#93800 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The speed of cittas sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, --- On Wed, 17/12/08, sprlrt wrote: >>S: As for when thinking immediately follows the experiencing of a reality, the first mind-door process directly experiences the characteristic of the same rupa (just experienced through the sense door). >A: I agree. >S: This is likely to be followed by thinking, >A: I'd say, that it is invariably followed by thinking (i.e. "based on" concepts) unless satipatthana arises. ... S: Invariably, probably OK. I was being cautious, because a)I don't think we can categorically say *only* the first mind-door process experiences the rupa and b)I'm not sure if we can say that further mind-door processes (thinking) *always* follows. Somewhere there's a 'Survey' quote which refers to the first point, but I can't find it at a quick look. ... >S: but there can also be the experience of a reality through the mind door, followed by more thinking. For example, attachment may be experienced as object (with or without awareness, usually without of course), followed by thinking about the story. Any thoughts? >A: Only in the first of the many mind door processes that follow the (single) mind door one which has experienced lobha/attachment. Without awareness what is experienced after that is sankhara nimitta, a concept, not a dhamma (imo, that is). .... S: Even with awareness, a sankhara nimitta unless satipatthana has been developed sufficiently. Good points and fine detail.... I'm always interested to read what you come across or are reflecting on, Alberto. Metta, Sarah ========= #93801 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & Howard, --- On Tue, 16/12/08, sprlrt wrote: ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ >Howard: What are the shapes of heat, hardness, air, and sound? ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- >A: Right, one rupa only has shape, visible object, though this rupa arises, being one of the inseparables, in all gropus/kalapa, including those you mentioned, thanks for the correction, though. ... S: What is the shape of visible object? Metta, Sarah ======== #93802 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cornerstone nichiconn Dear Herman, H: So far, you have my total agreement. (Abhi)dhamma makes sense of meditational experience. c: Karunadasa does. I'm not sure we agree that Buddha was the first abhidhamma specialist. Or what meditation might be. But no matter. Could we add to your last sentence, "in part, thru more detailed analysis of the (meditation) object than the suttas"? just looking at "to see the world correctly is to see -- not persons and substances -- but bare phenomena (suddhadhamma)" and getting lost playing in the PTSDict... starting at Suddha [pp. of sujjhati] 1. clean, pure; 2. purified, pure of heart; 3. simple, mere, unmixed, nothing but. ... suddha aanupassin, considering what is pure and ending up smiling at: di.t.thi visuddhi - beauty of right theory understanding... that's the object(ive) but what do you think of calling cetasikas "mental properties"? As far as words go, 'property' is more suggestive of "own-ness" than 'characteristic' is. lol - and the answer to "who cares?" is "the question is wrongly put". good night, connie #93803 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's Diary, 3. nilovg Dear Sarah, What a lovely Dhamma story. Thank you. Nina. Op 24-dec-2008, om 7:35 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > While we chat, he stays awake and doesn't disturb the other > patients and slowly we've become friends and I rejoice in the > gradual improvement in his condition. > > It's a reminder to me of how easily we're influenced by appearances > (or even style of writing!) when we really have no idea about the > circumstances. Again, when there is metta and friendliness, there's > no irritation or conceit. #93804 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Similes and Concepts that lead to Arahantship! sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Tue, 16/12/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >Reposting to Scott, (All) >Please deal with this or your silence will be considered a concession that concepts and similes are an important aspect leading to final liberation! ... S: Can I take it that your silence to some of my messages, such as the ones reposted below, should be taken as a concession that it is indeed dhammas (realities) which arise from causes and are void of atta, while concepts and similes are just ideas, not sankhara dhamma at all? Metta, Sarah Reposting to TG: a)S: From #92950 (which received no reply): >Just to clarify: 1) You think that a mirage is real 2) You don't think visible object is real 3) You think that a concept is a mental formation (sankhara) 4) You think that a concept is a nama 5) You think that concepts and mirages are conditioned and impermanent 6) You don't think namas such as seeing and hearing are real 7) You don't think there are dhammas, realities which can be experienced at all Qus: 1) Do you conclude that mirages and concepts are the realities, the sankharanamas that are impermanent and that seeing, hearing, visible object, sound,lobha, dosa, moha and so on are nothing, just 'void', without reality - mere conditions only? Is this what you understand the teachings to be saying? --- On Fri, 21/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >TG: I would say, I mirage certainly is real, it just isn't what it appears to be. >A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama. A concept actually appears and it actually disappears based on conditions. Just like a mirage. ****** b)S: From #93593 which also received no reply: --- On Sat, 13/12/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >I'll continue to use "conditions, " as I think most here are privy enough to realize that such refers to "whatever arises, alters, ceases," including delusion. You're just going to have to live with it or ignore it I guess. :-) ... S: 'Whatever' as in whatever dhamma? So is delusion a dhamma or a 'whatever' that arises? Does it have any characteristic of any kind? If so what? "Of those things (dhammaa) that arise from a cause, The Tathaagata has told the cause, And also what their cessation is: This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse." "Ye dhammaa hetupphabbhavaa tesa"m hetu"m tathaagato aaha, tesa~n ca yo nirodho eva"mvaadii mahaasama.no." =============================== #93805 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The doors, its objects and processes sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & all, --- On Sat, 6/12/08, sprlrt wrote: >Hi, a few more pieces of the very large, very complex, very intricate and, last but not least, very real Abhidhamma jigsaw, which composes and decomposes itself again and again, right now, and that can be noticed only by satipatthana. .. In SoPD, ch.12, explaining the 15 cittas that make up a full sense door process/vithi, KS quotes a simile from the Atthasalini in which each character personify the functions/kikka on each stage of that process. There is a peasant (object/arammana, rupa), bringing a tribute to the king (javana/impulsion, kusala or akusala), an attendant at his feet (avajjana/adverting , kiriya), a deaf keeper (dvi-panca-vinnana/ 5 sense consciousness, vipaka) at the door (pasada rupa/5 senses), and a row of three soldiers guarding the king (sampaticchana/ receiving, vipaka; santirana/investiga ting, vipaka; votthapana/determin ing, kiriya) The peasant/arammana, visible rupa for instance, knocks at the door (impinges on cakkhu-pasada/ eye base), but seeing consciousness (the deaf door keeper), which can be either kusala or akusala vipaka (the result of previous kusala or akusala kamma) doesn't realize this until the king's attendant/avajjana signals him. <...> ... S: I appreciated all the pieces you added in #93260. I find it helpful when different people summarise, add details, refer to the similes in the texts and so on to bring the Abhidhamma alive and relevant to this moment. There are visitors knocking at our various doors all the time....not just at Xmas! Metta, Sarah ======== #93806 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:28 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "2. Why? Because hate has to be abandoned and patience attained in the development of this meditation subject, and he cannot abandon unseen dangers and attain unknown advantages. "Now the danger in hate should be seen in accordance with such suttas as this: 'Friends, when a man hates, is a prey to hate and is mind is obsessed by hate, he kills living things, and...' (A,i,216). And the advantage in patience should be understood as according to such suttas as these: 'No higher rule, the Buddhas say, than patience, And no nibbaana higher than forbearance' (D.ii,49, Dh. 184); 'Patience in force, in strong array: 'Tis him I call a brahman' (Dh. 399); 'No greater thing exists than patience' (S,i,222)." The Path of Purity. "Verily by means of this practice hate is to be put away, forbearance acquired. But he is not able to put away any unseen evil or to acquire unknown advantage; therefore the evils of hate should be considered through such Suttas as: 'Friend, a man who is overcome by hate and whose mind is assailed by hate kills beings.' The advantages of forbearance are to be considered through such expressions as: - 'The Buddhas declare forbearance is the highest, patience to be the highest Nibbaana.' 'Him I call a brahmin who is strong in forbearance, who makes an army of it.' 'Nothing forbearance doth excel.'" Kasmaa? Imaaya hi bhaavanaaya doso pahaatabbo, khanti adhigantabbaa. Na ca sakkaa ki~nci adi.t.thaadiinava.m pahaatu.m, aviditaanisa.msa.m vaa adhigantu.m. Tasmaa 'du.t.tho kho, aavuso, dosena abhibhuuto pariyaadi.n.nacitto paa.nampi hanatii' tiaadiina.m (a. ni. 3.72) vasena dose aadiinavo da.t.thabbo. 'Khantii parama.m tapo titikkhaa, nibbaana.m parama.m vadanti buddhaa'; (Dii. ni. 2.90; dha. pa. 184); 'Khantibalaṃ balaaniika.m, tamaha.m bruumi braahma.na.m'. (dha. pa. 399; su. ni. 628); 'Khantaa bhiyyo na vijjatii' tiaadiina.m (sa.m. ni. 1.250) vasena khantiya.m aanisa.mso veditabbo." Sincerely, Scott. #93807 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some interesting questions from an erudite monk... sarahprocter... Hi Rob M, Another late reply - When I read the following qus from the monk, my reaction was that it was a reminder about how we're always looking for a Self or self in one guise or other. At the time, I had a quick look at your paper in the files section, "Understanding Death and Beyond" and I thought it would be useful to post in extracts here for any further discussion. I was impressed by it. If you're too busy, perhaps you could persuade someone else like James(?) to help you with it. Just an idea, no hurry. Wishing you, your family and friends at the Temple in KL a wonderful and wise Xmas & New Year. Metta, Sarah --- On Sun, 14/12/08, robmoult wrote: >I have been asked the following questions by an erudite monk: >Considering cellular memory and the marvellous intelligence behind the intricate physiological processes that keep us alive even without our being conscious of them, is it not possible that some­ if not all­ of the five aggregates (khandhas) of a sentient being could have multiple, simultaneous, coexistence? If so, could this existence beyond the gross physical body actually be another manifestation of the five khandhas? In other words, regardless of what it is termed­... soul, Higher Self, super-consciousness , atman, spirit, etc.­ could it still be subject to conditionality and therefore also exhibit the universal characteristics of anicca (impermanence) , dukkha (unsatisfactoriness or suffering) and anatta? This was in response to a conference paper that I prepared. I have uploaded a copy of the paper in the files section... it is titled "Understanding Death and Beyond". I would be interested in feedback on the monk's question. .... #93808 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - In a message dated 12/24/2008 1:04:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Alex, Another late relpy... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" 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. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course, Sarah. These are two ways of speaking about the same thing. To speak of a person's kamma (and its fruit) is to speak of states of mind within a particular mind stream. -------------------------------------------- > >>> ... A:> 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. .... S: What you write would be a complete misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching on dhatus (elements). It sounds more like the teaching of Purana Kassapa (or one of the other teachers) referred to in the Sammanaphala Sutta, who believed there was no harm or evil in taking life, stealing and so on because they didn't accept kamma and its results or life after death. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: If one improperly grasps the Buddha's teaching about the khandhas, ignoring the interrelationships among the phenomena constituting what we call a being, one could make the same harmful mistake, and then we would have only our emotional goodness to rely on for acting morally. We need to guard our ideas as closely as we guard the emotional aspect of mind. --------------------------------------------- Just as the cittas and cetasikas we refer to as 'Sarah' or 'Alex' don't wish to be harmed, hurt or cheated, neither do any other (sets of) cittas and cetasikas. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahhh! "(SETS of) cittas and cetasikas"!!! [Emphasis mine] Watch it Sarah - you're getting dangerously close to speaking of aggregations of phenomena! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- This is the difference between sentient beings and plants - the latter don't have namas which experience pleasure, pain and so on. ... > >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. ... A:> 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. ... S: Exactly! We're talking about the intentions and kamma. These are namas or dhatus, not people. --------------------------------------------- Howard: The sets of mental and physical phenomena acting in concert are, exactly, "persons." People are neither individual realities vaguely associated with certain namas and rupas, nor are they random grab bags of phenomena, nor are they nothing at all. They are sets of interrelated phenomena of a very specific sort. As for the dhammas comprising people, where we differ in our view of them is that you take them to be realities independent of convention, whereas I who consider nothing to remain "as is" for any time at all due to the constancy and seamlessness of change, view them as the simplest sort of *conventional* phenomena. For example: Suppose that during the passage of a brief span of time - say even a tiny fraction of a second, I feel warmth. Actually, what are experienced at any two points in time during that brief period are different in quality (and in relation to other phenomena) , and it is just a convention, due only to *similarity* of quality, to think of it all as "the same warmth". This is just identification by convention. To identify is "to make same". But that "same" is a fiction, and ONLY a convention. There is only "similar," and not "same." Mentally concocting separate, discrete, unchanging entities with identity (from the Latin 'idem et idem', meaning "same and same") is exactly what conceptualization and thought convention is all about. This is, of course, useful activity, necessary (even) for successfully navigating our way, but we should not be taken in by it. ------------------------------------------------ Metta, Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard #93809 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi TG, (Alex & all), --- On Wed, 17/12/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >S: ...I further quoted from a sutta on the khandhas which clearly indicated that the conditioned and impermanent dhammas refer to the 5 khandhas only and not to concepts. ............ ......... ......... ......... ....... >TG: Oh no no no no no no no. You don't get that. The Sutta does not bring up concepts in the affirmative or negative -- you do. As many of us in here believe, concepts are included in the Five Aggregates under the mental formations heading. .... S: Well this lies at the heart of our disagreements and it's an important one. You (and the many others) understand that sankhara khandha includes concepts, but according to the texts (yes, spelled out clearly in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries), sankhara khandha refers to all the mental formations, cetasikas, other than sanna and vedana. If you have a copy of Nyantiloka's dictionary, you'll see at the back of the book that there is a pull-out chart. this chart is "II. Formation-Group (Sankhaara-kkhandha)". It says at the top: "To this group belong 50 mental formations, of which 11 are general psychological elements, 25 lofty qualities, and 14 karmically unwholesome qualities." It then lists them all in detail. Attachment or aversion, to give a couple of examples, are clearly 'formed up'. They have characteristics which distinguish them when they arise and can be known. The consciousness which thinks about 'pen' is also 'formed up' and conditioned, as are the rupas such as visible object or hardness. However, the idea of 'pen' is not 'formed up' or 'conditioned'. It is not sankhara khandha. Wishing you much wise reflection and wisdom over the holiday season. Xmas is also a concept - it's not 'formed up', but 'imagined' on account of sanna and other mental factors. Metta, Sarah ======== #93810 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:55 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, ch.3 continues: The purpose of the first part of the Dhammasa'nga.nii, the Consciousness Chapter (cittuppaadaka.n.da), is to give (1) a classification of all consciousness and (2) a detailed analysis of the single types of consciousness. The classification is given in the first clause of the principal sentences: "At a time when (such and such) a state of consciousness has arisen..." Here the respective type of consciousness is briefly characterized with the help of certain categories. The detailed analysis follows in the concluding clause of the sentence: "...at that time there are: sense-contact," etc. This enumeration of mental factors will be called the "List of Dhammas." The word , of course, is here again used in the sense of thing or phenomenon. The classifying categories used in the first part of the sentence refer to both the subjective and objective sides of the cognitive process. 1. The statements about the "subject" concern: a. the plane or sphere of consciousness (bhuumi), in our example: the sensuous sphere b. the kammic value, here: wholesome c. the emotional value, here: joyful d. presence or absence of knowledge, here: associated with knowledge e. spontaneous or nonspontaneous occurrence, here: spontaneous 2. The statement about the "object" is generally not used for constituting separate classes of consciousness. The six kinds of sense objects are considered only as variations of the same type. In nearly all cases it is the "subjective" relation to the object with is used for the differentiation of consciousness. The objects determine the classification only in the case of the five types of sense consciousness: eye-consciousness ... body-consciousness. These belong to the most primitive phase of the perceptual process, immediately following the first "adverting of the mind" (aavajjana), when the impact of the object is predominant. In this phase the activity of the subjective factors is still weak, as shown by the small number of mental concomitants present in these types of consciousness. From the above subject categories a-e, the following are anticipations of factors contained in the complete analysis as given in the List of Dhammas: b. The kammic value, here "wholesome", is determined by the presence of the "wholesome roots." If the state of consciousness is "associated with knowledge," as in our case, all three roots are present, namely, non-greed, non-hate, and non-delusion (F31, 32, 33); if "dissociated from knowledge," non-delusion (=knowlege) is missing. c. The emotional value, here "joyful," is represented by the factors: feeling (F2), pleasure (F9), and joy (F17). d. The association with, and dissociation from, knowledge is determined by the presence or absence of the third wholesome root, non-delusion (F33), and its various synonyms or aspects (e.g., F15, 19, etc.). The category of spontaneous or nonspontaneous occurrence cannot be traced to any factor of the respective present moment of consciousness but depends on previous mental processes. We speak of "spontaneous" if the reaction or decision takes place without being prompted, by force of inclination or habit, both of which may have their roots in a distant past or even in a previous existence. We speak of "nonspontaneous" if the reaction or decision is preceded by one's own deliberation or by an outer influence in the way of advice, request, or command; so the nonspontaneity of a state of consciousness may be due either to premeditation or to instigation. Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (34-36) and commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: DN 33.1.10(35) Three kinds of kammic formation:*1041 meritorious, demeritorious, imperturbable. (Tayo sa'nkhaaraa: pu~n~naabhisa'nkhaaro, apu~n~naabhisa'nkhaaro, aane~njaabhisa'nkhaaro.) ----------- N: The Co states as to the three sa”nkhaaras, kamma-formations, that they prepare in the future dhammas that are fruit, that they make a ‘heap’. N: In other words, they accumulate. Sa”nkhaara, in this context, means what is forming up, preparing, conditioning. Instead of sa”nkhaara also the term aabhisa”nkhaara is used. Aabhi is used in the sense of preponderance. Aabhisa”nkhaaraa is in this context volition or kamma formation. The Co asks what is the formation of merit? The kusala cetanaa of the sense sphere and of the sphere of ruupaavacara cittas. Their objectives are daana, siila and bhaavanaa. There are eight kusala cetanas of the sense sphere and five that are ruupaavacara kusala cetanaa. There are eight kusala cetanas performing daana and siila, and there are thirteen applying themselves to bhaavanaa. -------- N: Of the eight mahaa-kusala cittas, four are accompanied by wisdom, and four are without. There are these eight, including those without wisdom, that can be intent on bhaavanaa, and five ruupa-jhaana kusala cittas, and thus, together there are thirteen applying themselves to bhaavanaa. The Co explains that even kusala citta without wisdom can have as objective bhaavanaa. If someone is doing the preparation for the kasi.na and reviews jhaana that is well practised, there may also be kusala cittas without wisdom. The subco explains that he may say: Earth, earth, and then there may also be moments without wisdom. The Co. then gives more explanations in detail. It mentions the three periods of the arising of kusala cittas: before someone gives requisites to a monk, when he has to obtain these, during the actual giving and after the giving when he reflects on his deed with happy feeling. For the sake of fulfilment of siila, someone goes forth and reflects on his going forth; after he has caused the fulfilment of his wish he reflects: this is well done, saadhu, saadhu. When he observes the Pa.timokkha (Rules of Discipline), reviews (with sati) the requisites he uses, guards the sense-doors when visible object etc. have appeared to him, and purifies his livelihood, the cetanaa that occurs is called siila. As is said in the Pa.tisambhida, by the Path of vipassanaa he develops understanding of the eye as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa... the mind... visible object... seeing... mind-consciousness.. eye- contact... mind-contact... feeling born of eye-contact... feeling born of mind-dontact...sa~n~naa of visible object...old age and death... as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa. The cetanaa that develops vipassanaa in this way is called bhaavanaa. As to demeritorious kamma-formation, apu~n~naabhisa”nkhaara, these are the cetanas accompanying the twelve akusala cittas and these are of the sense-sphere. As to aana~njaabhisa”nkhaara (N: also spelled aane~njaabhisa”nkhaara), imperturbable kamma-formation, these are the kusala cetanas accompanying the four aruupaavacara kusala cittas of the four stages of aruupajhaana. The Co explains that this gives motionless and peaceful vipaaka without ruupa. N: It produces rebirth in planes where there is no ruupa. The Tiika to Vis. XVII, 61 explains that This citta is not disturbed by ruupa, the meditation subject of aruupavaacara citta is not dependent on ruupa. The three kamma-formations are conditioned by ignorance, and they will produce rebirth. So long as there is ignorance that conditions kamma-formations we shall continue in the cycle of birth and death. --------- Nina. #93812 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-dec-2008, om 14:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > 1) Is the Buddha reported to have said anywhere in the Tipitaka that > perfect mastery of the ten perfections is requisite for bodhisattas > *alone*? > ----------- H: 1) No, not so reported. N:The Bodhisatta has to accumulate them to a superior degree, without considering limbs or life. But when we consider wisdom, at attaining Buddhahood he reached omniscience under the Bodhi tree and this is higher than the degree he could reach as a Bodhisatta. Also for us, though not to the same degree, the perfections are necessary as a medicin on the long road leading to the other shore. No need to mention all the perfections, we can say: all kinds of kusala through body, speech and mind performed together with vipassana, with the aim to reach the goal. The text about the perfections: the Cariyapi.taka of the Khuddaka Nikaaya. We do not have to believe: for Bodhisattas alone, did the Buddha not exhort all of us to perform all kinds of kusala? --------- > H: 2) Or is that a later notion? ------- N: I do not know about such notion. It is wrong anyway. ---------- > H: 3) Will not all arahants have perfect mastery? > 3) Yes, all will. ------- N: Also to become a sotaapanna the perfections are a must. They will become more perfect as higher stages up to arahatship are reached. -------- > H: 4) And could perfect mastery occur in anyone without their > having become > arahants? > H: 4) No, that is impossible. -------- N: In order to become arahat a higher degree is necessary. But remember: arahats are different. They have accumulated pa~n~naa to the degree that defilements are eradicated, but this does not mean they all have the same degree of wisdom. Some were endowed with jhanas, superpowers (like Moggallana), some with the four discriminations, pa.tisambhidas. But why should we try to find out all this. Better to mind the task right at hand. Which of the perfections are still deficient in us? H: How could an arahant, fully awakened and with no defilements whatsoever remaining in any degree, have the perfections mastered to any extent less than maximally! I suspect that the association of the full mastery of the perfections with bodhisattas alone was the result of the deleterious influence on Theravada of emerging Mahayana, an emergence which downplayed the goal of "mere arahant." -------- N: I do not see this as a point of argument, since I do not think of Bodhisattas alone. I rejoice in the fact that Mahayana branches also appreciate the perfections. But I have not read much about different points of view. I like to look at the practical side of things. Common sense tells me that it is urgent to develop understanding together with patience, metta, viriya an all other good qualities. It never is enough. We are frail, we need them. Nina. #93813 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts & Atta heresy truth_aerator Hi Sarah, > sarah abbott wrote: >However, the idea of 'pen' is not 'formed up' or 'conditioned'. It >is not sankhara khandha. What about animals? They don't have any idea of a "pen". The idea of the pen is not something that exists on its own. It requires a mind faculty properly functioning in an intelligent way to come up with the idea of a pen and recognize the idea whenever there is a basis for it (ex: certain rupa is present). Same with lets say currently non-existent concepts that will exist only in the future. These concepts don't yet exist, but they will exist in the future. This is another example of impermanence. Dear Sarah, are you claiming some extratemporal eternalism of concepts? If not, then you cannot bypass the not-yet existent concepts that will only exist in the future. Are concepts "Dhamma"? If so, sabbe Dhamma anatta refutes constancy of concepts. Why? Because the whole reason and justification of Anatta is because something is impermanent, conditioned, (and thus unsatisfactory) and not a thing-in-itself (which would be eternal as it is not time dependent and unconditioned as it is not dependent on outside conditions). Some people could take what you have said and say: "The real Atta is not 'formed' up or 'conditioned'. It is not sankhara khanda" How would you refute the above heretical view? Best wishes, #93814 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections truth_aerator Dear Nina, Sarah, Scott, Jon and all, >--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Common sense tells me > that it is urgent to develop understanding together with patience, > metta, viriya an all other good qualities. It never is enough. We >are > frail, we need them. > Nina. And how, if I may ask, does one develop "understanding together with patience, metta, viriya an all other good qualities." ? Understanding or seeing things as they are, like money, do not exactly grow on trees. With best wishes, #93815 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - I am pleased with your reply, Nina. :-) In a message dated 12/24/2008 10:56:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-dec-2008, om 14:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > 1) Is the Buddha reported to have said anywhere in the Tipitaka that > perfect mastery of the ten perfections is requisite for bodhisattas > *alone*? > ----------- H: 1) No, not so reported. N:The Bodhisatta has to accumulate them to a superior degree, without considering limbs or life. But when we consider wisdom, at attaining Buddhahood he reached omniscience under the Bodhi tree and this is higher than the degree he could reach as a Bodhisatta. Also for us, though not to the same degree, the perfections are necessary as a medicin on the long road leading to the other shore. No need to mention all the perfections, we can say: all kinds of kusala through body, speech and mind performed together with vipassana, with the aim to reach the goal. The text about the perfections: the Cariyapi.taka of the Khuddaka Nikaaya. We do not have to believe: for Bodhisattas alone, did the Buddha not exhort all of us to perform all kinds of kusala? --------- > H: 2) Or is that a later notion? ------- N: I do not know about such notion. It is wrong anyway. ---------- > H: 3) Will not all arahants have perfect mastery? > 3) Yes, all will. ------- N: Also to become a sotaapanna the perfections are a must. They will become more perfect as higher stages up to arahatship are reached. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, of course. This makes the perfections part and parcel of the ascent from worldling to arahant, and not separate from that journey. ------------------------------------------- -------- > H: 4) And could perfect mastery occur in anyone without their > having become > arahants?g > H: 4) No, that is impossible. -------- N: In order to become arahat a higher degree is necessary. But remember: arahats are different. They have accumulated pa~n~naa to the degree that defilements are eradicated, but this does not mean they all have the same degree of wisdom. Some were endowed with jhanas, superpowers (like Moggallana), some with the four discriminations, pa.tisambhidas. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Not all arahants may have already attained all jhanas, but jhana attainment is part of the path, and I have no doubt that all jhanas are *available* to arahants if but an effort in that direction is made. As regards the four discriminations, I believe that all forms of knowledge are *open* to all arahants, depending only on their turning their attention in the proper direction. I think that distinguishing among arahants as regards potential ability (though not in terms of what has already been actualized) is due to the deleterious influence of Mahayana notions that turn buddhas into gods and make even bodhisattvas superior to arahants(!), an insult to arahants, IMO. What distinguishes a buddha from a "mere" arahant, is not a difference in potential abilities but is the fact that a buddha is unique in reintroducing the Dhamma at a time and place at which it is totally unknown. In this regard, please see the following sutta: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SN 22.58 Buddha Sutta Awakened Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: S iii 65 CDB i 900 ____________________________________ Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. ____________________________________ Copyright © 2005 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 2005 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. ____________________________________ At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.' "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with feeling ... perception ... fabrication, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for feeling ... perception ... fabrication) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with feeling ... perception ... fabrication, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for feeling ... perception ... fabrication) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.' "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.' "So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released?" "For us, lord, the teachings have the Blessed One as their root, their guide, & their arbitrator. It would be good if the Blessed One himself would explicate the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the monks will remember it." "In that case, monks, listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one — is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterwards become endowed with the path. "This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A buddha is to be revered and distinguished among all arahants for his taking it upon himself prior to final awakening to delay his journey to becoming an arahant for aeons until a time at which the Dhamma is entirely absent from the world and he then is born as the one to reintroduce it. He is to be revered among all arahants for this enormous sacrifice. In a way, this makes a buddha a salvational figure, a self-sacrificial figure, not entirely unlike the "Christian savior." But that aside, an arahant is an arahant is an arahant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- But why should we try to find out all this. Better to mind the task right at hand. Which of the perfections are still deficient in us? H: How could an arahant, fully awakened and with no defilements whatsoever remaining in any degree, have the perfections mastered to any extent less than maximally! I suspect that the association of the full mastery of the perfections with bodhisattas alone was the result of the deleterious influence on Theravada of emerging Mahayana, an emergence which downplayed the goal of "mere arahant." -------- N: I do not see this as a point of argument, since I do not think of Bodhisattas alone. I rejoice in the fact that Mahayana branches also appreciate the perfections. But I have not read much about different points of view. I like to look at the practical side of things. Common sense tells me that it is urgent to develop understanding together with patience, metta, viriya an all other good qualities. It never is enough. We are frail, we need them. Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard #93816 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, Alex In a message dated 12/24/2008 5:08:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Wishing you much wise reflection and wisdom over the holiday season. Xmas is also a concept - it's not 'formed up', but 'imagined' on account of sanna and other mental factors. Metta, Sarah ........................................................................... TG: ??? All I can do is scratch my head and wonder how in the world you can arrive at such determinations other than by mere exuberant attachment to what is written in some commentaries or elsewhere. Obviously its not realized through direct observation. In your very statement above, you even give the "forming up" attributes to the "thing" you claim is not "formed up." Its unbelievable. If concepts are "on account" of something else, helloooooo -- THAT IS "formed up." Conditioned. Maybe Christ had something to do with the concept of 'Christ'mas? Nah. That's too easy. Concepts are conditioned outgrowths that arise in dependence on the conditions that can support such. Alex's arguments that followed your post are most correct. Just as the concept of "pen" arises due to (this posts) conditions and falls away as soon as other thoughts/conditions intercede -- such as -- dog-monkey. These thoughts in "my" mind (mental impulses) activate (physical impulses) are typed, transmitted through a complex conditional network internet, brought up through physical/mental interactions in "your" mind, read, thought about, and related concepts are formed in your mind thereby. Its all conditioned. The whole process is conditioned from beginning to end. The internet "itself" is even conditioned BY concepts. As was this post. How could a "non-condition" be a condition that could form other conditions? Redunculous. Merry Christmas! TG OUT #93817 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Similes and Concepts that lead to Arahantship! TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 12/23/2008 11:49:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: >Please deal with this or your silence will be considered a concession that concepts and similes are an important aspect leading to final liberation! ... S: Can I take it that your silence to some of my messages, such as the ones reposted below, should be taken as a concession that it is indeed dhammas (realities) which arise from causes and are void of atta, while concepts and similes are just ideas, not sankhara dhamma at all? Metta, Sarah ............................................ TG: No you can not. LOL I am out of state traveling and have limited access to computer life. LOL TG OUT #93818 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:18 am Subject: Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. truth_aerator Hello Howard, Nina and all. Some evidence against "Bodhisattva" ideal in early Sutta-Pitakas. Future Buddha-to-be 3 lives before didn't want to see Buddha Kassapa. He kept insulting the Buddha many times and had to be dragged by the hair by his lay Anagamin friend. Ghatikara suttam MN81. As no Buddhist would do something like that, effectively it tells us that prior to meeting Buddha Kassapa, he wasn't a Buddhist in any sense of the word and it is questionable on whether he possed Paramis such as Patience, Loving Kindness, Wisdom and any other applicable. Prince Siddhartha seeked awakening for himself. In the 4 main nikayas he is nowhere stated to have said that "I want to free all beings from suffering". In fact his quest was a personal one. "What if *I*, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness- less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding?' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html When he has awakened he hesitated to teach. If he really had taken all the vows to liberate all sentient beings, why did he hesitate? He was thinking about how hard and wearisome it would be for him. Again, what has happened to all the relevant paramis that he was supposed to have practiced for 4 Asankheyya's & 300,000 MK! How can 50 or so remaining years even be compared to what he was supposedly gone through? It would be like a stroll in the park, except easier. Why did Brahma Sahampati have to BEG the Buddha to teach? I know that some will say that he pretended to hesitate in order to make his teaching appear more valuable, more sublime and so on. However this is contrary to the character of the Buddha to puff up his teaching and beat up the 'price'. Furthermore he has said this to the monks that he hesitated to teach because people wouldn't understand him. If the Buddha didn't hesitate to teach but only pretended to hesitate, then this would imply that he LIED to others about telling his story of awakening and decision NOT to teach: "if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.' 'Enough now with teaching what only with difficulty I reached. ... "As I reflected thus, my mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html Since Buddha CAN NOT LIE, what he has said in MN26 has to be correct. He hesitated to teach, his mind inclined to inaction, and only after Brahma Sahampati Begged him, only then he decided to teach. And any Comy explanation that "Buddha wanted Brahma to beg him" will be met with the same critique as above. Buddha is above vain pride (Beg me first, God! and only then I'll teach), he is beyond lying (ie about his make-believe hesitation), and beyond raising up the price through the means of other being. With best wishes, #93819 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:32 am Subject: An Interesting Sutta Emphasizing the Characteristic of Anicca upasaka_howard Hi, all - The following sutta defines "faith follower" (or, as I prefer, "conviction follower"), "Dhamma-follower," and "stream enterer" in terms of varying mode of realization of anicca: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SN 25.1 Cakkhu Sutta The Eye Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: S iii 225 CDB i 1004 ____________________________________ Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. ____________________________________ Copyright © 2004 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 2004 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. ____________________________________ At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable. "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ With metta, Howard #93820 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Nina) - In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:18:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, Nina and all. Some evidence against "Bodhisattva" ideal in early Sutta-Pitakas. =========================== Persuasive points you make, Alex. :-) With metta, Howard P. S. One disclaimer, though, Alex: The stories about the times of prior Buddhas are all a bit suspect, as they pertain to aeons in the past and yet the people and places mentioned all have Indian names and customs! So, I cannot take such stories literally. But as regards the Dhammic content, your point is well taken. #93821 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. nilovg Hi Alex, Op 24-dec-2008, om 20:18 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Future Buddha-to-be 3 lives before didn't want to see Buddha Kassapa. > He kept insulting the Buddha many times and had to be dragged by the > hair by his lay Anagamin friend. Ghatikara suttam MN81. As no > Buddhist would do something like that, effectively it tells us that > prior to meeting Buddha Kassapa, he wasn't a Buddhist in any sense > of the word and it is questionable on whether he possed Paramis such > as Patience, Loving Kindness, Wisdom and any other applicable. -------- N: Even when someone has accumulated many virtues, perfections, it is possible that a certain kamma causes rebirth in a family with wrong view. Then there is no opportunity for the good qualities to appear. The Co said that the bright fire was extinguished and only charcoal was left. But still, his friend brought him to the Buddha Kassapa and then there were opportunities again for kusala and right view. It shows us how life can change from moment to moment, all due to conditions, and also that accumulated kusala and understanding is not really lost. When I read such a story I think of the lesson that can help me now. Nina. #93822 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Alex) - In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:59:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes with regard to MN 81: When I read such a story I think of the lesson that can help me now. Nina. ============================ I think that is a wise way to read such a story. With metta, Howard #93823 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections nilovg Dear Alex, your question is a good one and justified. I have a go at it. Op 24-dec-2008, om 18:27 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >Common sense tells me > > that it is urgent to develop understanding together with patience, > > metta, viriya an all other good qualities. It never is enough. We > >are > > frail, we need them. > > Nina. > > And how, if I may ask, does one develop "understanding together with > patience, metta, viriya an all other good qualities." ? > > Understanding or seeing things as they are, like money, do not exactly > grow on trees. ------- N: Patience in trying circumstances and with contrarious people, we cannot have this on command. Through the Dhamma we learn that whatever occurs does so because of conditions. That unpleasant experience through ears, it is vipaaka caused by kamma. One cannot avoid that. It is not me who experiences, it is citta. It is helpful to understand whatever occurs as dhamma. This enhances patience and, on the other hand, in order to have more understanding of one's life, patience is necessary to carefully study, not only texts, but study the moments with mindfulness. There is interaction between understanding and patience, understanding and metta, and so on for the other perfections. Understanding is a powerfull condition for their arising, and the perfections are a support for understanding. We need viriya so that there is perseverance, courage to face the events of life with understanding, understanding them as mere dhammas that are beyond control. ------ Nina. #93824 From: "charles.dacosta@..." Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:02 am Subject: Re: how to view the self charles.daco... Hi All, I am almost back! Dear KenH I am sorry for butting in, I can not help myself! Anyway. The point of the Buddha's teaching is escape, or freedom from, suffering. The approach you are presenting tries to get at "a" root of the problem, "The notion of existence." i.e., if you don't really exist then you can not be suffering because Desire has no place to arise from. This is a level of Arhats only. Now keep in mind that there are stages or levels leading up Arhatship. And, yes, each level is associated with a different degree of understanding and practice, and even a view of "self." Each level is also associated with a degree of "Self" that gives rise to attachments born out of desire and ignorance. For one to claim that "the self never existed (past, present, or future)" and (at the same time) to not be an Arhat, raises the question: has the One missed understood the teaching. After all, if the self is only a delusion, then samsara must be also and therefore suffering. CharlesD PS: I am going to try working from the website so if I don't reply in a timly fashion, it may be because I am still trying to figure things out. #93825 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you for your reply. However it doesn't seem that gathering "perfections" for 4 Asankheyyas & 300,000 MK had that much to show for it. I mean the future Buddha to be behaved too much like he didn't tred the super long path. If as you say the life can change so much, then that too questions the practical point of gathering paramis for such a long time. IMHO, talking about how Arhatship is too far away is Mara's idea. Mara would love to install a suggestion that Arhatship is so far into the future that there isn't much point to sweat it out now. For me, the MN81 story and what I've said re: Buddha being an self awakened Arhat is applicable and inspiring in the sense that Arhatship IS possible and doesn't require the sort of things that we've read in later literature. With best wishes, #93826 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:03 pm Subject: Re: An Interesting Sutta Emphasizing the Characteristic of Anicca truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > >The following sutta defines "faith follower" (or, as I prefer, >"conviction follower"), "Dhamma-follower," and "stream enterer" in >terms of varying mode of realization of anicca: >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see, for ignorance to be abandoned and true knowledge to arise?" "Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees the eye as impermanent, ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge arises." [repeat the same for forms, eye-contact, eye feelings ... and other 5 senses.] SN35.53(1) Abandoning Ignorance. Pg 1148 of CDB by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. Interesting note: Taking on faith the impermanence of all things makes one saddhanusarin. Pondering with discernment makes on Dhammanusarin , and seeing the phenomena in this way makes one stream- enterer. That teaching is also repeated with titles Abandoning taints (SN 35.56)& Fetters (SN35.54). Now a question: What exactly needs to be done to see the impermanence? With best wishes, #93827 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Nina) - > > P. S. One disclaimer, though, Alex: The stories about the times of >prior Buddhas are all a bit suspect, as they pertain to aeons in the >past and yet the people and places mentioned all have Indian names and >customs! So, I cannot take such stories literally. But as regards the >Dhammic content, your point is well taken. Yes you have noticed an interesting thing. It could be that the reason for Indian names was that since Buddha and his listeners were Indians listening in Indian, the Buddha used the names familiar to Indian speakers. Interesting note: The Gotama after he saw Buddha Kassapa was reborn in Tusita heaven after which he was reborn as prince Siddhartha. Lifespan of Tusita Devas is 576 million human years. This means that Buddha Kassapa lived 576 million years ago! The future Buddha Mettreya will come probably no earlier then 576 million years into the future. I wonder if by Human plane it is not just THIS earth that is meant. With best wishes, #93828 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:49 pm Subject: Re: how to view the self kenhowardau Hi Charles and all, Apologies, all, for my silence over the last few days. As usual at this time of year we have people staying with us. I am still reading the posts but haven't been able to finish any replies - too many distractions! ------------- Charles: > All, I am almost back! Dear KenH I am sorry for butting in, I can not help myself! Anyway. The point of the Buddha's teaching is escape, or freedom from, suffering. The approach you are presenting tries to get at "a" root of the problem, "The notion of existence." i.e., if you don't really exist then you can not be suffering because Desire has no place to arise from. This is a level of Arhats only. -------------- Welcome back, Charles. As I see it, our purpose here at DSG is to learn the Dhamma. I can learn about freedom from suffering without giving a thought to *my* freedom from suffering. If we were here to learn mathematics the idea of *my* mathematics wouldn't play a role, would it? No, and it's the same with Dhamma study. Let's just learn what the Buddha taught. ---------------------- C: > Now keep in mind that there are stages or levels leading up Arhatship. And, yes, each level is associated with a different degree of understanding and practice, and even a view of "self." Each level is also associated with a degree of "Self" that gives rise to attachments born out of desire and ignorance. For one to claim that "the self never existed (past, present, or future)" and (at the same time) to not be an Arhat, raises the question: has the One missed understood the teaching. After all, if the self is only a delusion, then samsara must be also and therefore suffering. ---------------------- Rather than worry about which level might be suitable for *me* I just study what the Dhamma has to say about levels. Leave me out of it! ----------------------------- C: > PS: I am going to try working from the website so if I don't reply in a timly fashion, it may be because I am still trying to figure things out ----------------------------- Good idea working from the website - it's generally easier that way. If we don't hear from you soon we'll send out a search party. :-) Ken H #93829 From: "Philip Miller" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:43 pm Subject: New Member pem218 Dear all, I am a new member of this Group, have only begun my study of Theravada Buddhism, Pali and the Suttas, and so the postings have thus far been definitely over my head! But they have also stimulated me enormously! So let me take this opportunity to thank you! Humbly, in Dhamma, Phil #93830 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:31 pm Subject: Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma nichiconn > >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. ------- easier to lose track that cetana's action/function to stimulate/encourage the associated dhammas towards (or oversee their engagement/performance with) the object is purely mental and the product/effect, say bodily action, is result, if we insist on talking only in terms of ppl (brute force) -vs- pd's (finesse). alright, that was a (convoluted) mouthful. maybe i can chew it up better before i try spitting it out again. hmm... and risk sarah's wrath by not addressing it to anyone in particular. peace, connie #93831 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:33 pm Subject: Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. nichiconn hi Alex, A: I wonder if by Human plane it is not just THIS earth that is meant. c: i think 'planes' refer to the usual limits/range of whichever type of beings' thoughts and everything that entails. ... see DN27/agga~n~naa/on knowledge of beginnings. peace, connie #93832 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:55 pm Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear friends, I. The Early Version of the Dhamma Theory Although the dhamma theory is an Abhidhammic innovation, the antecedent trends that led to its formulation and its basic ingredients can be traced to the early Buddhist scriptures which seek to analyse empiric individuality and its relation to the external world. In the discourses of the Buddha there are five such modes of analysis. The first, the analysis into nama and rupa,2 is the most elementary in the sense that it specifies the two main components, the mental and the corporeal aspects, of the empiric individual. The second is that into the five khandhas (aggregates): corporeality (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (sanna), mental formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vinnana).3 The third is that into six dhatus (elements): earth (pathavi), water (apo), temperature (tejo), air (vayo), space (akasa), and consciousness (vinnana).4 The fourth is that into twelve ayatanas (avenues of sense-perception and mental cognition): the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; and their corresponding objects: visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects.5 The fifth is that into eighteen dhatus (elements), an elaboration of the immediately preceding mode obtained by the addition of the six kinds of consciousness which arise from the contact between the sense organs and their objects. The six additional items are the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousnesses.6 Now the purposes for which Buddhism resorts to these analyses are varied. For instance, the main purpose of the khandha-analysis is to show that there is no ego either inside or outside the five khandhas which go to make up the so-called empiric individuality. None of the khandhas belongs to me (n'etat mama), they do not correspond to "I" (n'eso'ham asmi), nor are they my self (n'eso me atta).7 Thus the main purpose of this analysis is to prevent the intrusion of the notions of "mine," "I," and "my self" into what is otherwise an impersonal and egoless congeries of mental and physical phenomena. On the other hand, the analysis into eighteen dhatus is often resorted to in order to show that consciousness is neither a soul nor an extension of a soul-substance but a mental phenomenon which comes into being as a result of certain conditions: there is no independent consciousness which exists in its own right.8 In similar fashion each analysis is used to explain certain features of sentient existence. It is, in fact, with reference to these five kinds of analysis that Buddhism frames its fundamental doctrines. The very fact that there are at least five kinds of analysis shows that none of them can be taken as final or absolute. Each represents the world of experience in its totality, yet represents it from a pragmatic standpoint determined by the particular doctrine which it is intended to illuminate. notes: 2. The reference here is to its general sense. In its special sense nama-rupa means the following psycho-physical aspects: "Sensation, perception, will, contact, attention - this is called nama. The four material elements and the form depending on them - this is called rupa" (S II 3). In the oft-recurrent statement, villanapaccaya namarupat, the reference is to the special sense. {c: villana, here and in n.8, must be vi~n~naa.na & rupat = rupa, I believe} 3. See e.g. S III 47, 86-87; M III 16. 4. See e.g. S II 248; III 231. 5. See e.g. D II 302; III 102, 243; A III 400; V 52. 6. See e.g. S II 140; D I 79; III 38; A I 255; III 17. 7. S III 49. 8. Cf. Allatra paccaya natthi villanassa sambhavo (M III 281). {c: allatra ???. ref to MN148 (5-8) Chachakka S.} c: sorry, I don't have a hardcopy of Wheel Pub.412-413 & these footnote 'typos' (a missing font on my machine?) are in all the internet versions I've seen. Maybe I'll just (be bugged & pretend to) ignore them... like the missing diacritics throughout. BTW, what does Cf. in footnotes mean? Much as I like 'em, I've never quite learned how to read 'em. peace, connie #93833 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: forever nichiconn dear Alex, one more try, & then i'll try to leave you alone. how about the idea that Buddhas rediscover the ancient path & that whether or not they do arise, these truths are eternal. #93834 From: "nichiconn" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:14 pm Subject: Re: New Member nichiconn dear new Phil, re: "the postings have thus far been definitely over my head! But they have also stimulated me enormously!" c: how 'bout that, you fit right in already! nice to meet you. peace, connie #93835 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:40 pm Subject: Re: forever truth_aerator Dear Connie, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > >dear Alex, >one more try, & then i'll try to leave you alone. how about the idea >that Buddhas rediscover the ancient path & that whether or not they do >arise, these truths are eternal. These truths are not eternal for someone who has achieved PariNibbana. The truths may be very long lasting for those who are in Samsara, but not Nibbana. Even the Noble 8 FOld path is temporary, nothing to say about Dependent Origination. Please don't sneak eternalism into Buddha Dhamma. With best wishes, #93836 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta Emphasizing the Characteristic of Anicca upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 12/24/2008 4:04:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > >The following sutta defines "faith follower" (or, as I prefer, >"conviction follower"), "Dhamma-follower," and "stream enterer" in >terms of varying mode of realization of anicca: >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see, for ignorance to be abandoned and true knowledge to arise?" "Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees the eye as impermanent, ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge arises." [repeat the same for forms, eye-contact, eye feelings ... and other 5 senses.] SN35.53(1) Abandoning Ignorance. Pg 1148 of CDB by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. Interesting note: Taking on faith the impermanence of all things makes one saddhanusarin. Pondering with discernment makes on Dhammanusarin , and seeing the phenomena in this way makes one stream- enterer. That teaching is also repeated with titles Abandoning taints (SN 35.56)& Fetters (SN35.54). Now a question: What exactly needs to be done to see the impermanence? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course, the entire path of practice as laid out by the Buddha. :-) ================================ With metta, Howard #93837 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 12/24/2008 4:15:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Nina) - > > P. S. One disclaimer, though, Alex: The stories about the times of >prior Buddhas are all a bit suspect, as they pertain to aeons in the >past and yet the people and places mentioned all have Indian names and >customs! So, I cannot take such stories literally. But as regards the >Dhammic content, your point is well taken. Yes you have noticed an interesting thing. It could be that the reason for Indian names was that since Buddha and his listeners were Indians listening in Indian, the Buddha used the names familiar to Indian speakers. Interesting note: The Gotama after he saw Buddha Kassapa was reborn in Tusita heaven after which he was reborn as prince Siddhartha. Lifespan of Tusita Devas is 576 million human years. This means that Buddha Kassapa lived 576 million years ago! The future Buddha Mettreya will come probably no earlier then 576 million years into the future. I wonder if by Human plane it is not just THIS earth that is meant. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I would buy that. :-) ========================== With metta, Howard #93838 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:59 pm Subject: Watch the Manifestation! bhikkhu0 Friends: The thought manifests as the word; The word manifests as behaviour; The deed develops into habit; And habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its ways with care! Let it spring from infinite friendliness, Born out of kindness for all beings. ;-) Ignorance leads to ego, Ego leads selfishness, Selfishness leads to aversion, Aversion leads to anger, Anger leads to hatred, Hatred leads to Suffering… The creator of man was greed, For countless lives, this was his drive. With Ignorance at its helm, it grows! No end for it, until he knows... Forwarded by a wise friend. Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Watch the Manifestation! #93839 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:18 am Subject: Re: Some interesting questions from an erudite monk... buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Rob M., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Another late reply - > > When I read the following qus from the monk, my reaction was that it was a reminder about how we're always looking for a Self or self in one guise or other. James: I completely agree. It seems that the monk is proposing the existence of a soul beyond the five khandas- as long as that soul has the three characteristics. He proposes that this soul must exist as some sort of "glue" holding the five khandas together since they exist simultaneously. The Buddha made it clear in several different ways that there is no such thing. That monk needs to study carefully dependent origination. > > At the time, I had a quick look at your paper in the files section, "Understanding Death and Beyond" and I thought it would be useful to post in extracts here for any further discussion. I was impressed by it. > If you're too busy, perhaps you could persuade someone else like James(?) to help you with it. Just an idea, no hurry. James: I am often busy myself but I have a long vacation coming up at the end of January for Chinese New Years. I would be happy to help with such a project then. > > Wishing you, your family and friends at the Temple in KL a wonderful and wise Xmas & New Year. James: Yes, I wish you and all the members of DSG a Happy Holidays! > > Metta, > > Sarah > Metta, James #93840 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member nilovg Dear Philip, Welcome here. I am glad that you are stimulated and understand that not everything is clear, the same for us. Could you indicate what you find stimulating? And if you need more clarifications, please tell us. Any kind of question is helpful to all of us, it makes us reflect more. Nina. Op 24-dec-2008, om 22:43 heeft Philip Miller het volgende geschreven: > I am a new member of this Group, have only begun my study of Theravada > Buddhism, Pali and the Suttas, and so the postings have thus far been > definitely over my head! But they have also stimulated me enormously! #93841 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (34-36) and commentary, part 3. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: Three kinds of persons, to wit, the learner, the adept, he who is neither. (Tayo puggalaa: sekkho puggalo, asekkho puggalo, nevasekkhonaasekkho puggalo.) ------ N: The ariyans who are not arahats are still learners, sekkho, they still have to train in the three trainings (sikkhaa) of higher siila, higher samaadhi and higher pa~n~naa. These three arise when there is right mindfulness and right understanding of whatever naama or ruupa appears: higher siila abstains from akusala, higher concentration supports higher pa~n~naa to penetrate the true nature of the object that appears. The arahat is an adept, a non-learner, asekkho, he has eradicated all defilements. The person who is neither a learner or a non-learner is an ordinary person, a non-ariyan. ----------- The Co speaks of sevenfold, sattavidho, referring to seven persons, and here there is an allusion to the ‘four pairs of men’ (purisa puggala) who are ariyans. There are eight lokuttara cittas, four of which are magga-cittas and four fruition, phalacittas. The subco explains that sevenfold refers to eight magga-cittas and the three lower phalacittas, thus, the fruition of arahatship is taken separately here. The subco adds that through the three trainings in higher siila, higher concentration and higher pa~n~naa one is released from the opposing defilements. Becoming an ariyan is like a new birth, different from birth from a womb, the subco states. The trainings of the ariyans who are not arahats have not reached perfection. The insight of the maggacitta of the non-returner is the decisive support-condition (upanissaya-paccaya) for the training leading to arahatship. The magga-citta of the arahat still performs the function of clear comprehension, pari~n~na, and at the arising of fruition-consciousness, he has reached the highest fruit: the happiness of fruition which is the most peaceful and excellent, and endowed with these he is called non-learner. N: The fruition of the arahat is most peaceful, since all defilements have been eradicated by the magga-citta of the arahat. In this sense he is truly a non-learner. If we consider cittas, not persons, we can understand why the Co. speaks of sevenfold as learners. The magga-citta of the arahat still performs the function or task of understanding, so that defilements are eradicated, but the phalacitta which is utter peace is asekkho, non-learner. As we have seen, the worldling is not called learner, but this does not mean that understanding of nama and rupa appearing at this moment should not be developed. If there is no development now, nama and rupa will not be realized as impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. It never is enough and even ariyans who are not arahats have to continue to develop understanding of nama and rupa. They have realised the four noble Truths, they understand the three charactreistics of realities, but there are many degrees of understanding. Understanding should be deeper and more thorough until the fruition of arahatship has been reached. Then the task is finished, there is nothing more to be done. ------------ Co: Puggalattike sattavidho purisapuggalo, tisso sikkhaa sikkhatiiti sekkho. Khii.naasavo sikkhitasikkhattaa puna na sikkhissatiiti asekkho. Puthujjano sikkhaahi paribaahiyattaa nevasekkho naasekkho. ------- Nina. #93842 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member sarahprocter... Dear Phil M, --- On Thu, 25/12/08, Philip Miller wrote: >I am a new member of this Group, have only begun my study of Theravada Buddhism, Pali and the Suttas, and so the postings have thus far been definitely over my head! But they have also stimulated me enormously! >So let me take this opportunity to thank you! ... S: Thank you for telling us of your presence and giving this brief intro. It's interesting how different people respond, according to interest and inclinations. It's wonderful that you find some benefit even though so many of the terms and ideas are new to you. You may find it helpful to download the simple glossary in the files section to have near your computer. Also I recommend a hard copy of Nyantiloka's dictionary to anyone. Meanwhile it can be found on-line: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html What else? If you look in the files section at "Useful Posts", try scrolling down to "New to the list, New to the Dhamma" for further suggestions. I particularly recommend that any new-comers start their own threads, asking any questions/making comments and gradually read more of the other threads, but skipping many of the Pali-filled ones in the beginning. If you write/ask questions in simple English, friends here will respond in a similar manner. If you feel like telling us where you live or anything else about how you came to have this interest in Theravada (in common language!), we'd be interested to hear. Metta, Sarah p.s I hope you don't mind the 'M' to avoid confusion with Phil C. ========= #93843 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some interesting questions from an erudite monk... sarahprocter... Hi James & all, --- On Thu, 25/12/08, buddhatrue wrote: >James: I completely agree. It seems that the monk is proposing the existence of a soul beyond the five khandas- as long as that soul has the three characteristics. He proposes that this soul must exist as some sort of "glue" holding the five khandas together since they exist simultaneously. The Buddha made it clear in several different ways that there is no such thing. That monk needs to study carefully dependent origination. ... S: Nice to find areas of agreement these days! ... >James: I am often busy myself but I have a long vacation coming up at the end of January for Chinese New Years. I would be happy to help with such a project then. .... S: That's kind of you. I hope Rob M sees your message. Chinese New Year is early this year, so a long vacation coming soon:). ... >James: Yes, I wish you and all the members of DSG a Happy Holidays! ... S: Likewise - wishing all here Happy and panna-filled Holidays. I feel we're very fortunate to have this Dhamma community/family and to be able to find refuge and sanity in the Dhamma. Thank you to everyone for your support, interest, assistance and friendship over the years. Metta, Sarah p.s Thx for sending me the holiday photos, James. Beautiful countryside in Taiwan - glad you're able to enjoy it. =========== #93844 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Wed, 24/12/08, Alex wrote: >S: Can you appreciate the distinction between the reality of thinking > and the idea that is thought about? Can you appreciate that there >can be awareness of thinking, but not of the idea? A: How there can not be an awareness of idea? ... S: Perhaps you're using 'awareness' in its common, ordinary meaning - i.e. thinking of an idea. ... A:>Idea IS awareness of a certain thought carrying certain meanings (that can be wrong or not). ... S: Let's say 'idea' is "What a wonderful Xmas" or "pencil". Now "What a wonderful Xmas" or "pencil" are not aware of anything. They are not namas - they don't experience anything at all. .... A: Maybe I am wrong about the way some people think. I personally am aware of ideas. They are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. .... S: When we have such an idea: "I personally am aware of ideas", it's just thinking. In truth and reality there is no "I", there is no awareness of ideas. However, there is lots of thinking about ideas. ... > S: Concepts exist as concepts but not as realities. A:> And what, if I may ask, is the difference between "existing as concepts" and "existing as reality"?! ... S: Existing as concepts is only existing in a conventional sense. Conventionally, we can say a pencil exists or there's a pencil on my desk. In reality, no pencil exists, no desk exists. There are only namas and rupas arising and falling away. What is seen is visible object. What is thought about or imagined is a pencil. .... A:> In both cases there IS existence and if there is existence then it follows rise&fall like everything else. If it doesn't exist, then it cannot play any role, but since concepts do play a role - they do exist. ... S: Just in terms of conveying meanings and in conceptualising what is seen, heard and so on. Concepts are experienced by cittas, but they don't exist in terms of realities or khandhas. There can never be direct awareness or understanding of them. ... A:> Your paragraph below affirms the latter. > ... > S: OK, they "exist" as figures of speech or as ideas, regardless of > whether they are ideas about sense bases or elements WHICH DO EXIST > or whether they are ideas about pens and pencils which do not exist > as realities. A:> Then what do we use to write on piece of paper? ;) .... S: The Buddha didn't spend so many years teaching his disciples what a child could have told them. ;) ... A:> And concepts being objects, they follow the same rules as any other objects in samsara - inconstancy & selflessness. .... S: They are not dhammas, realities in samsara. .... >S: It is very important to understand the distinction between >realities and concepts and between thinking and concepts. A:> Concepts are a way of thinking. You are trying to make some weird distinctions to justify some weird attavada of concepts being eternal and not subject to change. ... S: I am trying to offer for your consideration the best gift I know of - an understanding of the dhammas (realities) appearing now at the present moment. This is the only way to penetrate beneath the surface of conventional knowledge which we were all experts in before we came across the Buddha's teachings. To repeat Ken H's succinct summary: "When someone has heard the true Dhamma the world is never the same again. Even at a beginner's level it can be seen that there are really only the presently arisen paramattha dhammas. These stories of monks who go to quiet places after their midday meal are just that - stories. Regardless of whether it is satipatthana or samattha (or even leaf sweeping) practice a monk knows there is no abiding self. He knows there is no conventional practice, no one who practises and no one who receives the results of practice. There are just these presently arisen paramattha dhammas." May we all learn to appreciate the great gift of wisdom which the Buddha pointed out to us! Metta, Sarah ======== #93845 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The speed of cittas sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & all, --- On Wed, 10/12/08, sprlrt wrote: >I might be wrong but I think that dhammas are far more subtle to know than people, tables, theories, mirages etc, otherwise the world we all sentient beings live in, just one among the many worlds that exist, wouldn't be such a crowded place :-) <...