally, just as it is. Q. : For most people the aim of the development of satipatthna is to become free from dukkha. When pa has arisen one will be free from dukkha. S. : Freedom from dukkha cannot be realized easily. Pa should first be developed stage by stage, so that ignorance, doubt and wrong view which takes realities for self can be eliminated. If people develop sati and pa naturally, they will know that pa grows very gradually, because ignorance arises many more times a day than kusala. This was so in past lives and it is also like this in the present life. Q. : The problem is that when an object impinges on one of the doorways I am bound to be forgetful, I lack sati. S. : That is quite normal. When sati is still weak yet it cannot arise immediately. ********* Nina. #93134 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 8, no 2 nilovg Dear Connie, Op 26-nov-2008, om 21:27 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > Oh no! not "Buddhaghosa, the autor"! No such thing! Not to say the > V is a book of divine revelation (nor that the gods didn't have a > hand in it) but more compiler, methinks, with gratitude. ------ N: Thank you for the correction. But Buddhaghosa can be called the author of the Visuddhimagga, which is an encyclopedia of the Abhidhamma. He used here materials of the Tipitaka and of the ancient commentaries. Right? But it should be compilator and editor of the ancient commentaries. Thank you for the additional quotes on Princess Anula. Nina. #93135 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:25 am Subject: Funeral of Peter. nilovg Dear Sarah and all, These days we have been thinking a lot about Peter and the funeral. We were thinking very much of you and Jon and realized that you would not be able to make it. Marisi's sister who lives in Holland called us and wanted to go to Bangkok, and we felt sorry for her and also for Peter's son Saul who planned to come with Maeve. While in the hotel Lodewijk and I talked a great deal about Peter. Lodewijk said that while in India, at the entrance of the hotel in Savatthi, just about to leave, Peter had said to him: it all boils down to anatta and the present moment. The convincing way he said this made a great impression on Lodewijk and he always remembers it. These were not ordinary words anybody could speak. It is the way someone expresses them, the way he looks when he speaks. Lodewijk said that is why he remembers this event. I think anatta concerns the whole practice, but we may often forget that sati and understanding are anatta. Lobha comes in all the time. Lodewijk had some remarks similar to what Lukas said: he finds the practice too difficult, has many akusala cittas although he does not want to. He would like to have more understanding. Then the only answer is: here the clinging to self is overwhelming us. We just think of self who wants to be better, but this does not work. We should remember what Peter said, we just talked about. Kh. Sujin also explained that we should not try to overreach: we understand thus and thus much and not more then we can grasp at the moment. It is all conditioned and we can listen more. We can cling to 'self' with lobha, without wrong view, with conceit and with wrong view. We should see more and more when we are clinging to self, also when the clinging is more subtle, not to obvious, otherwise it cannot be eradicated. When we talk about lobha or dosa that arises it is most of the time our lobha, and our dosa. We should be grateful when Kh Sujin says: 'It is still you". It is pa~n~naa that can understand the clinging to self more and more keenly. Lodewijk and I discussed the perfections and these are very necessary to eliminate clinging and wanting something for oneself. Patience, khanti, should not be fogotten. ******** Nina. #93136 From: "Egbert" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts egberdina Hello Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Scott: This is clarified by the Abhidhamma to be in reference to the > moment of presence between the arising and falling away of a > conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated. A given dhamma > comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere. It is 'here' while it is > here, for these sub-moments. > You appear to be conflating the temporal present, as in the nonexistence that is between past and future, with the present that is presence to something. Also, your idea of a dhamma (singular), does it refer to something that is not an abstract simplification? Me, myself, I #93137 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 4:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "You appear to be conflating the temporal present, as in the nonexistence that is between past and future, with the present that is presence to something." Scott: Oh. Not at all. Presence is now. The past is to now as 'what-was-not' is to 'what-is'. The future is to now as 'what-is-not-yet' is to 'what-is'. That which is present exists. It didn't before, and it doesn't after. H: "Also, your idea of a dhamma (singular), does it refer to something that is not an abstract simplification?" Scott: Visuddhimagga, VII, Note 1. (~Naa.namoli): "The word dhamma - perhaps the most important and frequently used of Pali words - has no single equivalent in English because no English word has both a generalization so wide and loose as the word dhamma in its widest sense (which includes 'everything' that can be known or thought of in any way) and at the same time an ability to be, as it were, focussed in a set of well-defined specific uses. Roughly dhamma = what-can-be-remembered or what-can-be-borne-in-mind (dhaaretabba) as kamma = what-can-be-done (kaatabba). The following two principle (and overlapping) senses are involved here: (i) the Law as taught, and (ii) objects of consciousness. (i) In the first case the word has either been rendered as 'Law' or 'law'. This ranges from the loose sense of the 'Good Law', 'cosmic law', and 'teaching' to such specific technical senses as the 'discrimination of the law', 'causality', 'being subject to or having the nature of'. (ii) In the second case the word in its looser sense of 'something known or thought of' has either been left untranslated as 'dhamma', or rendered by 'state' (more rarely 'thing' or 'phenomenon'), while in its technical sense as one of the twelve bases or eighteen elements 'mental object' and 'mental datum' have been used. The sometimes indiscriminate use of 'dhamma', 'state', and 'law' in both the looser senses is deliberate. The English words have been reserved as far as possible for rendering dhamma (except that 'state' has sometimes been used to render bhaava, etc., in the sense of '-ness'). Other subsidiary meanings of a non-technical nature have occasionally been otherwise rendered according to context. "In order to avoid muddle it is necessary to distinguish renderings of the word dhamma and renderings of the words that define it. The word itself is a gerundive of the verb dharati (caus. dhaareti - 'to bear') and so is the literal equivalent of ('quality) that is to be borne'. But since grammatical meanings of the two words dharati ('to bear') and dahati ('to put or sort out - whence dhaatu - 'element') sometimes coalesce, it often comes very close to dhaatu...If it is asked, what bears the qualities to be borne?, a correct answer would probably be that it is the event (samaya), as stated in Dhammasan"nga.ni...in which the various dhammas listed there arise and are present, variously related to each other..." Sincerely, Scott. #93138 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts egberdina Hello Scott, 2008/12/2 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "You appear to be conflating the temporal present, as in the > nonexistence that is between past and future, with the present that is > presence to something." > > Scott: Oh. Not at all. Presence is now. The past is to now as > 'what-was-not' is to 'what-is'. The future is to now as > 'what-is-not-yet' is to 'what-is'. That which is present exists. It > didn't before, and it doesn't after. My point was that the now and the here of your original post are totally different. Now has a past, and is going to a future. As opposed to here, which is the duality of what is present to consciousness (in a manner of speaking). Your original post denies the past of the now, and the future of the now. You say it comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. In saying that, you deny conditionality. > > H: "Also, your idea of a dhamma (singular), does it refer to something > that is not an abstract simplification?" > > Scott: Visuddhimagga, VII, Note 1. (~Naa.namoli): > > "The word dhamma - perhaps the most important and frequently used of > Pali words - has no single equivalent in English because no English > word has both a generalization so wide and loose as the word dhamma in > its widest sense (which includes 'everything' that can be known or > thought of in any way) and at the same time an ability to be, as it > were, focussed in a set of well-defined specific uses. Yeah, dhamma (singular) is wide and loose, agreed. Me, myself, I #93139 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Nina and Alex, Regarding: N: "Not at all. Whatever is an element, dhaatu, is reality, not pa~n~natti..." Scott: Visuddhimagga VIII, 246 (p.286): "...Dhammas [means] individual essences..." Note 68 VIII (p. 789): "In such passages as 'Dhammas that are concepts' (Dhs, p. 1, 1308) even a non-entity (abhaava) is thus called a 'dhamma' since it is borne (dhaariyati) and affirmed (avadhaariyati) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by his [Buddhaghosa] saying 'Dhammas [means] individual essences.' The act of becoming (bhavana), which constitutes existingness (vijjamaanataa) in the ultimate sense, is essence (bhaava); it is with essence (saha bhavena), thus it is an individual essence (sabhaava); the meaning is that it is possible (labbhamaanaruupa) in the true sense, in the ultimate sense. For these are called 'dhammas' (bearers)' because they bear (dhaara.na) their own individual essences (sabhaava), and they are called 'individual essences' in the sense already explained' (Paramattha- Ma~njuusa, Visuddhimagga A.t.thakathaa 282)." Sincerely, Scott. #93140 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "My point was that the now and the here of your original post are totally different. Now has a past, and is going to a future. As opposed to here, which is the duality of what is present to consciousness (in a manner of speaking)." Scott: 'Now' differs from 'here' as a concept (time) differs from a reality (that which has presence). H: "Your original post denies the past of the now, and the future of the now. You say it comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. In saying that, you deny conditionality." Scott: Not at all. Only a view that denies that there can be arising and falling away would suggest this. Proximity condition (anantara-paccaya) and contiguity condition (samanantara-paccaya) both refer to the way in which a dhamma, in its ceasing, is condition for the arising of the next dhamma in succession. Sincerely, Scott. #93141 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 12/1/2008 9:58:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: to be in reference to the moment of presence between the arising and falling away of a conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated. A given dhamma comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere. It is 'here' while it is here, for these sub-moments. ............................................................ TG: Comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. Brings a tear to my eye. What an amazing grasp of conditionality and causal principles!!! =============================== Interestingly, there are some non-Nagarjunan Zen teachers who speak of phenomena as "flashings in the void," which is meant in exactly the same sense as "comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere." (Now, where is Ken with accusations of Mahayanist tendencies when I need him?! LOLOL! Just kidding, Ken.) Now, if phenomena were truly discrete, separate realities - momentary "things" each with own being, that Zen notion of "flashings in the void" would be a proper description of the way things are. I think, though, that anicca is far more radical than that and that the "thing perspective" when taken to be more than merely a speech convention, is a leaning away from the middle-way ontology of the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, being a listing towards true existence (or "entity-ness," to coin an ugly word). With metta, Howard #93142 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Re: Wonderful Paritta chanting philofillet Hi Nina and all > Sometimes, Nina, I worry that because you have been > deprived of "formal meditation" you will also be deprived of comforting > practices to help you deal with the onset of old age. I am worried that > you have accumulated a lot of intellectual understanding but that with > the onset of physical pain and approach of death that intellectual > understanding will evaporate and you will be left without wise ways to > deal with physical agony. Rereading these rather dramatic words I wrote earlier, I regret writing that you have only accumulated "intellectual understanding." I'm sure you have accumulated all kinds of kusala through your long years of practice, and that it not going to evaporate, obviously. I do wish that your teacher encouraged you to develop mindfulness in the body first-and-foremost the way the Buddha does but you have heard that often enough. In any case, the parittas as chanted by U Silananda are amazing. And the concern I felt for you was sincere no matter how silly it feels now. :) Ok, catch you all later. Enjoy the 'rittas. Metta, Phil #93143 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Majjhima Nikaya/ For Alex and everybody upasaka_howard Hi, Chris (and Bhante) - In a message dated 12/2/2008 3:06:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: > > > > > Hi Alex! > i know the Buddha knew quite a bit. > > Isn't there something in the M.N.(Wisdom Publishers Ed.) > where the Venerable Gotama declares that the only NECESSARY > knowledge for a Budda is the cause and cessation of dukkha? > > Am i wrong on this? > > > > Om Namah Dhamma Gotama! > > bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto > Hello Venerable Aggacitto, Perhaps this is what you are refering to?: MN 63 - Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta ~ The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya =============================== Yes, and, of course there is also the following: SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta The Simsapa Leaves Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: S v 437 CDB ii 1857 ____________________________________ Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. ____________________________________ Copyright 1997 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition 1997 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. Other formats: (http://www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html#sn56.031) ____________________________________ Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa_1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html#n-1) forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?" "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous." "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" ============================= With metta, Howard #93144 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 8, no 2 nichiconn Dear Nina, welcome home again. It's always good to see you back. I readily agree - no problem at all with saying "Buddhaghosa, the author" (with an h) of the Vism. My apologies for not being clearer that I was really just pointing at that little typo in case Revisited is ever republished. best wishes, connie c: > Oh no! not "Buddhaghosa, the autor"! No such thing! #93145 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 6:51 am Subject: Re: Funeral of Peter. szmicio Dear Nina > I think anatta concerns the whole practice, but we may often forget > that sati and understanding are anatta. Lobha comes in all the time. > Lodewijk had some remarks similar to what Lukas said: he finds the > practice too difficult, has many akusala cittas although he does not > want to. He would like to have more understanding. L: Yeah. But it shows me so much that all is out of control. Even there is a lot of mana, lobha and dosa, i can learn that is not mine, it arises because of conditions. step by step, little by little. no self at all. I find my Dhamma now, my friends here, so just lead normal life listening and considering. Nothing more I can do. Best wishes Lukas P.s I like Lodewijk questions, he asks Ajahn(audio files from dsg site). He also has very nice voice. #93146 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wonderful Paritta chanting nilovg Dear Phil, Op 2-dec-2008, om 4:26 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > I am especially hopeful that Nina > will enjoy these. Sometimes, Nina, I worry that because you have been > deprived of "formal meditation" you will also be deprived of > comforting > practices to help you deal with the onset of old age. I am worried > that > you have accumulated a lot of intellectual understanding but that with > the onset of physical pain and approach of death that intellectual > understanding will evaporate and you will be left without wise ways to > deal with physical agony. Formal meditators develop ways of dealing > with pain that I am worried you are without. I don't expect you to > start meditating, but I hope that these parittas will be helpful for > you when hard times come. Of course they will come to all of us, but > for some reason I worry about you the most. Because I care about you > and am grateful to you, of course. ------- N: It is very kind of you to think of me and to feel worried about me. The onset of pain and death in the future. That would be thinking, thinking. What about now, Kh Sujin would say, and that is the best reminder. Ken H : there is only the present moment. And perhaps you read what Peter said to Lodewijk. I appreciate parittas but just now I have lack of time. I would rather read them than listen to them. I really appreciate your kind mail, Nina. #93147 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 12/1/2008 8:26:58 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: I've not found the replies to recent posts to have adequately addressed the concerns at all in any cogent or well thought-out manner. They seem to be more knee-jerk and rhetorical. ...................................................... TG: Daaahhh Im doin da bess I kan. Wat's cogak meen?...aaahhhh....I htunk I undergot jerk.....wat's rihtoichy meen? ..................................................... So no, I'm rather hoping you'll buckle down and present yourself in the scholarly manner I'm sure you're capable of. ................................................. TG: he he I no wat ya meen. Me Papy say Im a jantleman and a scoolary. GT UOT #93148 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Nina, Alex, All (The All) ;-) In a message dated 12/2/2008 1:59:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Not at all. Whatever is an element, dhaatu, is reality, not pa~n~natti. The same for aayatana, it only includes reality. Ven. Nyanatiloka and also Ven. Bodhi have made a mistake here. They confuse dhaatu with mind-object. Dhammaaramma.confuse dhaatu with mi but dhammadhaatu does not. This was discussed before. I think Sarah mentioned this to Ven. Bodhi. ............................................................. TG: Bhikkhu Bodhi translates "The All" (18 elements) -- the mental factors as -- "the mind and mental phenomena and mind-consciousness and things to be cognized by mind-consciousness." THIS IS THE ALL! The Eighteen Elements. Concepts are included in that obviously. There's no discussion of "Reality Alls" and "Unreality Alls." If concepts are not included in "The All," then there are some serious issues with the whole series of Suttas on "The All." Just one of those issues would be that concepts are not mentioned and the Buddha says understanding "The All" is all that's needed to overcome suffering. So, if its not included, then understanding concepts is irrelevant to the practice and there's no need to make a big deal out of reality vs concept. Another problem would be if the Buddha described "The All" and there is something other than the "All," then he hasn't described "The All" at all and is in gross error. At the end of "The All" Suttas, the Buddha discusses 3 Suttas on the topic of conceivings. Never mentions they are not realities. Hummm. What a golden opportunity for him had he wished to do so. The Issue of Realities vs Concepts is a non-issue in the Suttas! Its an "invented issue" by commentators who were led astray by the schematic style of the Abhidhamma IMO. They took mere decriptions of phenomena and blundered to think they were "realities." The whole thing got "substantialized" and blown out of proportion and now its, its own separate religion. Sure, they keep the Suttas around as a pretence of authenticity, but the crux of this Abhidhamma commentarial thought is not to be found at all in the Suttas. Any Sutta justification for this view that I've seen is continually putting words in the Buddha's mouth that he never said. Quite a departure from the enlightened arahats that lived with and were taught by the Buddha...who wouldn't even remove the minor vinaya rules as they were not 100% sure what the Buddha meant by that. TG OUT #93149 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:40 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. szmicio Dear Nina and Sarah > Q. : When my eyes are open I am seeing, but I do not pay attention to > anything else. How can there be sati? > S. : We cannot prevent the arising and falling away of cittas which > succeed one another, that is their nature. When sati arises it can be > aware of whatever reality appears naturally, just as it is. L: Can there be sati at the moment of seeing? Can sati arise with vipaka? Is it true that sati arise only in javana-process? Can sati arise with bhavanga-citta, when we are fast asleep? can there be moments of javana-cittas when we are fast asleep? What is the true meaning of pariyatti? Is it just intelectual understanding? All those wise reflections are part of pariyatti or patipati? Best wishes Lukas #93150 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 2-dec-2008, om 18:40 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: Can there be sati at the moment of seeing? Can sati arise with > vipaka? Is it true that sati arise only in javana-process? ------- N: Sati of satipatthaana that is aware of a reality arises only with kusala citta, thus, in a javana process. Rebirth-consciousness that is kusala vipaaka accompanied by sobhana hetus, is accompanied by sati but this is not aware of a reality, it is merely result of kusala kamma. After seeing has fallen away sati can be aware of seeing or of visible object, or of feeling, or of any other reality. ------ > > L: Can sati arise with bhavanga-citta, when we are fast asleep? can > there > be moments of javana-cittas when we are fast asleep? ----- N: Bhavangacittas are vipaakacittas and they are of the same type as the rebirth-consciousness, thus, when this is kusala vipaka accompanied by sobhana hetus, it is accompanied by sati. But this is not aware of a reality. Bhavangacittas are not javanacittas, javanacittas occur when dreaming. ------- > > L: What is the true meaning of pariyatti? > Is it just intelectual understanding? ------ N: More than that, it pertains to the reality that appears. This is gradually more clearly understood so that there are conditions for pa.tipatti. ------ > L: All those wise reflections are part of pariyatti or patipati? ------ N: When wisely reflecting there can be awareness and understanding of the reality that appears, also when thinking. Then there is no idea of my wise reflection. Usually it is our reflection. But it takes long to get rid of this idea. Patience. Nina. #93151 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts nilovg Hi TG, Op 2-dec-2008, om 18:33 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Sure, they keep > the Suttas around as a pretence of authenticity, but the crux of this > Abhidhamma commentarial thought is not to be found at all in the > Suttas. Any Sutta > justification for this view that I've seen is continually putting > words in the > Buddha's mouth that he never said. ------ N: Can you teach me how to be aware of a concept like a table? Nina. #93152 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts egberdina Hello Scott, 2008/12/3 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "My point was that the now and the here of your original post are > totally different. Now has a past, and is going to a future. As > opposed to here, which is the duality of what is present to > consciousness (in a manner of speaking)." > > Scott: 'Now' differs from 'here' as a concept (time) differs from a > reality (that which has presence). Well, are arising and ceasing "now" or "here"? If they are "here", as you state below, why have three phases of hereness other than to acknowledge the reality of time? > > H: "Your original post denies the past of the now, and the future of > the now. You say it comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. In saying > that, you deny conditionality." > > Scott: Not at all. Only a view that denies that there can be arising > and falling away would suggest this. Proximity condition > (anantara-paccaya) and contiguity condition (samanantara-paccaya) both > refer to the way in which a dhamma, in its ceasing, is condition for > the arising of the next dhamma in succession. > Could you please explain what it means for arising and ceasing to be "here"? Also, please explain how, if one ceased dhamma is a necessary condition for a present dhamma, you can say that dhammas come from nowhere ie have no past? Me, myself, I #93153 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:39 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: <. . .> > [Ken H, Howard & all, while searching there, I also pulled out this one of Phil's that Ken was referring to re the 'Sea of Being' or 'Ground of Being' > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91015] > --- Thanks Sarah, that's the one I was thinking of. BTW, a while ago you asked about the storms that hit my part of the world, and I forgot to reply. They went to the left and right of my house barely rustling a leaf, thanks for asking. Ken H #93154 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 12/2/2008 3:02:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Scott: 'Now' differs from 'here' as a concept (time) differs from a > reality (that which has presence). .................................................. TG: The CONCEPT has presence!!! It is a mind-object and arises in accordance with conditions. TG OUT #93155 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "The CONCEPT has presence!!! It is a mind-object and arises in accordance with conditions." Scott: The concept is not paramattha dhamma; it is conventional only. It has no essence. It doesn't 'become' or 'exist' in the sense that a conditioned dhamma does. Visuddhimagga VIII, 246 (p.286): "...Dhammas [means] individual essences..." Note 68 VIII (p. 789): "In such passages as 'Dhammas that are concepts' (Dhs, p. 1, 1308) even a non-entity (abhaava) is thus called a 'dhamma' since it is borne (dhaariyati) and affirmed (avadhaariyati) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by his [Buddhaghosa] saying 'Dhammas [means] individual essences.' The act of becoming (bhavana), which constitutes existingness (vijjamaanataa) in the ultimate sense, is essence (bhaava); it is with essence (saha bhavena), thus it is an individual essence (sabhaava); the meaning is that it is possible (labbhamaanaruupa) in the true sense, in the ultimate sense. For these are called 'dhammas' (bearers)' because they bear (dhaara.na) their own individual essences (sabhaava), and they are called 'individual essences' in the sense already explained' (Paramattha- Ma~njuusa, Visuddhimagga A.t.thakathaa 282)." Sincerely, Scott. #93156 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 12/2/2008 1:22:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Can you teach me how to be aware of a concept like a table? Nina. .......................................................... TG: Yes. First be mindful of the content "in the mind." Now, raise the idea of 'table' in "your" mind. Now, be aware that the CONCEPT of 'table' that arose in your mind did so DUE TO CONDITIONS. The most immediate condition being, in this case, the contact between this e-mail and your mind. Courtesy of Howard's analogy) -- Its like having a picture of a group of people. When you look at the picture, you're not seeing the people, your seeing a picture of people. The picture is a recording of a prior event. Its just a picture. Similarly -- When you have a concept of a table, the table's not supposed to be there, its just the "idea" of a table that is there. Its just a concept. That's all that's supposed to be there. Similarly to the picture, the 'concept' is a "mental picture" that is formulated due to the appropriate conditions coming together. And although the picture or concept "represent" something else, it isn't at all "that" something else. Never was, never was meant to be. Without the systematic aggregation known as Nina, and a whole lot of other conditions, that concept never could and never would arise. Other conditions for the arising of the concept of 'table' are incalculable. One thing to know is that at some point as a child, you saw a table and formulated the idea of what it is. That experience and thousands of others that continually reinforce it form a memory of table. When we form a concept, we are often tapping in to those memories. Its mental content. It arose due to conditions and ceases (being mind-object) as other conditions encroach upon the mind and deflect attention elsewhere. This, of course, all happens very fast and more or less seamlessly A concept is not more or less real than anything else. However, concepts are prone to being very delusional. This does not make "the concept itself" an unreality. Concepts are like a mirage. The factors that come together to generate a mirage are actual phenomena. No more or less real than anything else. Our problematic "false interpretation" of the mirage has nothing to due with the factors generating the mirage. That's merely a deluded interpretation when we think we see 'water.' Concepts are like that. The concept itself is merely mental phenomena. The fact that we might misapprehend that phenomena as being some thing other than what it is...that's merely a deluded interpretation ... when we think we see self, permanence, a "non-existent something" etc. Well, All you asked for were the first 4 sentences I wrote. I just added some bonus material. ;-) I'm sure you won't agree with it, but whatever. TG #93157 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: We learn that people are citta, cetasika and rupa that do not stay > for a moment. > -------- James: Well, then, if citta, cetasika, and rupa exist (if even for a moment) then people exist (if only momentarily). If A = B then B = A. > ------ > N: I mean: one reality at a time is the object of mindfulness and > right understanding, so that pa~n~naa can grow and eradicate > defilements. James: We run into problems with understanding when we refer to dhammas as "realities". I did not say: that is all that exists in samsara. > This sutta and the following suttas deal with the objects right > understanding should be developed of. James: I don't believe that the sutta about "The All" has anything to do with satipatthana. It is one of the rare ontological suttas the Buddha gave (and he didn't have much to say- as the commentary to the sutta is about three times as long as the sutta itself! :-). Metta, James #93158 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 12/2/2008 6:56:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: The concept is not paramattha dhamma; it is conventional only. It has no essence. It doesn't 'become' or 'exist' in the sense that a conditioned dhamma does. Visuddhimagga VIII, 246 (p.286): .................................................. TG: I don't abide by the idea of "ultimate reality" vs "conventional" obviously. There is delusion. A delusion does not turn a supposed "permanent nothing" into a "conventional whatever." Ain't no such thing. TG OUT #93159 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 8:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vis. studies. lbidd2 Hi Nina and Sarah, Nina: "anything special you want to go over again or you find that has not soaked in?" Larry: I was thinking about dependent arising. We can go over the concepts again and again but we can't make understanding arise. As you say, there's nothing to do... Larry #93160 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:08 pm Subject: Bodhgaya gazita2002 Hello Friends, Currently in Bodhgaya, India, the place where the Buddha attained enlightenment. There are hundreds of pilgrims from many parts of the world and the main temple plus walls, other stupas, buddha images are festooned with flowers and garlands and tomas, cloth - it looks unbelievable. Many monks from different countries are here to recite the tripitika in their various styles. The visual and audible effects are stunning. Have had the great fortune to attend the temple almsot ea day, and sometimes we discuss a sutta from the MN that someone had the viriya to bring, given its weight!!!! On other days we have been attending to other business that we have here. Primarily assisting some of the incredibly poor. If anyone is further interested in that aspect please see www.kusalaproject.org. I had the great fortune to climb to the top of a mountain called Gurpa where apparently MahaKassapa lived for some time. It was a days journey from BG and I travelled with 5 monks and a layman. I felt quite moved by these monks bec they adhere quite stricly to Vinaya rules and therefore do not touch any money among many other things. We sat in MahaKassapa' cave while the senior monk gave a small talk and read about the Ven MahaKassapa. I have had tears in my eyes many times on this trip. So Piti....... However, just one moment of sattipatthan could be worth far more than days of Saddha and Piti. Its good to be reminded that one moment arises and falls away and that the above story is just that - a story - but one I am enjoying :-) Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #93161 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:19 pm Subject: Re: Funeral of Peter Swan gazita2002 Hello Rob, thank you for this. I was wondering how it all went. There are many Thai people unable to leave Bodhgaya due to the closure of Thai airports. Not only Thai, many others whose flights were to go via Bangkok. One never knows what the next moment will bring. May all beings be happy, azita -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > Sukinder , Ivan Kevin, and me, and many, many others attended the > funeral service for Peter at Wat That Thong in Bangkok . > #93162 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 9:13 pm Subject: Symbiotic Sympathy ;-) bhikkhu0 Friends: Making oneself into a Mighty Friend: Friendliness means Goodwill Friendliness means Kindness Friendliness means Helpfulness Friendliness means Assistance Friendliness means Support Friendliness means Benevolence Friendliness means Concern Friendliness means Care Friendliness means Compassion Friendliness means Cooperation Friendliness means Mutual Aid Friendliness means Mutual Advantage Friendliness means Symbiosis Friendliness means Sympathy Friendliness means Basic Trust --- The Blessed Buddha once said: A friend who always lends a hand, a friend both in sorrow and joy, a friend who offers good counsel, a friend who sympathizes too. These are the four kinds of true friends: one who is wise, having understood, will always cherish and serve such friends just as a mother tends her only child. DN III 188 As a mother even with her life protects her only child, so let one cultivate immeasurable loving-kindness towards all living beings. --- Bhikkhus, whatever kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one sixteenth part of the release of mind by universal friendliness; in shining, glowing and beaming radiance the release of mind by infinite & endless friendliness far excels & even surpasses them all. Itivuttaka 27 --- He who does not strike nor makes others strike, who robs not nor makes others rob, sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. Itivuttaka 22 --- Thus he who both day and night takes delight in harmlessness sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. SN I 208 --- When one with a mind of love feels compassion for the entire world -- above, below and across, unlimited everywhere. Jataka 37 --- I am a friend of the footless, I am a friend of the bipeds; I am a friend of those with four feet, I am a friend of the many-footed. May not the footless harm me, may not the bipeds harm me, may not those with four feet harm me, and may not those with many feet harm me. AN II 72 --- Among tigers, lions, leopards & bears I lived on the wood. No one was frightened of me, nor did I fear anyone. Uplifted by such universal friendliness I enjoyed the forest. Finding great solace in silent solitude. Suvanna-sama Jataka 540 --- I am a friend and helper to all, I am sympathetic to all living beings. I develop a mind full of love and takes always delight in harmlessness. I gladden my mind, fill it with joy, and make it immovable and unshakable. I develop the divine states of mind not cultivated by simple men. Theragatha. 648-9 Have a nice & friendly day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Symbiotic Sympathy blazes and shines! #93163 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Funeral of Peter Swan nilovg Dear Robert (and Azita), Were there any speakers at the funeral, and what reminders Kh. Sujin gave? Always useful to hear. Nina. Op 3-dec-2008, om 6:19 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Hello Rob, > > thank you for this. #93164 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 8, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, In the Lakkhanasutta (Dgha Nikya, Dialogues of the Buddha III, no. 30) it is explained that the Buddha, during his lives as a Bodhisatta, accumulated manifold virtues and that these conditioned the special bodily features that are the characteristics of a Buddha. We read about his immeasurable generosity, his perfect sla and his boundless loving kindness and compassion towards all living beings. He had no selfish purposes in mind, he always thought of the welfare of others. After all our discussions about selfishness the impact of this sutta that points out the Buddhas utmost selflessness is much greater and it can serve as a reminder to us to be less self-seeking. I shall quote parts of this sutta without going into the details of the bodily characteristics conditioned by his excellent qualities which are mentioned after each section of this sutta: ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth, former state of becoming, former sojourning, monks, the Tathgata, then being human, took on mighty enterprise in all good things, took on unfaltering enterprise in seemly course of deed and word and thought:--- in dispensing gifts, in virtuous undertakings, in keeping of festivals, in filial duties to mother and father, in pious duties to recluse and brahmin, in honour of the head of the house and in other such things of lofty merit.... (145) ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth, former state of becoming, former sojourning, monks, the Tathgata, then being human, lived for the weal of the great multitudes, dispeller of dread and of panic, purveyor of just protection and wardenship and giver of supplies..... (148) ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth... the Tathgata, then being human, putting away the taking of life, refrained therefrom and laying the scourge and sword aside, dwelt gentle and compassionate, merciful and friendly to all living creatures.... (149) ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth... the Tathgata, then being human, became popular to the people by the four bases of popularity, to wit, by giving, by kindly speech, by sagacious conduct and by impartiality... (152) ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth... the Tathgata, then being human, became one who spoke to the multitude on their good, on righteousness, explaining to the multitude, became a bearer of welfare and happiness to living creatures, a celebrant of righteousness... (154) ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth... the Tathgata, then being human, drew near and questioned recluse or brahmin, saying: What, sir, is good? What is bad? What is right, what is wrong? What ought I to do, or not to do? What when I have done it will long be for my unhappiness... or for my happiness?... (157) ... Whereas in whatsoever former birth... the Tathgata, then being human, lived without wrath, full of serenity, and even when much had been said, feel not foul of anyone, was neither angry, nor malign, nor enraged, manifesting neither anger nor hate nor melancholy, but was a giver of fine and soft coverlets, and cloaks, and fine linen, fine cotton, fine silken, fine woollen stuffs.... (159) ******* Nina. #93165 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 2, 2008 11:34 pm Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, Q. : I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? S. : All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They are impermanent and therefore they cannot be a real refuge, they are unsatisfactory, dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. People who believe that dukkha is merely painful feeling think that, when they feel stiffness and assume a new posture in order to avoid stiffness, that the new posture conceals dukkha. However, any posture conceals the characteristic of dukkha if one has not developed pa. What we take for the whole body or a posture are in reality many different rpas which arise and fall away. They are impermanent and thus dukkha. However, people do not realize that, no matter they are sitting, lying down, standing or walking, there are rpas all over the body, arising and falling away, and that these rpas are dukkha. It has been explained in the Visuddhimagga that the postures conceal dukkha. The meaning is that the characteristic of dukkha of the nma and rpa which arise together while one assumes different postures is concealed, so long as one takes the body for a whole, for mine. The characteristic of dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one nma and one rpa at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. If one has not realized the arising and falling away of nma and rpa, all postures, no matter they are connected with painful feeling or not, conceal the characteristic of dukkha. If a person does not develop pa in order to understand nma and rpa as they are, he has the wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedan, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of nma and rpa. This is the case if he does not know the nma which sees and colour appearing through the eyes, the nma which hears and sound appearing through the ears, the nma which smells and odour, the nma which tastes and flavour, the nma which experiences tangible object and tangible object, the nma which thinks, happiness, sorrow and other realities. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of nma which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of nma and rpa as they appear one at a time, pa can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized. ******* Nina. #93166 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhgaya egberdina Hello Azita, For as long as I have been reading your posts at dsg, you have been unapologetically human. Thank you for that. Me, myself, I. 2008/12/3 gazita2002 : > Hello Friends, > > Currently in Bodhgaya, India, the place where the Buddha > attained enlightenment. > #93167 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Funeral of Peter Swan rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Robert (and Azita), > Were there any speakers at the funeral, and what reminders Kh. > Sujin gave? Always useful to hear. Dear Nina, No speakers except for the monks. on saturday we met at the Wat after a dhamma discussion at the DSSF. with respect Robert #93168 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:21 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (28-30) and commentary, part 1. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: (RD) Three 'heaps,' to wit, that of wrong-doing entailing immutable evil results, that of well-doing entailing immutable3.28 good results, and that of everything not so determined. (Tayo raasii, micchattaniyato raasi, sammattaniyato raasi, aniyato raasi.) -------- N: Killing ones parents, the drawing of the blood of a Tathagata with intent to injure, creating a schism in the Sangha, is anantariya kamma, akusala kamma that brings an immediate result after the dying- consciousness. What is depraved, micchatta, together with wrong view, is immutable in its result. The result is fixed, niyato, it has to happen. As to kusala kamma that brings an immutable result, this is, as the Co. states, the four ariyamaggas, thus, the maggacitta arising at each of the four stages of enlightenment. Then akusala, according to the stage of enlightenment that is attained, is eradicated for good and an unhappy rebirth is no longer possible. All other dhammas are not entailing immutable results. ---------- Co: Micchattaniyatoti micchaasabhaavo hutvaa niyato. Niyatamicchaadi.t.thiyaa saddhi.m aanantariyakammasseta.m naama.m. Sammaasabhaave niyato sammattaniyato. Catunna.m ariyamaggaanameta.m naama.m. Na niyatoti aniyato. Avasesaana.m dhammaanameta.m naama.m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- Sutta: (Walshe): Three obscurations:*1037 One hesitates, vacillates, is undecided, is unsettled about the past, the future, the present. (Tayo tamaa atiita.m vaa .... anaagata.m vaa..... etarahi vaa paccuppanna.m addhaana.m aarabbha ka'nkhati vicikicchati naadhimuccati na sampasiidati.) ------- N: We read in the Dispeller of Delusion II (p. 254): The Dispeller of Delusion (p.171) states : What is khandha arises and falls away, but ignorance does not know this. Each citta that arises does so because of conditions and it falls away. Rebirth-consciousness is produced by past kamma, it arises and falls away. There is no self who travels from the past to the present life, but if one clings to eternalism one believes in a self who continues to exist. If one clings to annihilationism one believes that death-consciousness will not be followed by rebirth- consciousness. There will be ignorance and doubt about the past, the future and the present. The Co states that ignorance is called darkness. It states that the flood of ignorance, dark, deluded, is a great danger. But the teaching is given under the heading of doubt. He arouses doubt. Considering he experiences distress, unable to come to a conclusion. He is unable to have decisiveness or clearness of mind. ------ The subco states that confidence in kusala, saddhaa, and resolution have no opportunity. The Pali term pasaada is used, which means clearness as well as confidence in kusala, saddhaa. The subco refers to texts where it is said: . Understanding is compared to light that destroys the darkness of ignorance. If understanding is developed of the present reality, ignorance and doubt about the past, the future and the present will be eliminated. -------- Co:Tayo tamaati tamandhakaaro sammoho avijjogho mahaabhayoti vacanato avijjaa tamo naama. Idha pana avijjaasiisena vicikicchaa vuttaa. AArabbhaati aagamma. Ka"nkhatiiti ka"nkha.m uppaadeti. Vicikicchatiiti vicinanto kiccha.m aapajjati, sanni.t.thaatu.m na sakkoti. Naadhimucchatiiti tattha adhimucchitu.m na sakkoti. Na sampasiidatiiti ta.m aarabbha pasaada.m aaropetu.m na sakkoti. ******* Nina. #93169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 2:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vis. studies. nilovg Hi Larry, Op 3-dec-2008, om 5:48 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Larry: I was thinking about dependent arising. We can go over the > concepts again and again but we can't make understanding arise. As you > say, there's nothing to do... ------- N: No self who can make understanding arise, but that does not mean that there should be passivity. There are conditions already for interest in and study of the Dhamma. This can continue on so that understanding grows little by little. As I quoted at the end of Vis. Ch XVII: < The Sammohavinodanii, Dispeller of Delusion gives at the end of the Abhidhamma Division (p. 262) an exhortation to develop the way leading out of the cycle: <[Therefore] in accordance with the Order Consisting of Competency-Learning-Reflection-Practice The wise act always in regard thereto for there is nothing other than that which more needs to be done.> As we read in the subco. to the mahaanidaanasutta as to the first two stages of tender insight, these This reminds us to persevere with the development of understanding of all dhammas appearing in our daily life. There is nothing other than that which more needs to be done.> This is the way to disentangle the tangle of ignorance and craving. ****** Nina. #93170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts nilovg Hi TG, Op 3-dec-2008, om 3:15 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > When we form a concept, we > are often tapping in to those memories. Its mental content. It > arose due > to conditions and ceases (being mind-object) as other conditions > encroach upon > the mind and deflect attention elsewhere. This, of course, all > happens very > fast and more or less seamlessly --------- N: I start with a part of your quote from Howard. Our lack of communication might be: seeing concept as content of citta, which is not the way I see it. Your quote from Howard: it is well written, well formulated, but there is one thing that stands out: the object of citta is seen as content of citta, no separation in analysing the reality that is object and citta which are different. Howard sees citta and its object as one. Now, it is true that we cannot speak of object unless it is experienced by citta, and also: there is not citta without experiencing an object. The object can be a relaity, nama or rupa that arises and falls away, or a concept which, as I see it, does not arise and fall away. Thus, Howard thinks that citta falls away together with its content, the object it experiences, no matter the object is a reality or a concept. No reality without experience he believes, and maybe you too? Phenomenological outlook, thus a certain point of view you see as correct. When concept is the object of citta you see it as arising with the citta and falling away with the citta. I do not see it that way as you know. I am glad you added this bonus material, because this enables me to understand why you and Howard think the way you do. It spares us long discussions and misunderstandings from both sides. ------ TG: First be mindful of the content "in the mind." Now, raise the idea of 'table' in "your" mind. Now, be aware that the CONCEPT of 'table' that arose in your mind did so DUE TO CONDITIONS. The most immediate condition being, in this case, the contact between this e-mail and your mind. -------- N: Where is the detachment that goes with each moment of true mindfulness? First do this, then that, this is not the way sati operates. Some detachment from 'I do", even a little, where is it? As to dues to conditions: I do not see these as seen in conventional sense, like Email and mind. Concept can be object-condition, but all other conditioning fators are nama or rupa. Sati arises unexpectantly and is aware of any, any object that appears now. For the understanding of sati and its object I think it necessary to understand that sati is not aware of a whole, a collection, but just of an element. Not a body, but elements, to see the body as mere physical elements, not mine. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (IV, Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.IV, par. 205, The Lute) that the Buddha said to the monks: ' ... Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a rajah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says: 'Good man, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?' Then they say to him : 'That, lord, is the sound of what is called a lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Go, my man. Fetch me that lute.' So they fetch him that lute and say to him : 'This, lord, is that lute, the sound of which is so entrancing... of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Enough of this lute, my man. Fetch me that sound.' They say to him: 'This lute so called, lord, consists of divers parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers parts, of great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts.' Then that rajah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces. Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so, he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the swift stream of a river. Then he says: 'A poor thing is what you call a lute, a lute, my men, whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and led astray.' Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities (sankharakkhandha), investigating consciousness, so far as there is scope for consciousness, - -in all of these investigations, whatever there be of 'I' or 'I am' or 'Mine', there is none of that for him'. ------- N: Only nama, only rupa, not a whole, not the whole body,not the whole mind, this leads to detachment. A poor thing is this body once it is burned. What a strong reminder of death. Less conceit about my important body. -------- In the 'Satipatthana-sutta' (Discourse on the Applications of Mindfulness, Middle Length Sayings I, No.10) we read in the section about mindfulness of the body, that the Buddha spoke about the body in terms of elements. The text states: And again, monks, a monk reflects on this body according to how it is placed or disposed in respect of the elements, thinking: 'In this body there is the element of extension (solidity), the element of cohesion, the element of heat, the element of motion.' Monks, even as a skilled cattle-butcher, or his apprentice, having slaughtered a cow, might sit displaying its carcass at a cross-roads, even so, monks, does a monk reflect on this body itself according to how it is placed or disposed in respect of the elements, thinking: 'In this body there is the element of extension, the element of cohesion, the element of heat, the element of motion'. Thus he fares along contemplating the body in the body internally...and he fares along independently of and not grasping anything in the world. It is thus too, monks, that a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body... ----- N: Just elements. No concept of a whole. But, we go separate ways, I understand. Nina. #93171 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 4:41 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. szmicio Dear Nina > > > > L: Can sati arise with bhavanga-citta, when we are fast asleep? can > > there > > be moments of javana-cittas when we are fast asleep? > ----- > N: Bhavangacittas are vipaakacittas and they are of the same type as > the rebirth-consciousness, thus, when this is kusala vipaka > accompanied by sobhana hetus, it is accompanied by sati. But this is > not aware of a reality. Bhavangacittas are not javanacittas, > javanacittas occur when dreaming. > ------- L: So how can we know bhavangacittas? There is no sati-sampajana in that moment. > > > > L: What is the true meaning of pariyatti? > > Is it just intelectual understanding? > ------ > N: More than that, it pertains to the reality that appears. This is > gradually more clearly understood so that there are conditions for > pa.tipatti. > ------ > > L: All those wise reflections are part of pariyatti or patipati? > ------ > N: When wisely reflecting there can be awareness and understanding of > the reality that appears, also when thinking. Then there is no idea > of my wise reflection. Usually it is our reflection. But it takes > long to get rid of this idea. Patience. L: Good to know #93172 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 4:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Herman, You may have missed the suttas, which form the core of this particular thread at the moment. AN Book of Threes: 7.47. Sa"nkhatalakkha.nasutta.m "There are, O monks, three conditioned marks of the unconditioned. What three? Its origination is discerned, its vanishing is discerned, its change while persisting is discerned. These are the three conditioned marks of the conditioned." Tii.nimaani, bhikkhave, sa"nkhatassa sa"nkhatalakkha.naani. Katamaani tii.ni? Uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho, bhikkhave, tii.ni sa"nkhatassa sa"nkhatalakkha.naanii''ti. Sattama.m. 8.48. Asa"nkhatalakkha.nasutta.m "There are, O monks, three unconditioned marks of the Unconditioned. What three? No origination is discerned, no vanishing is discerned, no change while persisting is discerned. These are the three unconditioned marks of the Unconditioned." Tii.nimaani, bhikkhave, asa"nkhatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naani. Katamaani tii.ni? Na uppaado pa~n~naayati, na vayo pa~n~naayati, na .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho, bhikkhave, tii.ni asa"nkhatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naanii''ti. A.t.thama.m. H: "Well, are arising and ceasing 'now' or 'here'? If they are 'here', as you state below, why have three phases of hereness other than to acknowledge the reality of time?" Scott: 'Uppaada', 'vaya', and '.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m' are the three sub-moments of the single moment of consciousness. They are in the suttas and seem fairly straight-forward. I don't doubt this. H: "Could you please explain what it means for arising and ceasing to be 'here'?" Scott: A conditioned dhamma, in order to be 'here' - that is available to experience, or 'discerned' (pa~n~naayati), as noted in the sutta - arises (uppaada), changes while persisting (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m), and falls away (vayo). Thus it is 'here'. H: "Also, please explain how, if one ceased dhamma is a necessary condition for a present dhamma, you can say that dhammas come from nowhere i.e. have no past?" Scott: I've not said that 'comes from nowhere' means 'have no past'. This latter is your own imputation. I recall that kamma and kamma-result are not your cup of tea, but one need only consider these two aspects of the Dhamma in order to do away with doubt in this regard. The past is very relevant. Visuddhimagga XIX 22: "He understands thus: 'Aggregates produced in the past, with kamma as condition ceased there too. But other aggregates are produced in the becoming with past kamma as their condition, although there is no single thing that has come over from the past becoming to this becoming. And aggregates produced in this becoming with kamma as their condition will cease. And in the future becoming other aggregates will be produced although no single thing will go over from this becoming to the future becoming... Just as eye-consciousness comes next following on mind element, Which, though it does not come from that, Yet fails not next to be produced, So too, in rebirth-linking, conscious Continuity takes place; The prior consciousness breaks up, The subsequent is born from that. They have no interval between Nor gap [that separates the two]; While naught whatever passes over, Still rebirth-linking comes about." Scott: I don't doubt these things. I'm aware that you've gone over all of this many times and do not agree. I'm not wishing to re-invent the wheel with you, but you're welcome to the above. Sincerely, Scott. #93173 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vis. studies. sarahprocter... Hi Larry, --- On Wed, 3/12/08, LBIDD@... wrote: >Nina: "anything special you want to go over again or you find that has not soaked in?" >Larry: I was thinking about dependent arising. We can go over the concepts again and again but we can't make understanding arise. As you say, there's nothing to do... ..... S: I agree, "we can't make understanding arise" and "there's nothing to do".. This is, of course, because there is no Self that can make or do anything.. What about ignorance (avijja) now? What do you think the first link, avijja, refers to at this moment? Metta, Sarah ======= #93174 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 4:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "I don't abide by the idea of 'ultimate reality' vs 'conventional' obviously..." Scott: This, for me, is a main impediment to your understanding of the Dhamma. You embark on an attempt to comprehend the suttas, in English mind you, without being able to accept such a basic and essential aspect of the Dhamma. This is a perilous course. Why do you doubt this? Without an ability to differentiate between what is merely conventional and what are actual realities, you go on to be expressed by a view which, among other things, completely does away with realities altogether, positing instead the untenable notion that conditions of nothing are the moving forces of nothing. May I ask if your participation on the List is simply for the purpose of pointing out to other participants, who happen not to doubt those things you do, that these things are without value? Or do you seek, in a rather unorthodox and paradoxical fashion somehow to learn about these aspect of the Dhamma? Sincerely, Scott. #93175 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and TG) - In a message dated 12/2/2008 10:21:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Scott In a message dated 12/2/2008 6:56:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: The concept is not paramattha dhamma; it is conventional only. It has no essence. It doesn't 'become' or 'exist' in the sense that a conditioned dhamma does. Visuddhimagga VIII, 246 (p.286): .................................................. TG: I don't abide by the idea of "ultimate reality" vs "conventional" obviously. There is delusion. A delusion does not turn a supposed "permanent nothing" into a "conventional whatever." Ain't no such thing. TG OUT ========================== My take on this is a follows: Particular trains of thought are said to be "about something or other". These "thinkings" do occur. Like all complex phenomena, they have particular structures/patterns. A particular such "thinking" about specific rupas and namas, one or more, can be called an "elementary concept." A train of thought that is about several similar thought-patterns, generalizing them, is itself a concept, but a higher-level concept. A train of thought that is about, and mentally combines, a variety of widely differing concepts is a yet more complex, higher-level concept. But it is all just thinking. When it seems that there is a mental something-or-other that actually is present, floating about in the "mind" that that we are conscious of when thinking, that, IMO, is pure imagination. The phrase "thinking about X" simply describes a line of thought and in no way implies the actual presence of an X or of a mental photo-copy or analog of X. And when, even worse, we presume that there is some mystery-shrouded, Platonic shadow-something that neither exists nor does not exist, that is unchanging and eternal, and which is called "a concept," well, that, IMO, is a dreamed up, fuzzy-minded, substantialist-eternalist story that has been swallowed whole! With metta, Howard #93176 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "...And when, even worse, we presume that there is some mystery-shrouded, Platonic shadow-something that neither exists nor does not exist, that is unchanging and eternal, and which is called 'a concept,' well, that, IMO, is a dreamed up, fuzzy-minded, substantialist-eternalist story that has been swallowed whole!" Scott: I'll leave this for you discuss with TG and Herman, since you three are, despite your differences, in the same camp. Consider this, though: 8.48. Asa"nkhatalakkha.nasutta.m "There are, O monks, three unconditioned marks of the Unconditioned. What three? No origination is discerned, no vanishing is discerned, no change while persisting is discerned. These are the three unconditioned marks of the Unconditioned." Tii.nimaani, bhikkhave, asa"nkhatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naani. Katamaani tii.ni? Na uppaado pa~n~naayati, na vayo pa~n~naayati, na .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho, bhikkhave, tii.ni asa"nkhatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naanii''ti. A.t.thama.m. Scott: Concepts are similar to Nibbaana, as I understand it, in that they don't have an arising, they don't have a change while persisting, nor do they have a vanishing. These three lakkha.na (uppaada, vaya, and a.thitassa a~n~nathatta) are characteristics of conditioned dhammas, not of concepts. Concepts, as I understand it, are timeless. Concepts, like Nibbaana, can be objects of citta but, unlike Nibbaana of course, are not ultimate realities. I don't doubt this. Let's agree to disagree as I am familiar with the way you view this. Sincerely, Scott. #93177 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:33 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > James: Actually, the Buddha already gave a sutta defining "exists" and > he stated that whatever is impermanent and subject to change which the > wise of the world agree as existing, he also states that it exists. > (Unfortunately, there isn't too much agreement among the wise of the > world about what truly exists! ;-)) I think this is the passage you're referring to (quoted by Sarah in a recent post): SN22:94 Flowers: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/93056) > > Whatever your definition, however, I understand the position to be > > that "people" and "things" do not exist in the same way that dhammas > > can be said to exist, i.e., in that their characteristics can be the > > object of direct experience. > > James: Again, this seems to be blending satipatthana and existence. > Please address this issue as we keep coming back to it. Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "blending satipatthaana and existence". Would you mind explaining, so that I can address it ;-)) In an earlier post you said: > James: No, it is my understanding that they [the 6 worlds] exist simultaneously but > they are only known through one doorway at a time. I understand the first part of this statement to refer to existence and the second to satipatthaana. Have I understood you correctly? Jon #93178 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma sarahprocter... Hi TG & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > I have a lot more compassion for the rest of society than this kid. <...> .... S: I'm sure most people feel the same way. However, when we consider that the results we and society experience by way of vipaka (kamma- result) are actually the result of the deeds performed by way of kamma-patha (courses of action), it's a condition to have greater sympathy and compassion for the perpetrators of such deeds. The Buddha really understood the great harm of such ignorance and hatred and thereby had the greatest compassion. Without an understanding of the various mental states and of kamma and vipaka, we'll ignorantly go on thinking that other people are the causes of our problems and those in society. From MN 12, Mahaasiihanaada Sutta, Nanamoli & Bodhi transl: " 'I understand hell, and the path and way leading to hell. And I also understand how one who has entered this path will, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. " '....animal realm......realm of ghosts.......human beings.....gods " ' I understand Nibbaana, and the path and way leading to Nibbaana. And I also understand how one who has entered this path will, by realising for himself with direct knowledge, her and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints.' " S: Later: " 'Rightly speaking, were it to be said of anyone: 'A being not subject to delusion has appeared in the world for the welfare and happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans,' it is of me indeed that rightly speaking this should be said.'" Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, thanks for sharing Ven Dhammanando's helpful response as well. ============ #93179 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:34 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > > As regards the statement that the 6 worlds exist simultaneously, > > that's not how I would understand the teachings. The 6 worlds > spoken > > of by the Buddha are 6 separate moments of consciousness > > James: I don't see how you could come to that interpretaion. The > sutta doesn't say anything about "separate", it just lists them: > What is the All? Okay, you have this and this and this and this, > etc. I'm really saying that when the Buddha speaks about the 6 worlds, he is talking about satipatthaana/insight, and not about existence, because he talks about these 6 worlds in terms of that which is to be understood. In an earlier post you said: > James: No, it is my understanding that they exist simultaneously but > they are only known through one doorway at a time. I agree with the second part of this statement, but I don't see in what sense the first part is meant. > ; they could > > never "exist" simultaneously for an individual. > > James: Again, I don't see the connection between satipatthana and > existence. I agree that the 2 should not be mixed. And I think that in the suttas the Buddha was talking about satipatthaana/the development of insight rather than existence, on the whole. Jon #93180 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:35 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > > Thanks for this. To summarise the above: > > (a) jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor for > > enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). > > (b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of > > anagami and arahant. > > > > Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this point > > correctly? > > slight correction > a)jhana mastery does not seem to be a prerequisite for insight > development for sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). Whoa, Alex. This is much more than a 'slight correction' ;-)) The issue we're discussing is jhana (not jhana mastery) as a prerequisite for insight/attainment. > It may be the case that jhana, at least of momentary kind, occur just > before stream path and/or stream fruition. Here you are introducing the term "jhana of the momentary kind". Perhaps you could explain what this is, and how its differs from the kind of jhana that you say is a prerequisite for anagami and arahant attainment. Thanks Jon #93181 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:47 am Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- On Mon, 1/12/08, upasaka@... wrote: >Concepts are mental phenomena. ============ ========= ======== H:>But, TG, Sarah and some others here are using the word 'concept' differently from the way you and I and most speakers of English use the word. We use 'concept', as you say, to refer to a mental event, specifically to a pattern of thinking. But the admirers of Khun Sujin use it to refer to what is imagined/projected by such a pattern of thinking, and typically that is not something that is present! If I am "thinking of the Buddha," there is no Buddha present, only the particular pattern of thinking. And when I am "thinking of pain," at that very moment of thinking, there is no actual pain experienced, though there may have been shortly before. ..... S: Yes, we're using 'concept' to refer to an idea that is conceived or thought about (not necessarily in words at all). It is a translation of 'pa~n~natti'. Clearly, when we discuss the Buddha's teachings, common terms such as 'feeling', 'perception', 'mindfulness','reality' or 'concept' will take on particular nuances or meanings. ..... H:> As I see the matter, they are simply misapplying the word 'concept'. .... S: Perhaps we should stick to the Pali term 'pa~n~natti' then? Clearly any terms (even those in Pali) are merely used as representations to help us understand the truths a little better. The main point in the context of this discussion is that that it is very important to differentiate between the namas which think and the pa~n~natti or 'concepts' which are thought about. If we just refer to a 'mental event', there is a lack of clarity of what is real and can be known now. Talking of concepts, I hope you have a lovely holiday with your family in Texas. I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun with little Sophie:-). Metta, Sarah ======= #93182 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: Funeral of Peter. jonoabb Hi Lucas > L: Yeah. But it shows me so much that all is out of control. Even > there is a lot of mana, lobha and dosa, i can learn that is not mine, > it arises because of conditions. step by step, little by little. no > self at all. > I find my Dhamma now, my friends here, so just lead normal life > listening and considering. Nothing more I can do. Yes. And I think this is the meaning of having the Dhamma as one's refuge. One sees (i.e., has confidence in) the value of developing awareness and understanding independent of any particular situation or circumstance. > I like Lodewijk questions, he asks Ajahn(audio files from dsg site). > He also has very nice voice. I agree with this observation. Lodewijk's questions are always interesting and well put ;-)) Jon #93183 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:53 am Subject: Re: Funeral of Peter. jonoabb Hi Nina Thanks for these reflections about Peter. > While in the hotel Lodewijk and I talked a great deal about Peter. > Lodewijk said that while in India, at the entrance of the hotel in > Savatthi, just about to leave, Peter had said to him: it all boils > down to anatta and the present moment. The convincing way he said > this made a great impression on Lodewijk and he always remembers it. Yes, Peter had a very solid understanding of the teachings, I think, although it may not have been apparent to those that knew him casually. Jon #93184 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi TG & all, --- On Mon, 1/12/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >>S: Concepts are not part of the "All" to be known with insight. Knowing concepts means thinking about concepts.. However much they're thought about, even with very pure cittas (as in the development of samatha), such knowing will never bring about detachment from the idea of self or any kind of liberation. ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... >TG: This statement (last sentence) applies equally to all conditioned phenomena. If you focus on feeling, perception, consciousness, whatever ... it is not detaching. It is a "means" to develop detachment.. .by seeing its unsatisfactoriness. ..... S: I don't understand the path to be a focussing on anything. Focussing (as opposed to understanding naturally without special attending), suggests attachment to me - trying to have more awareness or concentration, for example. I don't believe it is a "means" to develop detachment. On the other hand, the knowing of realities as included in "The All" is the path of insight, the path of satipatthana, leading to liberation. .... TG:> Concepts can be used as fodder for that as well...to a point. The concept of the Buddha, dhamma, etc can reduce attachment. It will REQUIRE concepts to lead to a practice that leads to detachment. There are good concepts and bad concepts. But ultimately we will want to detach from concepts, and all the elements and aggregates as well. .... S: I'd say there is wise reflecting on concepts, such as wise reflecting on the Buddha's virtues or on the Dhamma, which leads to more calm, more detachment and further understanding. However, the reflecting on concepts can never lead to liberation by itself. Ultimately it is the function of right understanding to detach and as you suggest, there has to be the development of such detachment from both the aggregates and the concepts about them. Metta, Sarah p.s My thoughts and very best wishes to your wife and her friend's family at this time. Thank you for sharing another reminder about the importance of the Dhamma now! =============== #93185 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Leaving for the airport in 5 minutes - so have to rush! In a message dated 12/3/2008 6:27:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: I start with a part of your quote from Howard. Our lack of communication might be: seeing concept as content of citta, which is not the way I see it. Your quote from Howard: it is well written, well formulated, but there is one thing that stands out: the object of citta is seen as content of citta, no separation in analysing the reality that is object and citta which are different. Howard sees citta and its object as one. ------------------------------------------- Howard: No, he doesn't. He sees them as inseparable in the sense of mutual dependency. Actually, Howard doesn't believe in "cittas" - he believes that objects, when arisen, are experientially present, and that presence is all there is to "consciousness." ---------------------------------------------- Now, it is true that we cannot speak of object unless it is experienced by citta, and also: there is not citta without experiencing an object. --------------------------------------------- Howard: That's what I say, but in my own way, not yours. ------------------------------------------- The object can be a relaity, nama or rupa that arises and falls away, or a concept which, as I see it, does not arise and fall away. ------------------------------------------ Howard: There are no concepts except for patterns of thought, which arise & cease. ----------------------------------------- Thus, Howard thinks that citta falls away together with its content, the object it experiences, no matter the object is a reality or a concept. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I am a phenomenalist, and for me, nothing knowably exists except experientially. So, you "got" me there! ----------------------------------------- No reality without experience he believes, and maybe you too? Phenomenological outlook, thus a certain point of view you see as correct. When concept is the object of citta you see it as arising with the citta and falling away with the citta. I do not see it that way as you know. I am glad you added this bonus material, because this enables me to understand why you and Howard think the way you do. It spares us long discussions and misunderstandings from both sides. ------------------------------------------ Howard: TG is NOT a phenomenalist. ========================== With metta, Howard #93186 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts nilovg Hi Howard, thanks for some corrections on your views and TG's. Have a happy time with your family. Nina. Op 3-dec-2008, om 15:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > TG is NOT a phenomenalist. #93187 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 7:15 am Subject: Re: Funeral of Peter. szmicio Dear Jon First I want to thank you(and Sarah also) for your wonderful recordings with Ajahn Sujin. It helps me so much, so much. Befor I join dsg, i was blind, full of doubts. I relly misundersood the meaning of Dhamma. Now I feel i am on good path. Thanks. > > L: Yeah. But it shows me so much that all is out of control. Even > > there is a lot of mana, lobha and dosa, i can learn that is not > mine, > > it arises because of conditions. step by step, little by little. no > > self at all. > > I find my Dhamma now, my friends here, so just lead normal life > > listening and considering. Nothing more I can do. > > J: Yes. And I think this is the meaning of having the Dhamma as one's > refuge. One sees (i.e., has confidence in) the value of developing > awareness and understanding independent of any particular situation > or circumstance. --------------------------------------------------------------------- L: My observations are the same. But sometimes doubts arises and there are regrets and thinking. I think right understanding is magga and magga is right understanding. when we trying to develop silla and there is no understanding, the PATH cant arise. Just conditions, no self which 'doing any parctise'. But still a lot of doubts in this matter. Jon, how do you consider saddha, confidence? I always thought that saddha is confidence in Buddha teachings, in Dhamma. But it can be also saddha cetasika, which has it's own function, itnt it? Thus I am not sure of the first meaning. Sometimes I consider myself as a real bastard, which is bad and cant do anything good. That's very unpleasant, but as Nina said I cant do anything with it, no matter how hard i will try. Best wishes Lucas #93188 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts nilovg Hi TG, Would you share with us here your reminder of the dhamma now? Nina. Op 3-dec-2008, om 15:01 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > . Thank you for sharing another reminder about the importance of > the Dhamma now! #93189 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Funeral of Peter. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 3-dec-2008, om 16:15 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Sometimes I consider myself as a real bastard, which is bad and cant > do anything good. That's very unpleasant, but as Nina said I cant do > anything with it, no matter how hard i will try. ------ N: As I said to Larry, there are conditions already for interest in the Dhamma and study. And as you said yourself: just lead normal life, listening and considering. Nothing more I can do. This is very good. You do that already. As to Path, Jon will answer. No path-consciousness yet, but right understanding is developed and this will evenually lead to it. Saddhaa is a sobhana cetasika and it is confidence in kusala, it arises with each kusala citta. It also means purity of citta, the citta is pure, away from lobha, dosa, and moha. You have confidence in the Triple Gem and the Dhamma, but this is not your confidence, it is saddhaa cetasika. -------- Nina. #93190 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 8:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hello TG and all, TG you are absolutely right below. With so much Adhamma going around, it is no wonder that some theravadins do not believe the attainments are possible. The Dhamma attainments are not possible for those following Adhamma. With best wishes, > TG: > Bhikkhu Bodhi translates "The All" (18 elements) -- the mental factors as -- > "the mind and mental phenomena and mind-consciousness and things to be > cognized by mind-consciousness." THIS IS THE ALL! The Eighteen Elements. > Concepts are included in that obviously. There's no discussion of "Reality Alls" > and "Unreality Alls." > > > If concepts are not included in "The All," then there are some serious > issues with the whole series of Suttas on "The All." > > > Just one of those issues would be that concepts are not mentioned and the > Buddha says understanding "The All" is all that's needed to overcome suffering. > So, if its not included, then understanding concepts is irrelevant to the > practice and there's no need to make a big deal out of reality vs concept. > > > Another problem would be if the Buddha described "The All" and there is > something other than the "All," then he hasn't described "The All" at all and is > in gross error. > > > At the end of "The All" Suttas, the Buddha discusses 3 Suttas on the topic > of conceivings. Never mentions they are not realities. Hummm. What a golden > opportunity for him had he wished to do so. > > > The Issue of Realities vs Concepts is a non-issue in the Suttas! Its an > "invented issue" by commentators who were led astray by the schematic style of > the Abhidhamma IMO. They took mere decriptions of phenomena and blundered to > think they were "realities." The whole thing got "substantialized" and blown > out of proportion and now its, its own separate religion. Sure, they keep > the Suttas around as a pretence of authenticity, but the crux of this > Abhidhamma commentarial thought is not to be found at all in the Suttas. Any Sutta > justification for this view that I've seen is continually putting words in the > Buddha's mouth that he never said. > > > Quite a departure from the enlightened arahats that lived with and were > taught by the Buddha...who wouldn't even remove the minor vinaya rules as they > were not 100% sure what the Buddha meant by that. > > > TG OUT > #93191 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 8:04 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon and all, >"jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > > Thanks for this. To summarise the above: > > > (a) jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor >for > > > enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly >help). > > > (b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of > > > anagami and arahant. > > > > > > Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this > point > > > correctly? > > > > slight correction > > a)jhana mastery does not seem to be a prerequisite for insight > > development for sotapanna level (although it can certainly help). > > Whoa, Alex. This is much more than a 'slight correction' ;-)) The > issue we're discussing is jhana (not jhana mastery) as a >prerequisite for insight/attainment. It is a prerequisite for any and every attainments. Period. The length, strenth and duration may vary. Shorter Jhana may do for lesser achievments and for some people Period. #93192 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 12/3/2008 5:57:23 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "I don't abide by the idea of 'ultimate reality' vs 'conventional' obviously...' Scott: This, for me, is a main impediment to your understanding of the Dhamma. ........................................................... TG: And your belief in it is the main impediment to your understanding of the Dhamma IMO. ;-) ........................................................... You embark on an attempt to comprehend the suttas, in English mind you, without being able to accept such a basic and essential aspect of the Dhamma. This is a perilous course. Why do you doubt this? .......................................................... TG: This "basic and essential" aspect of the Dhamma, as you put it, does not appear as a teaching in the Suttas. How BASIC is that??? You can have all the Pali you want, but if your just going to make up things about Suttas and ignore others, its meaningless. Your views are under the sway of mere commentaries. So much so that you can't break free from what is commentary and what is Sutta. The only discussion of "convention" on the Suttas is "conventional language." Of that I completely agree. TG: #93193 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Nina, All In a message dated 12/3/2008 4:26:08 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: I start with a part of your quote from Howard. Our lack of communication might be: seeing concept as content of citta, which is not the way I see it. Your quote from Howard: it is well written, well formulated, but there is one thing that stands out: the object of citta is seen as content of citta, no separation in analysing the reality that is object and citta which are different. Howard sees citta and its object as one. Now, it is true that we cannot speak of object unless it is experienced by citta, and also: there is not citta without experiencing an object. The object can be a relaity, nama or rupa that arises and falls away, or a concept which, as I see it, does not arise and fall away. ...................................................... TG: Concepts are formulated due to conditions. If they were not, then we wouldn't need education. Education is a condition. These posts are conditions, the Suttas and Abhidhamma are conditions. You wouldn't have any "concept" about what a "non-reality" is without conditions to formulate it. We see concepts differently. You apparently see it as a "non-thing" that somehow arises in an unconditioned manner and is permanent to boot.. I see no such thing. I see that scenario as an impossibility. Its odd to me that people who are so concerned with discerning "realities," are spending so much time analyzing a "non-thing" that doesn't arise at all...and yet somehow they think that it does and is permanent too! Me-thinks some folks are delving in befuddlement. For me, a concept is a mental image, based on perception and or memory, combined with other mental supporting factors, life, etc. Its like a footprint in the sand. The footprint is an impression only appears to consciousness when we look at it...but it is conditioned and is fading. Memories are like the footprint and concepts are the "seeing it." Memories and concepts are fading away too, but in our life, experiences are often regularly reinforced so it may appear like they are not fading away. But if we move away from a place we use to live, our memories fade and our ability to conceptualize that place gets weaker and weaker. It becomes somewhat like a dream. Street names we use to know clearly, become hard to remember, etc. ................................................................... Thus, Howard thinks that citta falls away together with its content, the object it experiences, no matter the object is a reality or a concept. No reality without experience he believes, and maybe you too? Phenomenological outlook, thus a certain point of view you see as correct. When concept is the object of citta you see it as arising with the citta and falling away with the citta. I do not see it that way as you know. I am glad you added this bonus material, because this enables me to understand why you and Howard think the way you do. It spares us long discussions and misunderstandings from both sides. ------ TG: First be mindful of the content "in the mind." Now, raise the idea of 'table' in "your" mind. Now, be aware that the CONCEPT of 'table' that arose in your mind did so DUE TO CONDITIONS. The most immediate condition being, in this case, the contact between this e-mail and your mind. -------- N: Where is the detachment that goes with each moment of true mindfulness? ....................................................... TG: One question at a time... Detachment is multifaceted and 'principally' comes about when we realize, directly or indirectly, that all these conditions (i.e., samsara) are impermanent, afflicting, and nonself. Our "direct experiences" are the "proofs" the mind uses to be convinced of and heighten this outlook. Mindfully watching phenomena alter, in accordance to impinging conditions, allows the mind insight into these processes and principles. Detachment is proportional to the 'degree of insight' into these factors -- impermanence, affliction, nonself. ................................................................ First do this, then that, this is not the way sati operates. Some detachment from 'I do", even a little, where is it? ............................................................... TG: My understanding of your idea of 'sati' is that it is very one dimensional. The Satipatthana Sutta incorporates many factors that you regularly disregard. Many of those are pure conceptual understandings...such as the recollections of the past. Examples abound in the Suttas of manners by which insight is developed through conceptual means. ........................................................... As to dues to conditions: I do not see these as seen in conventional sense, like Email and mind. Concept can be object-condition, but all other conditioning fators are nama or rupa. Sati arises unexpectantly and is aware of any, any object that appears now. For the understanding of sati and its object I think it necessary to understand that sati is not aware of a whole, a collection, but just of an element. Not a body, but elements, to see the body as mere physical elements, not mine. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (IV, Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.IV, par. 205, The Lute) that the Buddha said to the monks: ' ... Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a rajah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says: 'Good man, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?' Then they say to him : 'That, lord, is the sound of what is called a lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Go, my man. Fetch me that lute.' So they fetch him that lute and say to him : 'This, lord, is that lute, the sound of which is so entrancing..that lute, the soun bind.' Then he says: 'Enough of this lute, my man. Fetch me that sound.' They say to him: 'This lute so called, lord, consists of divers parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers parts, of great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts.' Then that rajah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces. Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so, he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the swift stream of a river. Then he says: 'A poor thing is what you call a lute, a lute, my men, whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and led astray.' Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities (sankharakkhandha)(sankharakkhandha), investigating consciousne scope for consciousness, - -in all of these investigations, whatever there be of 'I' or 'I am' or 'Mine', there is none of that for him'. ------- N: Only nama, only rupa, not a whole, not the whole body,not the whole mind, this leads to detachment. A poor thing is this body once it is burned. What a strong reminder of death. Less conceit about my important body. -------- In the 'Satipatthana-In the 'Satipatthana-sutta' (Discourse o Mindfulness, Middle Length Sayings I, No.10) we read in the section about mindfulness of the body, that the Buddha spoke about the body in terms of elements. The text states: And again, monks, a monk reflects on this body according to how it is placed or disposed in respect of the elements, thinking: 'In this body there is the element of extension (solidity), the element of cohesion, the element of heat, the element of motion.' Monks, even as a skilled cattle-butcher, or his apprentice, having slaughtered a cow, might sit displaying its carcass at a cross-roads, even so, monks, does a monk reflect on this body itself according to how it is placed or disposed in respect of the elements, thinking: 'In this body there is the element of extension, the element of cohesion, the element of heat, the element of motion'. Thus he fares along contemplating the body in the body internally..contemplating the body i independently of and not grasping anything in the world. It is thus too, monks, that a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body... ----- N: Just elements. No concept of a whole. But, we go separate ways, I understand. ........................................................... TG: Nina, I'm big on elements also. But I don't see elements as "ultimate realities." I see elements as "factors for analysis." The elements are also conditioned, empty, hollow, insubstantial, coreless, like a mirage, like a trick. Those are the Buddha's words. The Buddha separates phenomena into elements so that the mind can see how it is functioning and make it more clear that these things are impermanent, afflictive, and nonself. Believing that a "whole" like a "person" is a "self" is one type of delusion. But if you just reduce that "whole" into "elements" and end up believing those "elements" are "wholes" with their "own characteristics," then IMO, the delusion has just been transferred into a different set of conditions. IMO, it was not critical that the Buddha separate so-called "ultimate realities" from so-called "conventional realities" because his point is not to form an ontological dichotomy between states. So we don't see this in the Suttas. His point is merely to indicate 'delusional aspects' and reveal the conditional nature of phenomena so that the mind can detach from it instead of stuck with attachment to the delusional factors. Breaking down our experiences into elements and aggregates allows for a more accurate account of what is taking place...BECAUSE...it makes it easier for the mind to realize the conditional, impermanent, afflicted, nonself nature of phenomena. The idea that the purpose of the Buddha's teachings is to, more or less, obsess on elements as "ultimate realities" and to see THEM for what they really are...is a complete Dhammic blunder IMO. Because if we DID see them for what they really were, we'd see them as the Buddha described -- as empty, coreless, hollow, insubstantial, becoming-otherwise, like a mirage, like a trick, etc. But we go our separate ways, I understand. ;-) TG OUT #93194 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 12/3/2008 6:04:33 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: And when, even worse, we presume that there is some mystery-shrouded, Platonic shadow-something that neither exists nor does not exist, that is unchanging and eternal, and which is called "a concept," well, that, IMO, is a dreamed up, fuzzy-minded, substantialist-dreamed up, fuzzy-minded, substanti swallowed whole! With metta, Howard ............................................................ TG: The subtlety of this escapes me. Can you say it a little more forcefully and directly for me? ;-) I'll be looking for my pom-poms. LOL #93195 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Ya'll In a message dated 12/3/2008 7:04:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@a ol.com writes: Howard: TG is NOT a phenomenalist. ................................................................. Dern Tooten. I ain't no sissy phenomenologist. I smoke my phenomena unfiltered internally and externally. Tay Jay #93196 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 12:11 pm Subject: re: Bodhgaya nichiconn dear azita, couldn't get your kusalaproject.org link to work, but right on! all the same. peace, connie #93197 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 3:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/12/3 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > You may have missed the suttas, which form the core of this particular > thread at the moment. AN Book of Threes: > Yes, you are right. I did miss these. Thanks for posting them. I think there is an error in there, however. I assume that you actually meant "There are, O monks, three conditioned marks of the conditioned." Am I right? > 7.47. Sa"nkhatalakkha.nasutta.m > > "There are, O monks, three conditioned marks of the unconditioned. > What three? Its origination is discerned, its vanishing is discerned, > its change while persisting is discerned. These are the three > conditioned marks of the conditioned." > > Tii.nimaani, bhikkhave, sa"nkhatassa sa"nkhatalakkha.naani. Katamaani > tii.ni? Uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa > a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho, bhikkhave, tii.ni > sa"nkhatassa sa"nkhatalakkha.naanii''ti. Sattama.m. > > 8.48. Asa"nkhatalakkha.nasutta.m > > "There are, O monks, three unconditioned marks of the Unconditioned. > What three? No origination is discerned, no vanishing is discerned, > no change while persisting is discerned. These are the three > unconditioned marks of the Unconditioned." > > Tii.nimaani, bhikkhave, asa"nkhatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naani. > Katamaani tii.ni? Na uppaado pa~n~naayati, na vayo pa~n~naayati, na > .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho, bhikkhave, tii.ni > asa"nkhatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naanii''ti. A.t.thama.m. > > H: "Well, are arising and ceasing 'now' or 'here'? If they are 'here', > as you state below, why have three phases of hereness other than to > acknowledge the reality of time?" > > Scott: 'Uppaada', 'vaya', and '.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m' are the three > sub-moments of the single moment of consciousness. They are in the > suttas and seem fairly straight-forward. I don't doubt this. I do not accept that this sutta, or any other for that matter, is talking about single moments of consciousness. I do accept that later commentarial works treat of single moments of consciousness, and that suttas like the above are inappropriately applied to bolster such later ideas. Like you, I do not doubt what is written above regarding the conditioned/fabricated. In fact, it is not open to doubt. Simply because belief is not required for there to be the passing parade of phenomena. What is open to doubt is the meanings and values that are variously attributed to this passing parade. Of course, it is not necessary to attribute any value or meaning to phenomena, but the fact is that we do, all the time. I do not think that there is anything straightforward or self-evident about the unconditioned / unfabricated, though. I would very much like to further discuss that with you, if you are inclined. > > H: "Could you please explain what it means for arising and ceasing to > be 'here'?" > > Scott: A conditioned dhamma, in order to be 'here' - that is available > to experience, or 'discerned' (pa~n~naayati), as noted in the sutta - > arises (uppaada), changes while persisting (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m), > and falls away (vayo). Thus it is 'here'. > > H: "Also, please explain how, if one ceased dhamma is a necessary > condition for a present dhamma, you can say that dhammas come from > nowhere i.e. have no past?" > > Scott: I've not said that 'comes from nowhere' means 'have no past'. > This latter is your own imputation. I recall that kamma and > kamma-result are not your cup of tea, but one need only consider these > two aspects of the Dhamma in order to do away with doubt in this > regard. The past is very relevant. What is not my cup of tea is the false notion that old kamma in some way determines new kamma. I agree with you that the past is very relevant to whatever arises, which is why I questioned your statement that dhammas come from nowhere. They clearly do come from somewhere, which you now seem to be in agreement with. That is the difference I wanted to point out, the difference between the temporal present, as the vacuum between past and future, and the present as what is present to consciousness (in a manner of speaking). And what is relevant there is the distinction between presence and absence, in relation to the unconditioned / unfabricated. Because the unconditioned is know by the absence of origination, vanishing and change, as opposed to their presence. > > Visuddhimagga XIX 22: > > "He understands thus: 'Aggregates produced in the past, with kamma as > condition ceased there too. But other aggregates are produced in the > becoming with past kamma as their condition, although there is no > single thing that has come over from the past becoming to this > becoming. And aggregates produced in this becoming with kamma as > their condition will cease. And in the future becoming other > aggregates will be produced although no single thing will go over from > this becoming to the future becoming... > > Just as eye-consciousness comes next > following on mind element, > Which, though it does not come from that, > Yet fails not next to be produced, > > So too, in rebirth-linking, conscious > Continuity takes place; > The prior consciousness breaks up, > The subsequent is born from that. > > They have no interval between > Nor gap [that separates the two]; > While naught whatever passes over, > Still rebirth-linking comes about." > > Scott: I don't doubt these things. I'm aware that you've gone over > all of this many times and do not agree. I'm not wishing to re-invent > the wheel with you, but you're welcome to the above. Thank you. No, no need to go over old ground again. But if you wish, I would very much like to discuss the unconditioned / unfabricated with you (I don't think we have discussed that previously, do you?) Me, myself, I #93198 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 3:40 pm Subject: Re: "Speaking the Same Language" (Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts) egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/12/4 sarah abbott : > Hi Howard & all, > S: Perhaps we should stick to the Pali term 'pa~n~natti' then? Clearly any terms (even those in Pali) are merely used as representations to help us understand the truths a little better. > > The main point in the context of this discussion is that that it is very important to differentiate between the namas which think and the pa~n~natti or 'concepts' which are thought about. If we just refer to a 'mental event', there is a lack of clarity of what is real and can be known now. > It would not lead to any clarity or discovery of truths if we refer to "namas which think" using any language whatsoever, IMO. If we start of with a "reality" which isn't real, we are just going to go round in circles. Wouldn't it be clearer to say upfront that there is nothing that thinks, but there is thinking? There is no thinking apart from the thought, just like there is no seeing apart from the seen, hearing apart from the heard. Referring to namas as existing independently is referring to something that isn't real. Me, myself, I #93199 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 4:19 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > I'm really saying that when the Buddha speaks about the 6 worlds, he > is talking about satipatthaana/insight, and not about existence, > because he talks about these 6 worlds in terms of that which is to be > understood. James: Okay, this gets to the heart of the matter and where we reach an impasse. I don't see that sutta as addressing satipatthana at all; after all, it is called "The All", meaning everything, all that there is. If we can't reach agreement on the intended meaning of this crucial sutta then further discussion would be fruitless. Metta, James