> >PS Here is also a quote from K. Sujin's Survey on the subject: >The "Atthasåliní", in the same section (361), explains synonyms of the word "past". ... S: I was interested to check the Pali terms, so I'll requote and add them for anyone else's consideration: .... >We read: "Ceased, that is, has reached cessation". Past dhamma has ceased completely, just as fire which has been extinguished. ... S: "Niruddhaa ti nirodha.m pattaa" ... >"Dissolved, that is, gone to destruction, departed." There is nothing left, just as someone who has died, who is no more. That is the characteristic of falling away. .... S: "Vigataa ti vibhava.m gataa vigacchitaa va" .... >"Changed, that is, transformed by abandoning the original nature." So long as a dhamma has its original, usual nature, it exists, but when it abandons its original nature, it does not exist anymore. .... S: "Vipari.nataa ti pakativijahanena vipari.naana.m gataa." ... "Terminated, this means gone to the term (end) called cessation." It cannot exist any longer, that is the meaning of cessation. ... S: Nirodhasa"nkhaata.m attaha.m gataa ti atthagataa" .... "Exterminated. .." This word is stronger then the preceding term "terminated" , and the meaning is: It has disappeared completely, there is nothing left of it. .... S: "Abbhattha.m gataa ti upasaggena pada.m va.d.dhita.m" .... >"Dissolved after having arisen, that is, departed after having come to be." This does not mean that the dhamma did not exist. It was, because it had arisen, but after its arising it departed, it disappeared completely, and there is nothing left of it. .... S: "Uppajjitvaa vigataa ti nibbattitvaa vigacchitaa" ... >We then read: "Which are past dhammas? Rúpa, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness. " These are the five khandhas which are conditioned dhammas, sankhata dhammas. The five khandhas comprise the following realities: Rúpakkhandha: all rúpas which arise and fall away. Vedanåkkhandha: all feelings, vedanå cetasika, which arise and fall away. Saññåkkhandha: remembrance or perception, saññå cetasika, which arises and falls away. Sa"nkhårakkhandha, fifty cetasikas which are "formations" , which "form up" conditions, such as attachment, aversion, jealousy, avarice, confidence, energy and wisdom; they arise and then fall away. Viññånakkhandha, each type of citta which arises and falls away. Everything which arises is conditioned dhamma, it is one of the five khandhas, and thus it falls away again. For which of the khandhas are we then still longing, to which of them do we still cling? Each khandha arises and then falls away; it dissolves, disappears completely, there is nothing left of it, there is nothing worth clinging to. .... S: Only the 5 khandhas, the various conditioned namas and rupas arise and fall away. Only these we can refer to in the past as gone, having been, ceased, dissolved, changed, terminated and so on. Thanks Alberto, Metta, Sarah ====== #93846 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex & Ken) - In a message dated 12/25/2008 5:52:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Alex & all, --- On Wed, 24/12/08, Alex wrote: >S: Can you appreciate the distinction between the reality of thinking > and the idea that is thought about? Can you appreciate that there >can be awareness of thinking, but not of the idea? A: How there can not be an awareness of idea? ... S: Perhaps you're using 'awareness' in its common, ordinary meaning - i.e. thinking of an idea. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Or consciousness of the idea. (Many people, including me, use 'awareness' to mean just 'consciousness'.) As for being conscious of an idea, what I think that comes down to is consciousness of a particular line of thought, or, better, stretch of thinking. So, when I say "I just had an idea about such & such," what I'm doing is describing a stretch of thinking. ------------------------------------------------------------ ... A:>Idea IS awareness of a certain thought carrying certain meanings (that can be wrong or not). ... S: Let's say 'idea' is "What a wonderful Xmas" or "pencil". Now "What a wonderful Xmas" or "pencil" are not aware of anything. They are not namas - they don't experience anything at all. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: But the thinking expressed by, say, "pencil" (which probably amounts to picturing a pencil in isolation, added to, perhaps, by some quick recollections of holding one, or using one, and also mentally noting the typical yellow color of the shaft, the beige color of the whittled-down end, the black lead at the very end, and the pinkish, rubber eraser, below which there is a band of yellow, grooved metal, and then mentally reciting "pencil"). [The foregoing was retrieved by memory, not by holding a pencil in front of me.] And, interspersed with all that thinking, at a multitude of different moments, is consciousness of recalled bits and pieces (i.e., of segments) of that thinking. The thinking and the consciousness of segments of that thinking seem to me to occur in a frequent interleaving pattern: thinking, recalling (of the thinking), thinking, recalling, thinking, recalling, etc. And the greater the frequency of that interleaving (and the shorter the thought segments), the more it seems that the thinking itself involves consciousness. The ideas are just the (segments of) thinking. --------------------------------------------------------- .... A: Maybe I am wrong about the way some people think. I personally am aware of ideas. They are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. .... S: When we have such an idea: "I personally am aware of ideas", it's just thinking. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right. Ideas are lines of thought, or, better, specific stretches of thinking (or sometimes, abstractions from a collection of similar ideas, which is just another, "higher-level," piece if thinking. ------------------------------------------------------- In truth and reality there is no "I", there is no awareness of ideas. However, there is lots of thinking about ideas. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: And consciousness (recollection, really) of the thinking. Ideas and stretches of thought (or thinking) are actually one and the same. When we think that in addition to the thinking, there are other things called "ideas," we are, I believe, making a mistake. ------------------------------------------------- ... > S: Concepts exist as concepts but not as realities. A:> And what, if I may ask, is the difference between "existing as concepts" and "existing as reality"?! ... S: Existing as concepts is only existing in a conventional sense. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Anytime we posit a separate "thing," including, for example, such paramatha dhammas as cittas, hardnesses, and visible objects, we are also conceptualizing a conventional object, I believe. Reality doesn't come compartmentalized. It is a seamless flow, with no quality or operation remaining "as is" for any time at all. Change is constant and unrelenting. Our parsing of experience is a matter of thinking, of conceptual fragmentation into mentally created (imagined) entities that are mere matters of convention, useful though they may be. -------------------------------------------------- Conventionally, we can say a pencil exists or there's a pencil on my desk. In reality, no pencil exists, no desk exists. There are only namas and rupas arising and falling away. What is seen is visible object. What is thought about or imagined is a pencil. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is needed to take this further, Sarah. The paramattha dhammas are also conventional constructs. Reality itself can only be directly apprehended with wisdom, not thinking. ------------------------------------------------- .... A:> In both cases there IS existence and if there is existence then it follows rise&fall like everything else. If it doesn't exist, then it cannot play any role, but since concepts do play a role - they do exist. ... S: Just in terms of conveying meanings and in conceptualising what is seen, heard and so on. Concepts are experienced by cittas, but they don't exist in terms of realities or khandhas. There can never be direct awareness or understanding of them. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Concepts, when anything at all, are lines of thought - coherent pieces of thinking. ----------------------------------------------------- ... A:> Your paragraph below affirms the latter. > ... > S: OK, they "exist" as figures of speech or as ideas, regardless of > whether they are ideas about sense bases or elements WHICH DO EXIST > or whether they are ideas about pens and pencils which do not exist > as realities. A:> Then what do we use to write on piece of paper? ;) .... S: The Buddha didn't spend so many years teaching his disciples what a child could have told them. ;) ... A:> And concepts being objects, they follow the same rules as any other objects in samsara - inconstancy & selflessness. .... S: They are not dhammas, realities in samsara. --------------------------------------------- Howard: The word 'reality' is best not pluralized. ------------------------------------------- .... >S: It is very important to understand the distinction between >realities and concepts and between thinking and concepts. A:> Concepts are a way of thinking. You are trying to make some weird distinctions to justify some weird attavada of concepts being eternal and not subject to change. ... S: I am trying to offer for your consideration the best gift I know of - an understanding of the dhammas (realities) appearing now at the present moment. This is the only way to penetrate beneath the surface of conventional knowledge which we were all experts in before we came across the Buddha's teachings. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's a good program, Sarah, but it doesn't go far enough. ------------------------------------------------- To repeat Ken H's succinct summary: "When someone has heard the true Dhamma the world is never the same again. Even at a beginner's level it can be seen that there are really only the presently arisen paramattha dhammas. These stories of monks who go to quiet places after their midday meal are just that - stories. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is not a presentation of the Dhamma. It is the tip of the dhammic iceberg. ---------------------------------------------------- Regardless of whether it is satipatthana or samattha (or even leaf sweeping) practice a monk knows there is no abiding self. He knows there is no conventional practice, no one who practises and no one who receives the results of practice. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's good. -------------------------------------------------- There are just these presently arisen paramattha dhammas." ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's not good enough. Thing-making has to be over and done with, and the tilakkhana and paticcasamupada have to be dived into, immersed completely. --------------------------------------------------- May we all learn to appreciate the great gift of wisdom which the Buddha pointed out to us! --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed! A very good thought. ---------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ============================= With metta, Howard #93847 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The speed of cittas: 'Conditions' are about dhammas sarahprocter... Hi Scott (& TG), --- On Mon, 15/12/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >Scott: No, the dhammas are not the forces, TG. This is because they are realities. The 'forces' relates to the way in which these realities effect each other. Dynamics occur between things. ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... . >TG: Fascinating. Just as I has described above! You say -- dynamics "occur between" "things"? This is a "mind-boggling" statement from my point of view. This reveals a "complete entity view," no holes barred. >I think your "entity view" is probably stronger than even Nina's and Sarah's...from what I can gather. .... S: A belated LOL! Scott, sounds as though you're a real basket case:-)). Wishing you and your children and any other entities, wonderful, action-snow-packed days... Metta, Sarah ======== #93848 From: Philip Miller Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member pem218 Dear Sarah et al., Thank you sincerely for your welcoming message. I have seen all too many Groups all so self-absorbed in itself to take notice of newbies in their midst. I am 63 years old and reside in central New Jersey, and I have been a spiritual seeker for too long. Oh, I had read books about Buddhism in the past, but it was like tossing mud against a wall - a little stuck but most fell off. Not long ago I had a serious life-threatening illness. During my recuperation I stumbled upon (are there really any coincidences??) some web sites of Buddhist content and found a spark had ignited a fire. Researching my area, I found local Buddhist resources to be slim. There is a lovely Tibetan temple not far away and I attended some very interested lectures. But Tibetan Buddhism seems too "High Church" (pardon me, if I have offended anyone!) and convoluted. (Don't get me wrong! It is wonderful that so many otherwise lost texts in Sanskrit survive in Tibetan, and I admire the Dalai Lama and his leadership of a people in exile or oppressed in their own land. But Tibetan Buddhism seems more about studying the commentary texts in their lineages than the core texts.) There is a Burmese organization not far from me, but it seems more centered itself than outreach. (Oh, they did welcome me to come meditate with them at 5:00 AM, but at that time I am preparing to leave for my work in Manhattan!) What appeals to me about Theravada is the centrality of the Pali Canon and its "simplicity." I only wish there were a "teacher" nearby with whom I could learn. For Sangha, there is a small group affiliated with Thich Nhat Hanh - another individual whom I admire and revere. His emphasis on Mindfulness echoes the cultural admixture of Theravada and Mahayana that seems (to me) the mark of Vietnamese Buddhism. Thank you for posting the link to the Dictionary. I look forward to studying Pali. I am not intimidated as studying foreign languages has been something of a "hobby" my whole life. And thank you for referencing the files at the Group's home-page.! Metta (See, I have already learned a useful word!) and humbly in Dhamma Phil M #93849 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:34 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, Karunadasa continues: The Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas developed from an attempt to draw out the full implications of these five types of analysis. It will be seen that if each analysis is examined in relation to the other four, it is found to be further analysable. That the first, the analysis into nama and rupa, is further analysable is seen by the second, the analysis into the five khandhas. For in the second, the nama-component of the first is analysed into sensation, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. That the analysis into khandhas, too, can be further analysed is shown not only by the use of the term khandha, which means "group," but also by the next analysis, that into six dhatus. For in the latter, the rupa-component of the former is analysed into four, namely, earth water, temperature, and air. That the analysis into six dhatus is also further analysable is seen from the fact that consciousness, which is reckoned here as one item, is made into four in the khandha-analysis. That the same situation is true of the analysis into twelve ayatanas is shown by the next analysis, that into eighteen dhatus, because the latter is an elaboration of the former. This leaves us with the last, the dhatu-analysis with eighteen items. Can this be considered final? This supposition too must be rejected, because although consciousness is here itemized as sixfold, its invariable concomitants such as sensation (vedana) and perception (sanna) are not separately mentioned. It will thus be seen that none of the five analyses can be considered exhaustive. In each case one or more items is further analysable. This, it seems to me, is the line of thought that led the Abhidhammikas to evolve still another mode of analysis which in their view is not amenable to further analysis. This new development, which is more or less common to all the systems of Abhidhamma, is the analysis of the world of experience into what came to be known as dharmas (Skt) or dhammas (Pali). The term dhamma, of course, looms large in the discourses of the Buddha, found in a variety of senses which have to be determined by the specific context. In the Abhidhamma, however, the term assumes a more technical meaning, referring to those items that result when the process of analysis is taken to its ultimate limits. In the Theravada Abhidhamma, for instance, the aggregate of corporeality (of the khandha-analysis) is broken down into twenty-eight items called rupa-dhammas. The next three aggregates -- sensation, perception, and mental formations -- are together arranged into fifty-two items called cetasikas. The fifth, consciousness, is counted as one item with eighty-nine varieties and is referred to as citta.9 {9. See Dhs. 5ff.} How about 'ff' in footnotes? It seems to mean something like 'and just keep reading'. I'll just quote 5 & 6: first from the Rhys Davids translation: 5. What on that occasion is volition (cetanaa)? The volition, purpose, purposefulness, which is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection - this is the volition that there then is. 6. What on that occasion is thought (citta.m)? The thought which on that occasion is ideation, mind, heart, that which is clear, ideation as the sphere of mind, the faculty of mind, intellection, the skandha of intellection, the appropriate element of representative intellection - this is the thought that there then is. and then Khine's: 5. What at that time is volition? That which at that time is volition born out of full contct with mind-consciousness-element appropriate to that volition, effective volition, exercise of volition - this at that time is volition. 6. What at that time is thought? That which at that time is thought, cognition, knowing, mind (lit., heart), purity, mind as the sphere of mind, faculty of mind, consciousness, aggregate of consciousness, mind-consciousness-element appropriate to those mental concomitants - this at that time is thought. peace, connie #93850 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:35 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear friends, This post begins Nyanaponika's 'Abhidhamma Studies', ch.5 on 'The Problem of Time': 1. Time and Consciousness (p.93) The formula of the Dhammasa'nga.nii - "At a time when ..." (see p.31) - implies a close connection between time and consciousness, which in a verse quoted in the Atthasaalinii (p.57) is described as a mutual relationship: By time the Sage described the mind And by the mind described the time, In order to show, by such definition, The phenomena there arranged in classes. (Samaye niddisi citta'm cittena samaya'm muni niyametvaana diipetu'm dhamme tattha pabhedato.) The state of consciousness classified in the first part of the schematic sentence of the Dhammasa'nga.nii is, in its existence, as well as by time. The duration of that mind-defining time period is circumscribed by the simultaneity of the mental factors enumerated in the second part of the sentence ("... at that time there are sense-contact ..."). In other words, a state of consciousness lasts as long as the combination of its single factors. This represents the of consciousness by time. Its too is only possible by reference to time, namely, to the temporary simultaneity of the single factors. Conversely, these mental factors - in other words, the internal relations - for their part determine the time by furnishing the measure of the time unit, which consists only in the duration of that temporary combination of factors. The conclusion to be drawn from this mutual relation between time and consciousness may be formulated in the words of Bertrand Russell: "... we cannot give what may be called dates, but only dates determined by events. We cannot point to a time itself, but only to some event occurring at that time." {61} The commentator expresses the same idea when, in explaining the word (rendered in our translation by "time"), he says: "Chronological time, denoted by reference to this or that (event), is merely a conventional expression... Since it has no existence in itself (i.e., cannot be found in reality) one has to understand it as a mere concept." {62} {61} Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World, p.117. {62} Asl 58: Ta'm ta'm upaadaaya pa~n~natto kaalo vohaaramattako. ... So pan'esa sabhaavato avijjamaanattaa pa~n~nattimattako evaa ti veditabbo. PMTin translated the second part of the above Atthasaalinii (Expositor) quote: The "..." is a list of examples including , and . peace, connie #93851 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member upasaka_howard Hi, Phil M - Welcome to the list from a fellow member. :-) In a message dated 12/25/2008 7:25:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pem218@... writes: Dear Sarah et al., Thank you sincerely for your welcoming message. I have seen all too many Groups all so self-absorbed in itself to take notice of newbies in their midst. I am 63 years old and reside in central New Jersey, and I have been a spiritual seeker for too long. Oh, I had read books about Buddhism in the past, but it was like tossing mud against a wall - a little stuck but most fell off. Not long ago I had a serious life-threatening illness. During my recuperation I stumbled upon (are there really any coincidences??) some web sites of Buddhist content and found a spark had ignited a fire. Researching my area, I found local Buddhist resources to be slim. There is a lovely Tibetan temple not far away and I attended some very interested lectures. But Tibetan Buddhism seems too "High Church" (pardon me, if I have offended anyone!) and convoluted. (Don't get me wrong! It is wonderful that so many otherwise lost texts in Sanskrit survive in Tibetan, and I admire the Dalai Lama and his leadership of a people in exile or oppressed in their own land. But Tibetan Buddhism seems more about studying the commentary texts in their lineages than the core texts.) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I've found some really good Buddhist philosophy within the Tibetan traditions but also much that I find "way out" and a bit far from what I consider to be the "true Dhamma.". ----------------------------------------------- There is a Burmese organization not far from me, but it seems more centered itself than outreach. (Oh, they did welcome me to come meditate with them at 5:00 AM, but at that time I am preparing to leave for my work in Manhattan!) What appeals to me about Theravada is the centrality of the Pali Canon and its "simplicity." I only wish there were a "teacher" nearby with whom I could learn. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I would suggest starting out with studying the suttas [There are several online sources, including most especially _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/) ], and following and joining in with the posting here on DSG. You will note that there are several strains of thought and perspective represented here. A number of us are "very standard" modern-day, Theravadin practitioners, myself included, involved with meditating, guarding the senses, ongoing mindfulness, and so on, while others exhibit a Zen-like, "no-doing doing" approach that does not involve meditation at all. (An interesting, eclectic bunch, we are! ;-) ------------------------------------------------- For Sangha, there is a small group affiliated with Thich Nhat Hanh - another individual whom I admire and revere. His emphasis on Mindfulness echoes the cultural admixture of Theravada and Mahayana that seems (to me) the mark of Vietnamese Buddhism. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: While I'm not crazy about his "guided meditation" approach, I do admire Thich Nhat Hanh a lot, most especially appreciating his valuing of the Pali suttas as Buddha word. ----------------------------------------------------- Thank you for posting the link to the Dictionary. I look forward to studying Pali. I am not intimidated as studying foreign languages has been something of a "hobby" my whole life. And thank you for referencing the files at the Group's home-page.! Metta (See, I have already learned a useful word!) and humbly in Dhamma Phil M ============================ With metta, Howard #93852 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AS time upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In regard to this topic of time, I'd like to make just a passing observation. At numerous places in the suttas, the Buddha instead of speaking of "time" speaks of "occasion". He might say that "such & such occurred on the occasion that ...," using "on the occasion that" instead of "at the time that" or "at the moment that." This seems to reflect an identification of time with event, and it reminds me of the Japanese Soto Zen master Dogen's hard-to-grasp notion of "being-time." With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/25/2008 8:35:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear friends, This post begins Nyanaponika's 'Abhidhamma Studies', ch.5 on 'The Problem of Time': 1. Time and Consciousness (p.93) #93853 From: Philip Miller Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New Member pem218 Thanks! Phil M c: how 'bout that, you fit right in already! nice to meet you. #93854 From: Philip Miller Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member pem218 Thank you, Nina - What do I find stimulating? There is a proverb in Arabic: Lisaan djadiid, insaan djadiid. "A new language, a new person." Granted, we are not communicating in Pali, but the conversations here revolve around texts and concepts in that language. And these present, for me, at least with a different world-view. People should not be afraid of trying to wrap their minds around concepts or ways of thinking that are different. Folks who are, are mentally and intellectually dead long before they are physically dead. Metta Phil M --- On Thu, 12/25/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: ... Dear Philip, Welcome here. I am glad that you are stimulated and understand that not everything is clear, the same for us. Could you indicate what you find stimulating? And if you need more clarifications, please tell us. Any kind of question is helpful to all of us, it makes us reflect more. Nina. <....> #93855 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: The speed of cittas: 'Conditions' are about dhammas scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "...A belated LOL! Scott, sounds as though you're a real basket case:-))." Scott: Yerp. S: "Wishing you and your children and any other entities, wonderful, action-snow-packed days..." Scott: Thank you, Sarah. It is warming up so we might get over to the tobogganing hills. Best to you and Jon! Sincerely, Scott. #93856 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AS time nichiconn Thanks, Howard, H: At numerous places in the suttas, the Buddha instead of speaking of "time" speaks of "occasion". He might say that "such & such occurred on the occasion that ...," using "on the occasion that" instead of "at the time that" or "at the moment that." This seems to reflect an identification of time with event, and it reminds me of the Japanese Soto Zen master Dogen's hard-to-grasp notion of "being-time." c: Yes! The Asl/Expositor goes on at some length (about 6 pages!) in explaining "samaya"s various meanings: harmony in antecedent, group, elimination, moment, penetration, condition acquisition, time & opinion. peace, connie #93857 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Nina) - In a message dated 12/25/2008 9:12:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pem218@... writes: People should not be afraid of trying to wrap their minds around concepts or ways of thinking that are different. Folks who are, are mentally and intellectually dead long before they are physically dead. ============================= I like that A LOT, Phil! With metta, Howard #93858 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 24-dec-2008, om 21:58 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > However it doesn't seem that > gathering "perfections" for 4 Asankheyyas & 300,000 MK had that much > to show for it. I mean the future Buddha to be behaved too much like > he didn't tred the super long path. If as you say the life can > change so much, then that too questions the practical point of > gathering paramis for such a long time. ------- N: So we can take courage. Also the Bodhisatta had akusala cittas, but there is a way leading to their eradication. -------- > > A: IMHO, talking about how Arhatship is too far away is Mara's idea. > Mara would love to install a suggestion that Arhatship is so far into > the future that there isn't much point to sweat it out now. ------- N: Nothing to do with Mara. We have accumulated a great deal of ignorance, wrong view, craving. It takes a long time of developing pa~n~naa before they are all eradicated, but a beginning can be made now. -------- > > A:For me, the MN81 story and what I've said re: Buddha being an self > awakened Arhat is applicable and inspiring in the sense that > Arhatship IS possible and doesn't require the sort of things that > we've read in later literature. ------- N: The development of satipatthana/vipassanaa. No other way. Nina. #93859 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections nilovg Hi Howard, Op 24-dec-2008, om 19:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > Not all arahants may have already attained all jhanas, but jhana > attainment is part of the path, and I have no doubt that all jhanas > are *available* > to arahants if but an effort in that direction is made. -------- N: I will not repeat too much what has been discussed before about dry insight nor about the value of the commentarial tradition. Anyway, it is said that, as the teachings decline, there will be less arahats endowed with the four patisambhidas, discriminations, with proficiency in jhana, and even arahats are no longer in this world. ------- > H: As regards the four > discriminations, I believe that all forms of knowledge are *open* > to all > arahants, depending only on their turning their attention in the > proper direction. > ------ N: Depending on their accumulated capabilities. The Discriminations are very special, not for everybody. -------- > H: I think that distinguishing among arahants as regards potential > ability > (though not in terms of what has already been actualized) is due to > the > deleterious influence of Mahayana notions that turn buddhas into > gods and make even > bodhisattvas superior to arahants(!), an insult to arahants, IMO. > What distinguishes a buddha from a "mere" arahant, is not a difference > in potential abilities but is the fact that a buddha is unique in > reintroducing the Dhamma at a time and place at which it is totally > unknown. In this > regard, please see the following sutta: > SN 22.58 > Buddha Sutta > Awakened -------- N: The Buddha found the Truth without the help of anyone else during the life he attained Buddhahood. All the notions contained in the Abhidhamma, all the conditions as laid down in the Patthanaa, if the Buddha had not realized these through his enlightenment, nobody could have understood these. There could not be arahats without the teaching of the Buddha. His wisdom is incomparable, we cannot compare Buddhas and arahats. Nina. #93860 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex & all, > A: Maybe I am wrong about the way some people think. I personally >am aware of ideas. They are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. > .... >S: When we have such an idea: "I personally am aware of ideas", >it's just thinking. In truth and reality there is no "I", there is >no awareness of ideas. However, there is lots of thinking about >ideas. As if I didn't know that. I don't know, are you saying this tongue in cheek or do you really think that whenever I use words "I" the "Self" is used. Buddha, Arahants, and his disciples frequently used words common in worldly parlance, they didn't cling to them. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to work at Equinimity. >Concepts are experienced by cittas, but they don't exist in terms of >realities or khandhas. There can never be direct awareness or >understanding of them. If something is experienced by citta then that awareness of X "exists" . If we can talk about concepts then concepts do exist. It is beyond the point to argue about what, if anything, they signify. The fact is, what is experienced by cittas does have anicca characteristic. > A:> Your paragraph below affirms the latter. > > > ... >S: OK, they "exist" as figures of speech or as ideas, regardless of >whether they are ideas about sense bases or elements WHICH DO EXIST >or whether they are ideas about pens and pencils which do not exist >as realities. So they do exist and thus are anicca. Happy holidays! #93861 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:59 am Subject: New Member nichiconn hi again New Phil, yes, definitely read suttas, preferably in paa.li - someday! until then it's good to remember what they say about translators being traitors... and that we're all translators of a rather twisted sort. definitely don't forget that there are two other baskets and the help the commentators lend us with their understanding of how the lineage is handed down. seems to me most lay people don't to pay a lot of attention to the vinaya & the fewer yet who want to bother with the abhidhamma really have to wrack their brains & struggle. that said, imo, everyone should take full advantage of the offerings on scribd.com/people/documents/1746908-alanweller?page=1 peace, connie #93862 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2008/12/24 connie : > Dear Herman, > > H: So far, you have my total agreement. (Abhi)dhamma makes sense of meditational experience. > > c: Karunadasa does. I'm not sure we agree that Buddha was the first abhidhamma specialist. Or what meditation might be. But no matter. Could we add to your last sentence, "in part, thru more detailed analysis of the (meditation) object than the suttas"? It will be fairly easy to see whether we agree, or not, on what meditation is. Recently you linked to a paper on memory not being on the list of dhammas in the Abhidhamma. If you agree that memory is not a dhamma, then we can agree that anything remembered is not a subject of the Abhidhamma. And that is why the notion of "Abhidhamma in daily life" is contradictory, as daily life is nothing but living in memories. Meditation and daily life exclude each other. Another way of saying that is that discursive thought is not meditation. An analysis of an object becomes an act of memory in a split second. That cannot be the program of the Abhidhamma. Rather, an analysis of the process of mind reduces to seeing anicca, anatta and dukkha, and that is the program of meditation and Abhidhamma, IMO. > > just looking at "to see the world correctly is to see -- not persons and substances -- but bare phenomena (suddhadhamma)" and getting lost playing in the PTSDict... starting at > > Suddha [pp. of sujjhati] 1. clean, pure; 2. purified, pure of heart; 3. simple, mere, unmixed, nothing but. ... suddha aanupassin, considering what is pure > > and ending up smiling at: > di.t.thi visuddhi - beauty of right theory > > understanding... that's the object(ive) > > but what do you think of calling cetasikas "mental properties"? As far as words go, 'property' is more suggestive of "own-ness" than 'characteristic' is. Naming something that is no longer happening is necessary for communication. As long as we do not imagine that by naming something gone we have arrived at an object we can inspect, it doesn't really matter what names we give to things. How about just seeing the moment when there is movement away from the passing parade, followed by the dive into remembered categories, whenever that happens? Cheers Herman #93863 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/12/23 : > Hi, Herman - > >> Howard: >> Definitely! And I have no doubt that these are all cultivated in >> treading the ariyan steps. We should aspire and work towards all of them, > mastering >> them to the highest level possible for us. >> ------------------------------------------------- > > If either of you are inclined, I would appreciate any comments on why > you consider the paramis as ends in their own right, and why that > would not be the pursuit of dukkha. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't mainly consider them as ends in their own right, but as means to > the end that is awakening. They are, however, all GOOD! So why would they > not be worthwhile aims? > As for the idea of choosing to pursue them being a pursuit of dukkha, > well, I just consider that to be silly. Was the Buddha's pursuit of awakening a > pursuit of dukkha? I miss your point, Herman. > ------------------------------------------ Is the awakened mind a conditioned phenomenon? If it is, then it is anicca, anatta and dukkha, no matter how luminous it is. If it is something else, then I believe an eternalist element is creeping in. Cheers Herman #93864 From: "charles.dacosta@..." Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:13 pm Subject: Re: Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. charles.daco... Hi Alex, The Buddha could have hesitated to teach because he believe the beings around him were not ready to recieve the teachings. And on the vows. This could just be a later addition. However, even the Buddha talks about when he was just a Bodhisatva. Therefore this concept did exist in the Buddha's day. Now wheather or not this concept represented a path to Buddhahood, as defined by Mahayanists is a seperate question. Since none of us existed back in that day we can only speculate. CharlesD --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello Howard, Nina and all. > > Some evidence against "Bodhisattva" ideal in early Sutta-Pitakas. > > Future Buddha-to-be 3 lives before didn't want to see Buddha Kassapa. > He kept insulting the Buddha many times and had to be dragged by the > hair by his lay Anagamin friend. Ghatikara suttam MN81. As no > Buddhist would do something like that, effectively it tells us that > prior to meeting Buddha Kassapa, he wasn't a Buddhist in any sense > of the word and it is questionable on whether he possed Paramis such > as Patience, Loving Kindness, Wisdom and any other applicable. <....> #93865 From: "charles.dacosta@..." Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:53 pm Subject: Re: how to view the self charles.daco... Hi Ken H, I am not talking about "my-suffering" /ownership. What I am talking is the fact that the "self" (usually in the form of I, me, or my) does arise and fade like all relative existences. Even in your own writing: "As I see it". Self has arisen and faded so quickly you may not have noticed it; and then to arise again in: "I can learn about freedom from suffering without giving a thought to *my* freedom from suffering." Now I could be going out on a limb when I claim that "knowing this arising and fading is the beginning of wisdom." And. The idea of levels: The issue should never be "... which level might be suitable for *me* ..." Levels just help define where "You" are likely to be found. It is by this you begin the practice of letting go (even after strong FEELINGS have arisen – this triggers craving and attachment). So the bottom line: if you can leave out the Self (I, me, my --- even as plurals) 100% of the time, then you may be right, for you that is. But for the rest of us beings lost in samsara, the Self is rarely left out. I, me, and mine arise and fade all the time. CharlesD #93866 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2008/12/23 connie : > dear friends, > sorry about my carelessness; the author of "The Dhamma Theory" is Y. Karunadasa (not -dada). Thank you for posting all this material for consideration. > > to conclude the Introduction: > > The dhamma theory was not peculiar to any one school of Buddhism but penetrated all the early schools, stimulating the growth of their different versions of the Abhidhamma. The Sarvastivada version of the theory, together with its critique by the Madhyamikas, has been critically studied by a number of modern scholars. It may be of interest to note that the Sarvastivadan Abhidhamma does include memory as a dhamma. Cheers Herman #93867 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:09 pm Subject: Re: Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. truth_aerator Hi Charles, > "charles.dacosta@..." wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > The Buddha could have hesitated to teach because he believe the > beings around him were not ready to recieve the teachings. As I've said, in MN26 (and other suttas) his quest was a personal one. He was also under no obligation to teach so he hesitated. He did not make-believe hesitation so that Hindu God would beg him, thus beating up the price of his teaching. Furthermore, he surveyed the world AFTER Brahma's request. So he couldn't have known the faculties of billion or so humans. > And on the vows. This could just be a later addition. However, even > the Buddha talks about when he was just a Bodhisatva. Bodhisatva word doesn't mean what it means in Mahayana. Bodhisatta = Bodhi + satta. Or in Skt: Bodhi+ satva . Heroic minded one (satva) for awakening (bodhi). With best wishes, #93868 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/12/25 : > Hi, Nina - > > A buddha is to be revered and distinguished among all arahants for his > taking it upon himself prior to final awakening to delay his journey to > becoming an arahant for aeons until a time at which the Dhamma is entirely absent > from the world and he then is born as the one to reintroduce it. He is to be > revered among all arahants for this enormous sacrifice. In a way, this makes a > buddha a salvational figure, a self-sacrificial figure, not entirely unlike > the "Christian savior." > But that aside, an arahant is an arahant is an > arahant. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know I risk offending you, Howard, in saying the following. But may I suggest to you that if you meet an arahant, kill him :-) You might be interested to learn that the idea of the arahant has undergone enormous development over time, and is shared in different forms by a few traditions. It originated as a Jain idea. Cheers Herman #93869 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] forever egberdina Hi connie, 2008/12/25 connie : > dear Alex, > one more try, & then i'll try to leave you alone. how about the idea that Buddhas rediscover the ancient path & that whether or not they do arise, these truths are eternal. > My two cents worth. In the absence of a mind that arises, truth and eternity are meaningless. For any mind that arises, everything that arises is of a temporary nature. Cheers Herman #93870 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/12/25 sarah abbott : > Hi TG, (Alex & all), > > Attachment or aversion, to give a couple of examples, are clearly 'formed up'. They have characteristics which distinguish them when they arise and can be known. The consciousness which thinks about 'pen' is also 'formed up' and conditioned, as are the rupas such as visible object or hardness. However, the idea of 'pen' is not 'formed up' or 'conditioned'. It is not sankhara khandha. > > Wishing you much wise reflection and wisdom over the holiday season. Xmas is also a concept - it's not 'formed up', but 'imagined' on account of sanna and other mental factors. > Is what you are saying something like this sutta extract (MN28)? "Now if internally the intellect is intact but externally ideas do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. "The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being is gathered under the feeling clinging-aggregate. The perception of what has thus come into being is gathered under the perception clinging-aggregate. The fabrications of what has thus come into being are gathered under the fabrication clinging-aggregate. The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates. Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.' And even to this extent, friends, the monk has accomplished a great deal." This sutta says that ideas exist independently of them being known. It also says that only once there has been contact is there occasion to speak of aggregates and dependent arising. Uncontacted ideas are not amongst the khandas. Is that what you mean? But surely the remembering of a pen is "formed up" and / or "conditioned"? Cheers Herman #93871 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi Herman, > "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > But surely the remembering of a pen is "formed up" and / >or "conditioned"? > > Cheers > > > Herman The concept of pen & writing is conditioned. It is also dependent on the physical matter called pen. The word "pen" itself is conditioned and isn't static. The fact that we can talk about concepts is also conditioned on consciousness. Unconscious things don't cognize, and for them concepts do not exist. With best wishes, #93872 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:22 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 12/25/2008 5:39:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/12/23 : > Hi, Herman - > >> Howard: >> Definitely! And I have no doubt that these are all cultivated in >> treading the ariyan steps. We should aspire and work towards all of them, > mastering >> them to the highest level possible for us. >> ------------------------------------------------- > > If either of you are inclined, I would appreciate any comments on why > you consider the paramis as ends in their own right, and why that > would not be the pursuit of dukkha. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't mainly consider them as ends in their own right, but as means to > the end that is awakening. They are, however, all GOOD! So why would they > not be worthwhile aims? > As for the idea of choosing to pursue them being a pursuit of dukkha, > well, I just consider that to be silly. Was the Buddha's pursuit of awakening a > pursuit of dukkha? I miss your point, Herman. > ------------------------------------------ Is the awakened mind a conditioned phenomenon? If it is, then it is anicca, anatta and dukkha, no matter how luminous it is. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no "thing" that is "the awakened mind". Incidentally, I don't recall having used the phrase 'awakened mind' that you have just used. As for conditioned phenomena being dukkha, that only means that they are not sources of satisfaction and that clinging to them leads to suffering. Actually, I think it is error even to view them as anything more than conventional objects, not "realties" or even "true existents" - but, then, I'm a bit odd! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- If it is something else, then I believe an eternalist element is creeping in. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that would be up to you. As I said, I don't recall having used the phrase. ------------------------------------------------ Cheers Herman ============================== With metta, Howard Emptiness /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) __________________________ /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #93873 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 12/25/2008 6:18:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/12/25 : > Hi, Nina - > > A buddha is to be revered and distinguished among all arahants for his > taking it upon himself prior to final awakening to delay his journey to > becoming an arahant for aeons until a time at which the Dhamma is entirely absent > from the world and he then is born as the one to reintroduce it. He is to be > revered among all arahants for this enormous sacrifice. In a way, this makes a > buddha a salvational figure, a self-sacrificial figure, not entirely unlike > the "Christian savior." > But that aside, an arahant is an arahant is an > arahant. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know I risk offending you, Howard, in saying the following. But may I suggest to you that if you meet an arahant, kill him :-) ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Why would a Zen quotation, slightly modified, offend me? Anyway, what the original means is to cling nothing, not even the Buddha. --------------------------------------------- You might be interested to learn that the idea of the arahant has undergone enormous development over time, and is shared in different forms by a few traditions. It originated as a Jain idea. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. :-) Actually, I think the idea of arahant as "fully awakened being" was a well established one circa 500 BCE. --------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================== With metta, Howard #93874 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:48 pm Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear herman, how'd you find the memory article? i'd say abhidhamma is buddhism is "daily life" is "meditation" & to a point, don't disagree with the ppl who tell me buddhism is common sense. H: How about just seeing the moment when there is movement away from the passing parade, followed by the dive into remembered categories, whenever that happens? Hakuin: meditation in the MIDST of activity is a thousand times superior to meditation in stillness c: his calligraphic emphasis, apparently. H: Thank you for posting all this material for consideration. c: thank you for your consideration. H: It may be of interest to note that the Sarvastivadan Abhidhamma does include memory as a dhamma. c: noted. the first half of a Lama Govinda paragraph re: this "volitional faculty": << In order to get a few important points as to the main states of consciousness we divide consciousness into three great groups: periphical, subperipheral, and subliminal consciousness. The periphical consciousness is that of the surface, the most differentiated, the normal day-consciousness of man. It extends as far as the volitional faculty of reproduction of former (past) cotentents of consciousness, namely the control of our memory. The subperiphical consciousness is that which lies below the threshold of the volitional faculty of memory. Its contents are the source from which a great part of the 'day-consciousness' is fed, without, however, being capable of volitional reproduction. The consciousness of this sphere is far more columinous than that of the previous one, yet it is less individually differentiated on account of the partial exclusion of the factors of volition. Differentiation means an intensification of the ego-tendency. >> c: factors of volition... Asl 89: And that states associated with volition are also kamma has been shown by the fourfold classification of kamma. fifteen states, factors of wisdom and of the Path, have been shown by the fourfold classifiction of kamma. CRhys-Davids: (intro BPE): When citta.m is thus occupied with the abstract functioning of mano - when, that is, we are feflecting on past experience, in memory or ratiocination - then the more specific term is, I gather, not citta.m, but manovi~n~naa.na.m (corresponding to cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, etc.). This, in the Commentarial psychology, certainly stands for a further stage, a higher "power" of intellection, for "representative cognition", its specific activity being distinguished as investigating (santira.na.m), and as fixing or determining (votthappana.m). peace, connie #93875 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:59 pm Subject: Walking the Way! bhikkhu0 Friends: How can one ever Succeed, when Never having Started? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, those who have neglected to begin this Noble 8-fold Way have failed to develop the Noble Method, which destroys Suffering! While those who having indeed begun this Noble 8-fold Way, have indeed also initiated the Noble Method, which destroys all Suffering! And what, Bhikkhus, is this Noble 8-fold Way? It is simply this: Right View (sammÄ-ditthi) Right Motivation (sammÄ-sankappa) Right Speech (sammÄ-vÄcÄ) Right Action (sammÄ-kammanta) Right Livelihood (sammÄ-ÄjÄ«va) Right Effort (sammÄ-vÄyÄma) Right Awareness (sammÄ-sati) Right Concentration (sammÄ-samÄdhi) Bhikkhus, those who have failed even to start on this Noble 8-fold Way, have failed to cultivate that Noble Method, which destroys all Suffering! While those, who have really started on this Noble 8-fold Way, have indeed also made the first move capable of destroying all Suffering! Walking the Noble 8-fold Way! .... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:23-4] section 45:33 Failed ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice Noble day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) Walking this Way ends in the Deathless Nibbãna! .... #93876 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie, Op 26-dec-2008, om 3:48 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > CRhys-Davids: (intro BPE): When citta.m is thus occupied with the > abstract functioning of mano - when, that is, we are feflecting on > past experience, in memory or ratiocination - then the more > specific term is, I gather, not citta.m, but manovi~n~naa.na.m > (corresponding to cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, etc.). This, in the > Commentarial psychology, certainly stands for a further stage, a > higher "power" of intellection, for "representative cognition", its > specific activity being distinguished as investigating > (santira.na.m), and as fixing or determining (votthappana.m). --------- N: Just an addition to your quote: mano-vi~n~naa.na-dhaatu includes all cittas other than the five sense-cognitions and the three included in mano-dhaatu, which are: five-door adverting- consciousness, and the two types of receiving-consciousness (one kusala vipaaka, one akusala vipaaka). Nina. #93877 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:33 am Subject: Re: A Further Question About the Perfections abhidhammika Dear Howard, Nina, Scott and all How are you? Howard quoted the following: "At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata â€" the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released â€" is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'" Part of the Pali original is as follows. 6. Sammaasambuddhasuttam 58. Saavatthinidaanam. "Tathaagato, bhikkhave, araham sammaasambuddho ruupassa nibbidaa viraagaa nirodhaa anupaadaa vimutto sammaasambuddhoti vuccati. The above is from Khandhavaggo, Samyuttanikaayo. The reason I produced the above Pali is to draw the attention of Howard and other interested persons to the expression 'the worthy one' in Howard's quote. The Pali term corresponding to that expression is "Araham". The translator has chosen to translate the Pali term "araham" as "the worthy one" - apparently without further explanation. By doing so, he failed to indicate to the readers the fact that the Buddha described himself as an Arahant. The Buddha described himself as an Arahant 863 times in the Pali texts including commentaries and subcommentaries. So, anyone who downplays the state of an Arahant is uninformed and out of touch with the Buddha's teachings and Buddhist scheme of things. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, Nina - I am pleased with your reply, Nina. :-) "At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata â€" the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released â€" is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'" ============================ With metta, Howard #93878 From: "connie" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:34 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, Nyanaponika continues: According to the commentary (Asl 57-61), the term in the sentence from the Dhammasa'nga.nii expresses five meanings: 1. The first is , "duration"), which we have just discussed. 2. of circumstances, that is, the completeness of conditions () necessary for the occurrence of the particular state of consciousness. For example, visual organ, visual object, light, attention, etc., are required for the arising of visual consciousness. This meaning of relates the given moment of consciousness to the present, that is, to coexisting conditions. 3. , that is, the combination of those modes of conditionality that are operative in the particular case. For example, for visual consciousness, the visual organ and object are conditions by way of prenascence (purejaata-paccaya); visual consciousness (dassana) is related to the preceding perceptual phase of incipient attention (aavajjana, "mental adverting") by way of immediate contiguity (samanantara-paccaya); for the subsequent phases of that visual experience the visual consciousness is a condition by way of inducement (upanissaya), object (aaramma.na), predominance (adhipati), etc. This meaning of relates to all three divisions of time. The future is likewise included because every state of consciousness is not only conditioned but is itself a condition for subsequent states. 4. The right refers only to wholesome consciousness. It means: the right occasion for additional wholesome activity for which the present moment of wholesome consciousness is capable of being an inducement, support, and starting point. Whether this "right moment" is properly utilized depends on the awareness of that opportunity; if such awareness is absent the potentialities inherent in the moment will be lost. This connotation of refers only to the future. 5. , that is, the momentary union of the single components of consciousness, the "constellation" that determines the psychological time, just as the constellation of refers only to the present. The simultaneity of mental factors referred to above is not a static juxtaposition of self-contained units as in a mosaic. Their simultaneity results rather from different processes of psychic movements meeting temporarily in the constellation of the present moment, partly over-lapping each other but without achieving complete congruity, just as in nature there are also no truly congruent triangles. peace, connie #93879 From: "connie" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:52 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear friends, part one continues: Thus the dhamma-analysis is an addition to the previous five modes of analyses. Its scope is the same, the world of conscious experience, but its divisions are finer and more exhaustive. This situation in itself does not constitute a radical departure from the earlier tradition, for it does not as yet involve a view of existence that is at variance with that of early Buddhism. There is, however, this situation to be noted: Since the analysis into dhammas is the most exhaustive, the previous five modes of analysis become subsumed under it as five subordinate classifications. The definition and classification of these dhammas and the explanation of their inter-connections form the main subject matter of the canonical Abhidhamma. The Abhidhammikas presuppose that to understand any given item properly is to know it in all its relations, under all aspects recognized in the doctrinal and practical discipline of Buddhism. Therefore, in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, they have classified the same material in different ways and from different points of view. This explains why, in the Dhammasangani and other Abhidhamma treatises, one encounters innumerable lists of classifications. Although such lists may appear repetitive, even monotonous, they serve a useful purpose, bringing into relief, not only the individual characteristic of each dhamma, but also its relations to other dhammas. With this same aim in view, in bringing out the nature of the dhammas, the Abhidhamma resorts to two complementary methods: that of analysis (bheda) and that of synthesis (sangaha). The analytical method dominates in the Dhammasangani, which according to tradition is the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka; for here we find a complete catalogue of the dhammas, each with a laconic definition. The synthetical method is more characteristic of the Patthana, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka; for here we find an exhaustive catalogue of the conditional relations of the dhammas. The combined use of these two methods shows that, according to the methodological apparatus employed in the Abhidhamma, "a complete description of a thing requires, besides its analysis, also a statement of its relations to certain other things." 10 Thus if analysis plays an important role in the Abhidhamma's methodology, no less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations. This fact needs emphasis because the Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas has sometimes been represented as a radical pluralism. Such an interpretation is certainly not admissible. It is mostly Stcherbatsky's writings,11 mainly based on the Sarvastivada sources, that has given currency to this incorrect interpretation. "Up to the present time," observes Nyanaponika Thera, "it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when a whole has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant parts come again to be regarded as little Wholes." 12 This is the kind of process that culminates in radical pluralism. As we shall soon see, about a hundred years after the formulation of the dhamma-theory, such a trend surfaced within certain schools of Buddhist thought and culminated in the view that the dhammas exist in all three periods of time. But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. This is precisely why the mental and material dhammas are often presented in inter-connected groups. In presenting them thus the danger inherent in narrowly analytical methods has been avoided -- the danger, namely, of elevating the factors resulting from analysis to the status of genuinely separate entities. Thus if analysis shows that composite things cannot be considered as ultimate unities, synthesis shows that the factors into which the apparently composite things are analysed (ghana-vinibbhoga) are not discrete entities.13 notes: 10. Nyanaponika Thera, Abhidhamma Studies (Kandy, 1976), p.21. 11. Cf. The Central Conception of Buddhism (London, 1923); Buddhist Logic (reprint: New York, 1962), Vol. I, Introduction. 12. Nyanaponika Thera, p.41. 13. VsmM 137. peace, connie #93880 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Further Question About the Perfections upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and Nina & Scott) - In a message dated 12/26/2008 9:33:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: Dear Howard, Nina, Scott and all How are you? Howard quoted the following: "At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata â€" the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released â€" is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'" Part of the Pali original is as follows. 6. Sammaasambuddhasuttam 58. Saavatthinidaanam. "Tathaagato, bhikkhave, araham sammaasambuddho ruupassa nibbidaa viraagaa nirodhaa anupaadaa vimutto sammaasambuddhoti vuccati. The above is from Khandhavaggo, Samyuttanikaayo. The reason I produced the above Pali is to draw the attention of Howard and other interested persons to the expression 'the worthy one' in Howard's quote. The Pali term corresponding to that expression is "Araham". The translator has chosen to translate the Pali term "araham" as "the worthy one" - apparently without further explanation. By doing so, he failed to indicate to the readers the fact that the Buddha described himself as an Arahant. The Buddha described himself as an Arahant 863 times in the Pali texts including commentaries and subcommentaries. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Suan. You are quite right. I've often seen the Buddha describe himself even as "the" arahant, which implies (to me) that he was the sole arahant at that time. I did realize that the English 'worthy one' was a translation that could well have been alternatively rendered by 'arahant', but it is very good to point that out. -------------------------------------------- So, anyone who downplays the state of an Arahant is uninformed and out of touch with the Buddha's teachings and Buddhist scheme of things. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org ============================ With metta, Howard #93881 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/26/2008 9:52:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... quotes material from Karunadasa's article that includes the following: Thus if analysis plays an important role in the Abhidhamma's methodology, no less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations. This fact needs emphasis because the Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas has sometimes been represented as a radical pluralism. Such an interpretation is certainly not admissible. It is mostly Stcherbatsky's writings,11 mainly based on the Sarvastivada sources, that has given currency to this incorrect interpretation. "Up to the present time," observes Nyanaponika Thera, "it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when a whole has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant parts come again to be regarded as little Wholes." 12 This is the kind of process that culminates in radical pluralism. As we shall soon see, about a hundred years after the formulation of the dhamma-theory, such a trend surfaced within certain schools of Buddhist thought and culminated in the view that the dhammas exist in all three periods of time. But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. This is precisely why the mental and material dhammas are often presented in inter-connected groups. In presenting them thus the danger inherent in narrowly analytical methods has been avoided -- the danger, namely, of elevating the factors resulting from analysis to the status of genuinely separate entities. Thus if analysis shows that composite things cannot be considered as ultimate unities, synthesis shows that the factors into which the apparently composite things are analysed (ghana-vinibbhoga) are not discrete entities ================================== I suspect that it is material like this that will trouble a number of folks here. But it has particular appeal to me, most especially the first paragraph. With metta, Howard #93882 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:58 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie and Howard, Op 26-dec-2008, om 16:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Thus if analysis plays an important role in the Abhidhamma's > methodology, no > less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that > the world > of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis > shows that > these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but > inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of > relationships. It is > only for the purpose of definition and description that things are > artificially > dissected. ---------- N: But Connie, what do you think yourself of all this quoted material of Ven. Nyanaponika and Karunadasa? They certainly have their merits but there are also some things that are lacking in their writings. Connie, do you miss something here? I do. I mis the connection with daily life and with the present moment. I find it too rigid to say that the Dhsg is analytical. See in the Dhsg all those sobhana cetasikas that assist the arising of kusala citta, it is very impressive. It helps us to see conditions, and that is called synthesis by Ven. Nyanaponika. Things articially dissected? Where is the connection with experience right now, citta only knowing one dhamma at a time. Can we call that artificial dissection? We read: '"it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when a whole has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant parts come again to be regarded as little Wholes." Some folks are troubled by little wholes. When there is right mindfulness and right understanding accompanying the kusala citta that is aware now there is no danger of taking realities as little wholes. Nina. #93883 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:59 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "3. Thereupon he should embark upon the development of lovingkindness for the purpose of secluding the mind from hate seen as a danger and introducing it to patience known as an advantage. But when he begins, he must know that some persons are of the wrong sort at the very beginning and that lovingkindness should be developed towards certain kinds of persons and not towards other kinds at first. The Path of Purity. "The development of love should then begin, so that the mind may be separated from hate, the evils of which have been seen, and be joined to forbearance, the advantages of which are known. And from the outset the beginner should know the different kinds of beings thus: 'Love for these beings should not first be developed; love for those beings should not be developed at all.'" Atheva.m di.t.thaadiinavato dosato citta.m vivecanatthaaya, viditaanisa.msaaya ca khantiyaa sa.myojanatthaaya mettaabhaavanaa aarabhitabbaa. Aarabhantena ca aaditova puggalabhedo jaanitabbo 'imesu puggalesu mettaa pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa, imesu neva bhaavetabbaa' ti. Sincerely, Scott. #93884 From: "connie" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nichiconn Dear Howard, Nina, If the material is troubling, it must be being considered & "so be it"! I cringe at calling Dhamma "theory" but "science", "art", "description" or any other word I can think of right now would have it's drawbacks as well. I guess there's always "teaching". I agree the two authors stress the more 'bookwormish, definitional' (or "artifactual" perhaps, rather than "artificial" building block) aspects over the more 'practical, applied, or daily life' side, but it is like the architect not losing sight of the overall finished project when sitting down to draw out the blueprints, when the focus would yet be narrowed down onto the details. Maybe the completed blueprint is 'artificial' in the sense of not being the 'actual' finished building, but that doesn't make it, or the need for it, any less 'real'. And maybe someone can come along and admire the building without any understanding of the 'theory' behind it, but that appreciation would not be the same as another's who did & who could more easily incorporate what they found lovely into their own project. Guess I'm just saying we have to start somewhere & if words, by definition, point out big or little wholes, it is just their representative standing. peace, connie #93885 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:41 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Howard and Suan, 2008/12/26 : > Hi, Herman - > > > Is the awakened mind a conditioned phenomenon? If it is, then it is > anicca, anatta and dukkha, no matter how luminous it is. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is no "thing" that is "the awakened mind". Incidentally, I don't > recall having used the phrase 'awakened mind' that you have just used. What then is it that you mean when you quote the suttas refering to the Buddha as the self-awakened *one*? > As for conditioned phenomena being dukkha, that only means that they are > not sources of satisfaction and that clinging to them leads to suffering. > Actually, I think it is error even to view them as anything more than > conventional objects, not "realties" or even "true existents" - but, then, I'm a bit > odd! ;-)) > ---------------------------------------------- > > If it is > something else, then I believe an eternalist element is creeping in. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, that would be up to you. As I said, I don't recall having used the > phrase. > ------------------------------------------------ > OK. Cheers Herman #93886 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi connie 2008/12/26 connie : > dear herman, > > how'd you find the memory article? I found it very clarifying. I now more fully understand the schema of the Abhidhamma, and will find it easier to remain within it's scope when discussing Abhidhamma. > > i'd say abhidhamma is buddhism is "daily life" is "meditation" & to a point, don't disagree with the ppl who tell me buddhism is common sense. I must disagree on the "daily life" bit, unless of course when one's daily life is meditation. > > > H: How about just seeing the moment when there is movement away from the passing parade, followed by the dive into remembered categories, whenever that happens? > > Hakuin: meditation in the MIDST of activity is a thousand times superior to meditation in stillness > peace, > connie Very interesting. Thanks again for posting all this material. Cheers Herman #93887 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:28 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/12/27 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Connie and Howard, > Op 26-dec-2008, om 16:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > ---------- > N: But Connie, what do you think yourself of all this quoted material > of Ven. Nyanaponika and Karunadasa? They certainly have their merits > but there are also some things that are lacking in their writings. > Connie, do you miss something here? I do. I mis the connection with > daily life and with the present moment. I think that daily life is totally dependent on the complex process of memory, while being with the present moment is the absence of that complex process. Memory is not part of the Abhidhamma, as explained by Nyanaponika Thera elsewhere, because it is not a single mental factor, but a complex process that spans across time. It is detrimental to an understanding of the Abhidhamma, to render it in the conventional terms of the later commentaries, IMO. > > Some folks are troubled by little wholes. Some folks simply point out that little wholes have nothing to do with the Abhidhamma, but everything with the commentaries. Cheers Herman #93888 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:50 am Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 12/26/2008 5:42:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard and Suan, 2008/12/26 : > Hi, Herman - > > > Is the awakened mind a conditioned phenomenon? If it is, then it is > anicca, anatta and dukkha, no matter how luminous it is. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is no "thing" that is "the awakened mind". Incidentally, I don't > recall having used the phrase 'awakened mind' that you have just used. What then is it that you mean when you quote the suttas refering to the Buddha as the self-awakened *one*? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: So, Herman, are you all of a sudden no longer using normal English? What do you suppose I mean? ----------------------------------------------- > As for conditioned phenomena being dukkha, that only means that they are > not sources of satisfaction and that clinging to them leads to suffering. > Actually, I think it is error even to view them as anything more than > conventional objects, not "realties" or even "true existents" - but, then, I'm a bit > odd! ;-)) > ---------------------------------------------- > > If it is > something else, then I believe an eternalist element is creeping in. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, that would be up to you. As I said, I don't recall having used the > phrase. > ------------------------------------------------ > OK. Cheers Herman ============================= With metta, Howard #93889 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Connie, Howard and all, I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of one. When we talk about a chariot can we say there are chariot parts (tray, axle, wheels etc) or can we only say there is a complex web of relationships? Personally, I believe there are distinct chariot parts, but I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary. Also, when the Buddha said (in that sutta we often discuss here) that he was one of those teachers who taught things *did exist* and when he said the things that existed were "form" and "consciousness" etc, why did he not say there was only a "complex web of relationships?" I have other questions but those will do for the moment. Anybody? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Connie - > > In a message dated 12/26/2008 9:52:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > nichicon@... quotes material from Karunadasa's article that includes the > following: > > Thus if analysis plays an important role in the Abhidhamma's methodology, no > less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world > of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that > these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but > inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is > only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially > dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of > tightly interwoven relations. > #93890 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Connie) - In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Connie, Howard and all, I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of one. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Have you not considered dependent origination? Have you not considered the relations discussed in the Patthana? Actually. given that you ask for a *conventional* example, there wouldn't be enough time in a billion lifetimes, if I gave you one per microsecond, to exhaust the examples. There is no conventional object of any sort whose components don't form a complex web of variously interrelated components. But you can't think of one! Do you seriously think I believe that you are unaware of complex interrelationships? I don't get it, Ken. That's just plain silly. Do you think that provocation is good for it's own sake? --------------------------------------------- When we talk about a chariot can we say there are chariot parts (tray, axle, wheels etc) or can we only say there is a complex web of relationships? Personally, I believe there are distinct chariot parts, but I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, your approach shows that you are less than a thoroughgoing Abhidhammika, for while you groove on analysis (Dhammasangani approach), you show disdain for the synthetic approach (Patthana). -------------------------------------------- Also, when the Buddha said (in that sutta we often discuss here) that he was one of those teachers who taught things *did exist* and when he said the things that existed were "form" and "consciousness" etc, why did he not say there was only a "complex web of relationships?" --------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, so you do not attribute the great book of the Abhidhamma to the Buddha. Okay. Soon I suppose you'll dismiss that entire basket! ;-) --------------------------------------------- I have other questions but those will do for the moment. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Do for WHAT, Ken? These are not questions, anyway. They only assume the form of questions. What they are, are attacks - attacks on formulations that make you uncomfortable, because they challenge your fixed views. ---------------------------------------- Anybody? ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. ;-) ------------------------------------- Ken H ============================= With metta, Howard #93891 From: "connie" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:27 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi Ken, All, kh: I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of one. c: kith and kin. or tax codes. kh: When we talk about a chariot can we say there are chariot parts (tray, axle, wheels etc) or can we only say there is a complex web of relationships? Personally, I believe there are distinct chariot parts, but I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary. c: distinct chariot parts; if we insist on talking about only "conventional things" we have to afford them full "conventional status", but not to loan them any more than that. kh: Also, when the Buddha said (in that sutta we often discuss here) that he was one of those teachers who taught things *did exist* and when he said the things that existed were "form" and "consciousness" etc, why did he not say there was only a "complex web of relationships?" I have other questions but those will do for the moment. Anybody? c: yep, 'existant', not as in the sense of ever-and-always-manifestly in open evidence since there is the inevitable fall... but when there is an arising of say 'hardness', it's -ness is never anything different from 'hard' even tho we speak of 'it changing', meaning the standing for growth and decay upon 'arrival'... i think 'complex web of relationships' is code for something like 'doors and relations are just too much'; next thing you know, rupa walks. Asl 58. The congeries of states such as contact, feeling, etc., is in our text displayed as 'groups'. Samaya having thus been shown to mean also 'time' and 'group', the other meaning of condition is to be understood: By 'condition' is meant 'causal relation.' That there are several conditions may be understood by way of their 'doors' or relations. To expand: In this connection a cause-in-relation is a condition. The multiplicity of conditions may be understood from their doors or relations. How so? The eye, object, light, attention, etc., are the many causes-in-relation of the sense of sight, etc., arising in the eye-door, etc. In the Great Book (the Pa.t.thaana) twenty-four causal relations have been taught, to wit, relation of condition, relation of object, and so forth. Excepting the causal relations of resultants and post-existence, the rest are causes-in-relation of moral states. All these two sets of causes-in-relation are here (i.e., in this connection) meant by the term 'condition.' Thus the multiplicity of conditions should be understood by way of their doors or relations. peace, connie > nichicon@... quotes material from Karunadasa's article that includes the > following: > > Thus if analysis plays an important role in the Abhidhamma's methodology, no > less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world > of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that > these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but > inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is > only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially > dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of > tightly interwoven relations. > #93892 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:22 pm Subject: Being Beyond Doubt! bhikkhu0 Friends: Beyond all Doubt, Perplexity and Confusion! The Blessed Buddha once said: There are 5 primary mental Abilities: The ability of Faith (saddhÄ ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samÄdhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) All these fine abilities culminate in the Deathless Destination, which is their final goal, home, purpose, and resulting effect... When having seen, known, understood, directly experienced, fully realized and touched this through wisdom, then one is quite beyond all doubt, uncertainty, perplexity and confusion! The ability to See forms is similar to the ability to Understand ideas! ... A human brain neuron receiving and transmitting signals. Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book V [221] Section 48: On The 6 Abilities. The Eastern Gatehouse: 44. 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 :-) ... #93893 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone sukinderpal Hi Howard (Ken and Connie), I had decided to write a response to this post when back from outside. I realize that in the meantime Ken has also responded, but I am not going to read his post yet. ============= Quoted text: <> Howard: I suspect that it is material like this that will trouble a number of folks here. But it has particular appeal to me, most especially the first paragraph. S: Without your own comment I would have read the above text (I’ve yet to read the original post by Connie), to be talking about an instance of the five khandhas arising by conditions. Therefore I wouldn’t have seen anything wrong with it, let alone feel troubled by it. But perhaps you have read more by the same author and hence understand him to be saying something different? By coincidence last night, when we were at a Dhamma friend’s house for dinner, and thinking about your often mentioned idea re: “interrelationship among phenomena” or something to the effect, I asked Ivan and Pinna some questions. I told them about your caution regarding the necessity of distinguishing concepts say, of a ‘purple flying elephant’ from a ‘human being’. You say that the one has no basis in “real life”, whereas the other does. From this it is suggested that some of us in paying sole attention to the fact of one citta arising to experience one object at a time and ignoring so called ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, we miss out on what you judge as being a very important aspect of “reality”. In the above text, the author talks about the importance of both analysis and synthesis which I agree with. However I see this as being about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned variously and NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored. Rather, because you see limitation in the approach, I’ll suggest that this is due exactly to your own bringing in an idea re: ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, not only unnecessary, but in fact misleading. No aspect of the Teachings lies outside of what is experienced through the five senses and the mind. The latter, includes moments when thinking about ‘human beings’. It is good enough to know that this concept is object of akusala dhammas such as attachment and aversion on one hand, and can also on the other be object of kusala dhammas such as metta, karuna, dana etc. More than this it is good to know that the development of wisdom is about knowing “characteristic” of dhammas which reveals also the fact of their being conditioned, such as seeing, sound, feeling, attachment, thinking and so on, an instance of the latter for example is when the concept of human being appears. It seems to me Howard, that your idea about ‘interrelationships among phenomena’ is something that is forced upon the perception of human being etc. After all, it is not anything that is experienced through the five sense doors and when coming to the mind door, it is only thought about after the perception of human being. What necessitates this? I must get ready for the Saturday discussions, so I will just end here. Metta, Sukin #93894 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:22 pm Subject: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi All, I want to write a reflection on the first Noble Truth (warning: long post): "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." I bought and have been watching the HBO series OZ Prison. I really wanted to own this series for a long time because I identify with the characters. You see, we are all in a prison- without the possibility of parole. We are in a prison for life, because life is the prison. When you watch the series, you see that most of the characters try to pretend that they aren't in prison. They take drugs, form gangs, have sex, watch TV, read books, pray to God, etc.- anything they can do to avoid the reality that they are in prison. Isn't that what we all do? Sure, we can walk out of our front door, travel around the world, and eat whatever we want, but that is just the illusion of freedom. We are also in prison, the boundaries are just a little larger. Most people have a very hard time with the first Noble Truth because they don't want to admit that life is a prison. That would be considered too pessimistic and scary. But, the real freedom begins to happen when we stop pretending that we aren't in prison. When we accept that we are in prison, for life, then we stop trying to run away. The only thing you can do in that situation is sit down and observe the breath. That is the only thing you can do when there is no escape in sight. Just sit down and find freedom within the body itself. Denial about the first Noble Truth is rampant in Buddhism. Take for example this article by Ven. Thanissaro "Life Isn't Just Suffering": "You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting. The Buddha taught four truths — not one — about life: There is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is an end of suffering, and there is a path of practice that puts an end to suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught that "Life is suffering". Human life (or deva life, etc.) no matter how you slice it, is suffering. It is a prison. You cannot say that when you take away clinging that human life isn't suffering anymore, because that is the end of human life. Clinging, suffering, and human life are all rolled up into one. We are trapped in a prison and no amount of decorating the bars or singing songs or staring at sunsets is going to change that. Only the stopping of the ignorance about our lifelong prison sentence is going to free us from the prison. And freeing us from prison means the end of our human life, or any type of individual life. Additionally, those who believe that human beings don't exist, that just dhammas exist, also deny the First Noble Truth: [Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to- be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. "And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. "And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death. "And what is sorrow? Whatever sorrow, sorrowing, sadness, inward sorrow, inward sadness of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called sorrow. "And what is lamentation? Whatever crying, grieving, lamenting, weeping, wailing, lamentation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called lamentation…. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html The First Noble Truth is defined in terms of beings and individuals. To deny the existence of beings and individuals is to deny the First Noble Truth. Buddhaghosa did just that when he wrote, "There is suffering but no sufferer to be found." That isn't possible. Anyway, I highly recommend viewing of OZ prison to start to see how those who are in prison encounter the same suffering as those who are not in prison. We are all in prison. Metta, James #93895 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/12/27 : > Hi, Herman - > >> >> Is the awakened mind a conditioned phenomenon? If it is, then it is >> anicca, anatta and dukkha, no matter how luminous it is. >> ---------------------------------------------- >> Howard: >> There is no "thing" that is "the awakened mind". Incidentally, I don't >> recall having used the phrase 'awakened mind' that you have just used. > > What then is it that you mean when you quote the suttas refering to > the Buddha as the self-awakened *one*? > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So, Herman, are you all of a sudden no longer using normal English? What > do you suppose I mean? > ----------------------------------------------- I don't know, Howard, honestly. I am not deliberately trying to be provocative. But were you, perhaps, in your statement 'an arahant is an arahant is an arahant"? Would there be anyone who would be able to identify an arahant if they tripped over them? Would there be anyone who could rationally declare about themselves that they had no self-view? Cheers Herman #93896 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/12/27 kenhowardau : > Hi Connie, Howard and all, > > I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex > web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of > one. > You just intentionally wrote a whole bunch of sentences. Your intended meaning and how you placed words in relation to each other are complexly related. You just intentionally wrote a whole bunch of words. Your intended meaning and how you placed letters in relation to each other are complexly related. etc etc Your post is a complex web of relationships. Cheers Herman #93897 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sprlrt Hi Sarah and Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alberto & Howard, > > --- On Tue, 16/12/08, sprlrt wrote: > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ > >Howard: > What are the shapes of heat, hardness, air, and sound? > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- > > >A: Right, one rupa only has shape, visible object, though this rupa > arises, being one of the inseparables, in all gropus/kalapa, including > those you mentioned, thanks for the correction, though. > ... > S: What is the shape of visible object? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > A: I'm glad you asked it... :-) I think that shape can be used to refer to the disposition in space of the groups of rupa, kalapas, that make up the visible object. Alberto #93898 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Fri, 26/12/08, Alex wrote: >>A:....I personally >am aware of ideas. They are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. > .... A:> If something is experienced by citta then that awareness of X "exists" . ... S: Two points: a) If by 'awareness of' you mean 'experienced' (as Howard does), then I agree that citta 'is aware of' ideas in this sense. We need to be careful not to confuse this use of 'aware' with sati, usually translated as awareness. Most the time there is the experience of various objects (namas, rupas or concepts) without any awareness (sati) of any kind. b) Concepts (pannatti) are experienced by cittas. This does not mean they exist in an ultimate sense or that they have the ti-lakkhana (3 characterisitics) which only refer to the khandhas, conditioned realities. Before the Buddha's time and in other religions/philosphies, of course everyone knows that mountains and pens are impermanent. They wear away, get lost and disappear. However, this is not the impermanence that it needed a Buddha to teach. With this idea of impermanence, there will never be an understanding of dhammas, of the ti-lakkhana of dhammas or any release from Dukkha. .... A:> If we can talk about concepts then concepts do exist. ... S: No. If we can talk about concepts, it means we can talk about and imagine concepts. You asked about animals in another post. Yes, animals also experience concepts most the time. Words are not necessary to experience concepts. With or without words there are ideas of food, comfort and so on. ... >It is beyond the point to argue about what, if anything, they signify. The fact is, what is experienced by cittas does have anicca characteristic. ... S: Again, I can only say the heat, the visible object, the taste, the thinking - all are anicca. The mountain, meal or pencil can only be said to be impermanent in a worldly sense which is different from the anicca of heat, visible object or taste. ... >Happy holidays! ... S: Thanks Alex! Also thanks for your patience and equanimity - I don't intentionally push the limits:). For us apart from DSG - walks, the beach, yoga, lots of home chores, some socializing - different worldly objects and ideas, but the same 5 khandhas. What have you been spencing the holiday with your family? Best wishes to you all for the New Year. Metta, Sarah ===== #93899 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections sarahprocter... Hi Nina (& Howard), --- On Thu, 25/12/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > H: As regards the four > discriminations, I believe that all forms of knowledge are *open* > to all > arahants, depending only on their turning their attention in the > proper direction. > ------ >N: Depending on their accumulated capabilities. The Discriminations are very special, not for everybody. -------- S: The way I understand it is that all ariyans have developed the Discriminations (Patisambhidas) to varying degrees. So all arahants can be said to have the Patisambhidas, but only some (as those mentioned in the texts) have them to a great degree. It is these who are referred to as being fully enlightened with the Patisambhidas, but it doesn't mean others haven't developed them. They must have in order to become enlightened at the various stages. ... >N: The Buddha found the Truth without the help of anyone else during the life he attained Buddhahood. All the notions contained in the Abhidhamma, all the conditions as laid down in the Patthanaa, if the Buddha had not realized these through his enlightenment, nobody could have understood these. There could not be arahats without the teaching of the Buddha. His wisdom is incomparable, we cannot compare Buddhas and arahats. ... S: Beautifully said! Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, I mentioned a few months ago that Bron's husband suddenly passed away in the middle of the night in her arms. (For others, Bron is a dhamma friend we've known for a long time, living in Australia.) In her Xmas card she wrote: "It's been a very tough year for me - there's no denying that. I'm trying to take one day at a time - this is a time when you really know what you understand of the dhamma - what you understand of life itself and the realities that present each moment." ============== #93900 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Fri, 26/12/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >Is the awakened mind a conditioned phenomenon? If it is, then it is anicca, anatta and dukkha, no matter how luminous it is. If it is something else, then I believe an eternalist element is creeping in. .... S: I think you made a pretty good and rather subtle point here and in your discussion of pursuits:-) Best wishes to you, Vicki and all the family over the holiday and for the New Year in all your various pursuits:-)). Knowing that even the most enlightened of them are anicca, dukkha and anatta does make a difference when it comes to the 'reality check'. Metta, Sarah p.s I remember that Vicki had some health issues before...wishing her well in this regard too. ======= #93901 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison ajahnjose My Dear James, I saw all the episodes of Oz, I am understand what you are talking. The black guy in the wheel chair is quite clever and always explain the episode. Congratulations for your observations. Metta. Ajahn Jose signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Sat, 12/27/08, buddhatrue wrote: ... Hi All, I want to write a reflection on the first Noble Truth (warning: long post): "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." I bought and have been watching the HBO series OZ Prison. I really wanted to own this series for a long time because I identify with the characters. You see, we are all in a prison- without the possibility of parole. We are in a prison for life, because life is the prison. <....> #93902 From: "charles.dacosta@..." Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:32 am Subject: Re: Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. charles.daco... Hi Alex, I can't recall any suttras off the top of my head but I disstently remember the term being assoiated with a stage before Buddhahood. Based on readings on the history of the Buddha, I got it that he saw suffering as something that plaged every one and he wanted to find an answer to it (he was destinted to be a great teacher or a great king). This is what initiated the personal quest. His hesitation to teach does not mean that he was only thinking of himself, so selfish that he wanted to keep it for himself (thus saying mine, mine, mine). This would go against a common view about enlightenment (it makes you think less, if not at all, about yourself). I also, don't believe he hesitated to have a Hindu God beg him to teach. You said: >Bodhisatva word doesn't mean what it means in Mahayana. > Bodhisatta = Bodhi + satta. > Or > in Skt: Bodhi+ satva . Heroic minded one (satva) for awakening > (bodhi). > This would relate to the Mahayana definition of the word. The Buddha to be must be heroic minded and going through the process of awakening. My point to all this is that the evidence presented does not dispell the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. CharlesD #93903 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... abhidhammika Dear Herman, Howard, Nina, Scott and all How are you? Herman asked Howard; "What then is it that you mean when you quote the suttas refering to the Buddha as the self-awakened *one*?" Herman, you should ask the translator that question as he translated the Pali term `sammaasambuddho' as 'rightly self-awakened.' Sammaasambuddho has three parts: sammaa + sam + buddho. Howard quoted the following: "At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata â€" the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released â€" is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'" Part of the Pali original is as follows. 6. Sammaasambuddhasuttam 58. Saavatthinidaanam. "Tathaagato, bhikkhave, araham sammaasambuddho ruupassa nibbidaa viraagaa nirodhaa anupaadaa vimutto sammaasambuddhoti vuccati. The above is from Khandhavaggo, Samyuttanikaayo. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #93904 From: "charles.dacosta@..." Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:45 am Subject: When and how did the view of Anatta translate, to self , in english ? charles.daco... Hi all, I ask this question because I can remember from my earlier studies that it translated to "soul." I could also remember that this concept was a fundament in western religions so it made it difficult for a lot of people to take the Buddha's teaching seriously. I can see how the term "self" would better imply a characteristic that the Buddha spoke against: owner/controller. I guess, in the West, we never associate the Soul with owning or controlling anything (it just experiences), and the Self by definition is the owner/controller. But on the other hand, we do associate the Soul as being eternal and some even go as far to say unchanging; now the self never had these connotations. Selves have always been viewed as dynamic and needing control. This all brings me back to a point that was made while communicating with Sarah, a long time ago: It is better to stick with the Pali, to reduce these translation problems. I found an interesting view in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta) #93905 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Connie and Herman, ---------- kh: > > I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of one. > > c: > kith and kin. or tax codes. ---------- Thanks, Connie, that makes sense. And thanks also to Herman for suggesting 'sentences' and 'posts to DSG' - that makes sense too. ----------------------------- kh: > > When we talk about a chariot can we say there are chariot parts (tray, axle, wheels etc) or can we only say there is a complex web of relationships? Personally, I believe there are distinct chariot parts, but I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary. > > c: > distinct chariot parts; if we insist on talking about only "conventional things" we have to afford them full "conventional status", but not to loan them any more than that. ------------------------------ That's what I think too. In the conventional sense a chariot is a set of chariot parts that have been correctly assembled. No one (as far as I know) would say a chariot was the same as 'kith and kin' 'tax codes' 'sentences' and other webs of relationships. The Buddha used 'chariot' as a simile for 'the five khandhas when they are correctly assembled (have arisen together).' If he had believed the five khandhas were a web of relationships then he would have used different similes such as 'kith and kin' and 'tax codes' etc. ------------------------------------------ kh: > > Also, when the Buddha said (in that sutta we often discuss here) that he was one of those teachers who taught things *did exist* and when he said the things that existed were "form" and "consciousness" etc, why did he not say there was only a "complex web of relationships?" I have other questions but those will do for the moment. Anybody? > > c: > yep, 'existant', not as in the sense of ever-and-always- manifestly in open evidence since there is the inevitable fall... but when there is an arising of say 'hardness', it's -ness is never anything different from 'hard' even tho we speak of 'it changing', meaning the standing for growth and decay upon 'arrival'... ----------------------------------------- That's good enough for me. And if namas and rupas are seen by some to be 'a plurality of wholes' or 'little agents' then so what? What's in a name? The important thing is that dhammas have the three characteristics - anicca, dukkha and anatta. Ken H #93906 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:54 am Subject: Re: cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Howard, Sukin and all, ------- <. . .> Howard: > Have you not considered dependent origination? Have you not considered the relations discussed in the Patthana? Actually. given that you ask for a *conventional* example, there wouldn't be enough time in a billion lifetimes, if I gave you one per microsecond, to exhaust the examples. There is no conventional object of any sort whose components don't form a complex web of variously interrelated components. But you can't think of one! Do you seriously think I believe that you are unaware of complex interrelationships? I don't get it, Ken. That's just plain silly. Do you think that provocation is good for it's own sake? ------- Maybe I am stupid, so tell me: would you say - in ordinary conventional conversation - that your car was a complex web of relationships (as distinct from an assemblage of parts)? --------------------- H: > Well, your approach shows that you are less than a thoroughgoing Abhidhammika, for while you groove on analysis (Dhammasangani approach), you show disdain for the synthetic approach (Patthana). ---------------------- Do you and Karunadasa maintain that the synthetic approach is incompatible with the analysis approach? I thought you did, but after reading Sukin's post I am now not so sure. So I will closely follow your conversation with Sukin. It might sort a few things out for me. At this stage it seems to me that you and Karunadasa (and TG and others) are saying that the analysis into paramattha dhammas is just a theoretical exercise, and there are really no such things as distinct, self existent, paramattha dhammas. Ken H #93907 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:57 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Hi Herman, Op 27-dec-2008, om 0:28 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > I think that daily life is totally dependent on the complex process of > memory, while being with the present moment is the absence of that > complex process. ------- N: But memory, sa~n~naa arises with each and every citta. No problem here. As to the present moment, this is the practice. Our life is too short and if we are only thinking of beautiful dhamma theories, we are wasting time. Our head is on fire. If what I read does not help me to understand that whatever appears in my life now is dhamma, not self, I am not interested. My daily life is seeing and attachment to what I see, hearing, thinking, conceit, and I have to know all these phenomena as just dhammas, conditioned, not self. ------- > > H: Memory is not part of the Abhidhamma, as explained by Nyanaponika > Thera elsewhere, because it is not a single mental factor, but a > complex process that spans across time. It is detrimental to an > understanding of the Abhidhamma, to render it in the conventional > terms of the later commentaries, IMO. -------- N: It is sa~n~naa cetasika. The Commentaries were recited at the first council, and it is a great loss for people if they reject them. They help with the understanding of the whole of the Tipitaka, and are a stimulant to the practice right now. On many, many pages of Buddhaghosa I see that he refers to vipassana. ------- > > H: > Some folks are troubled by little wholes. > > Some folks simply point out that little wholes have nothing to do with > the Abhidhamma, but everything with the commentaries. ------- N: A strange saying. The Commentaries are in complete agreement with the Tipitaka, Abhidhamma included. Let us discard little wholes. Nina. #93908 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how to view the self nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 27-dec-2008, om 10:07 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Sarah asked: What is the shape of visible object? > > A: I'm glad you asked it... :-) > I think that shape can be used to refer to the disposition in space of > the groups of rupa, kalapas, that make up the visible object. -------- N: Visible object is only that what appears through eyesense. We do not have to think of any shape or group of rupas. When we think of the shape and form of something, it is an experience through the mind-door. Nina. #93909 From: "connie" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:15 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, this post will take us thru the end of part I: If this Abhidhammic view of existence, as seen from its doctrine of dhammas, cannot be interpreted as a radical pluralism, neither can it be interpreted as an out-and-out monism. For what are called dhammas -- the component factors of the universe, both within us and outside us -- are not fractions of an absolute unity but a multiplicity of co-ordinate factors. They are not reducible to, nor do they emerge from, a single reality, the fundamental postulate of monistic metaphysics. If they are to be interpreted as phenomena, this should be done with the proviso that they are phenomena with no corresponding noumena, no hidden underlying ground. For they are not manifestations of some mysterious metaphysical substratum, but processes taking place due to the interplay of a multitude of conditions. In thus evolving a view of existence which cannot be interpreted in either monistic or pluralistic terms, the Abhidhamma accords with the "middle doctrine" of early Buddhism. This doctrine avoids both the eternalist view of existence which maintains that everything exists absolutely (sabba atthi)14 and the opposite nihilistic view which maintains that absolutely nothing exists (sabba natthi).15 It also avoids, on the one hand, the monistic view that everything is reducible to a common ground, some sort of self-substance (sabba ekatta)16 and, on the other, the opposite pluralistic view that the whole of existence is resolvable into a concatenation of discrete entities (sabba puthutta).17 Transcending these two pairs of extremist views, the middle doctrine explains that phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena without a self-subsisting noumenon which serves as the ground of their being. The inter-connection and inter-dependence of these dhammas are not explained on the basis of the dichotomy between substance and quality. Consequently, a given dhamma does not inhere in another as its quality, nor does it serve another as its substance. The so-called substance is only a product of our imagination. The distinction between substance and quality is denied because such a distinction leaves the door open for the intrusion of the doctrine of a substantial self (attavada) with all that it entails. Hence it is with reference to causes and conditions that the inter-connection of the dhammas should be understood. The conditions are not different from the dhammas, for it is the dhammas themselves that constitute the conditions. How each dhamma serves as a condition (paccaya) for the origination of another (paccayuppanna) is explained on the basis of the system of conditioned genesis (paccayakara-naya).18 This system, which consists of twenty-four conditions, aims at demonstrating the inter-dependence and dependent co-origination (paticca-samuppada) of all dhammas in respect of both their temporal sequence and their spatial concomitance. notes: 14. S II 17, 77. 15. Ibid. 16. S II 77. 17. Ibid. 18. For a short but lucid description, see Narada Thera, A Manual of Abhidhamma (Colombo, 1957), Vol. II, pp.87ff. #93910 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin (and Ken) - In a message dated 12/27/2008 1:13:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: Hi Howard (Ken and Connie), I had decided to write a response to this post when back from outside. I realize that in the meantime Ken has also responded, but I am not going to read his post yet. ============= Quoted text: <> Howard: I suspect that it is material like this that will trouble a number of folks here. But it has particular appeal to me, most especially the first paragraph. S: Without your own comment I would have read the above text (I’ve yet to read the original post by Connie), to be talking about an instance of the five khandhas arising by conditions. Therefore I wouldn’t have seen anything wrong with it, let alone feel troubled by it. But perhaps you have read more by the same author and hence understand him to be saying something different? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I read into it exactly what (I think) you say - that every sankhata dhamma owes it's existence, such as that is, to other conditioned dhammas which are it's sole conditions for existence. To me, this means that nothing exists in-and-of-itself, but only contingently/dependently. Is this how you see it? Or do you understand the matter differently? ----------------------------------------------- By coincidence last night, when we were at a Dhamma friend’s house for dinner, and thinking about your often mentioned idea re: “interrelationship among phenomena†or something to the effect, I asked Ivan and Pinna some questions. I told them about your caution regarding the necessity of distinguishing concepts say, of a ‘purple flying elephant’ from a ‘human being’. You say that the one has no basis in “real lifeâ€, whereas the other does. From this it is suggested that some of us in paying sole attention to the fact of one citta arising to experience one object at a time and ignoring so called ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, we miss out on what you judge as being a very important aspect of “realityâ€. In the above text, the author talks about the importance of both analysis and synthesis which I agree with. However I see this as being about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned variously and NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored. Rather, because you see limitation in the approach, I’ll suggest that this is due exactly to your own bringing in an idea re: ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, not only unnecessary, but in fact misleading. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What is the misdirection? --------------------------------------------- No aspect of the Teachings lies outside of what is experienced through the five senses and the mind. The latter, includes moments when thinking about ‘human beings’. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Whatever we think about is a mere phantom in two senses: 1) When there is thinking, there is ONLY thinking and not some real existent that is object of thought, and, more strongly, 2) Everything that is thought of as an existent, i.e., anything mentally separated off and describable by speech, is merely conventional and differs from the experiential reality that is independent of thought. All the things we talk about on DSG are conventional phenomena only. The so-called paramattha dhammas are the simplest of these. As soon as we open our mouths, or put pen to paper, or type on a keyboard we deal with conventions. There is no other way. Incidentally, in his post Ken questioned there ONLY being a web of relations. But I don't think Karunadasa asserted that - nor do I. There are no relations except among things related. The two categories are mutually dependent. (For me, though, I hasten to add, as soon as one speaks of things and of relations among things, that is all a matter of convention and differs from what is independent of thought.) -------------------------------------------- It is good enough to know that this concept is object of akusala dhammas such as attachment and aversion on one hand, and can also on the other be object of kusala dhammas such as metta, karuna, dana etc. More than this it is good to know that the development of wisdom is about knowing “characteristic†of dhammas which reveals also the fact of their being conditioned, such as seeing, sound, feeling, attachment, thinking and so on, an instance of the latter for example is when the concept of human being appears. It seems to me Howard, that your idea about ‘interrelationships among phenomena’ is something that is forced upon the perception of human being etc. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: ??? I'm not clear as to your point. -------------------------------------------- After all, it is not anything that is experienced through the five sense doors and when coming to the mind door, it is only thought about after the perception of human being. What necessitates this? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm still not clearly understanding you. Are you saying that relations among things are real and their reality forces themselves upon our perception, or that they are real but known only through thinking, or they are unreal, or what exactly? Please excuse me, but I'm unsure of what you are asserting. --------------------------------------------- I must get ready for the Saturday discussions, so I will just end here. Metta, Sukin ========================= With metta, Howard #93911 From: "connie" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:45 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, ch5 continues: A glance into the "antecedents" and the subsequent "life story" of the factors of a single moment of consciousness will show us: (1) that the simultaneity of these factors has to be conceived as something fluid and not static; (2) that simultaneous factors, insofar as they are variable (nonconstant), meet each other at quite different stages of their own "life history": some factors might already have been parts of preceding moments but are disappearing with the dissolution of the present one; some arise only now and recur in future moments; and again, the lifetime of others may be limited to this moment only. Such a differentiation is certainly significant, just as it makes a difference whether we meet with certain people or ideas in youth, maturity, or old age. The fact that parts of other moments of consciousness may, as it were, spread over the present moment or extend beyond it makes for an intricate interlacing and a close organic continuity in the world of mental phenomena. There are no "empty spaces," no disconnected events in the universe of the mind, though the connection may often be very loose and remote. Even if a psychic event breaks in quite unexpectedly, it does not arise from nothingness but is related to a perhaps distant past, the gap being bridged by subconscious mental processes. Here we meet again the "third dimension" of mind - its "depth" with regard to time, already referred to (p.29). A minimum of psychic continuity is always given by the seven "factors common to all consciousness" (see note 40). But we also have to keep in mind the element of diversity in those seven factors. In their repeated occurrence and concrete manifestations, far from being identical, they are actually highly varied. They are "common" factors only as concepts abstracted for the purpose of methodical exposition, though they do possess enough (relative) identity to maintain the continuity in the mental process. Also, with regard to the already mentioned connection of an unexpected event with its conditions in the past, we must not forget the element of diversity. Taking this into account we spoke intentionally of the event as being to a past event, not as being caused by it, which happens only in certain cases. Otherwise we should land in complete determinism, which results in a static view of the world. Though, strictly speaking, there are no completely new events in the material and mental universe, there are also no fully identical repetitions. The truth is in between, that is, in the middle path of dependent origination: "Both these two extremes the Perfect One has avoided and has shown the middle doctrine (majjhena dhamma'm), which says: "With ignorance as condition the kamma-formations come to be" (SN II 20). That is to say, the middle path of the Buddha appears here as the law of conditionality - as the fact of correlation, which is what is really implied when we speak, somewhat vaguely, of continuity. It is, in fact, the energy inherent in the conditions (paccaya-satti) that creates what is called continuity or a continuum. {n.40: Sabbacittasaadhaara.na. The seven are contact, feeling, perception, volition, attention, one-pointedness, and vitality.} c: For more on the 'dimensional' discussion referred to above, read from about the last paragraph on p49 thru the end of ch.2 in the buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhistudy.pdf version. peace, connie #93912 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:49 am Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 12/27/2008 1:45:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: I don't know, Howard, honestly. I am not deliberately trying to be provocative. But were you, perhaps, in your statement 'an arahant is an arahant is an arahant"? --------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I was not at all trying to be provocative. I was explicitly saying that IMO a buddha differs from other arahants "only" in having made the sacrifice involved in being a re-introducer of the Dhamma. I was "defending" the ideal of arahant as the highest in attainment. --------------------------------------------- Would there be anyone who would be able to identify an arahant if they tripped over them? -------------------------------------- Howard: Why, I tripped over one just the other day! (I think it may have been Tuesday, in the park. ;-) --------------------------------------- Would there be anyone who could rationally declare about themselves that they had no self-view? -------------------------------------- Howard: Are you saying that you think the notion of "arahant" is a fiction? (That's okay, of course, for you to think think that, but I don't share that view. Obviously, it is just a tentative belief unconfirmed by me at this point.) ======================== With metta, Howard #93913 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - In a message dated 12/27/2008 6:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Again, I can only say the heat, the visible object, the taste, the thinking - all are anicca. The mountain, meal or pencil can only be said to be impermanent in a worldly sense which is different from the anicca of heat, visible object or taste. =========================== Sarah, have you pondered what the nature of that difference might be? As I see it, the impermanence of macroscopic (conventional) objects such as mountains, meat, and pencils reduces to the impermanence of the paramattha dhammas that are their basis. How do you see it? With metta, Howard #93914 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/27/2008 8:55:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, Sukin and all, ------- <. . .> Howard: > Have you not considered dependent origination? Have you not considered the relations discussed in the Patthana? Actually. given that you ask for a *conventional* example, there wouldn't be enough time in a billion lifetimes, if I gave you one per microsecond, to exhaust the examples. There is no conventional object of any sort whose components don't form a complex web of variously interrelated components. But you can't think of one! Do you seriously think I believe that you are unaware of complex interrelationships? I don't get it, Ken. That's just plain silly. Do you think that provocation is good for it's own sake? ------- Maybe I am stupid, so tell me: would you say - in ordinary conventional conversation - that your car was a complex web of relationships (as distinct from an assemblage of parts)? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: The way that I would put it is that the parts of a car form a complex web of interrelated items. In any case, as they are assembled in being components of the car, they are interrelated in specific ways. Isn't that clearly so? ---------------------------------------------- --------------------- H: > Well, your approach shows that you are less than a thoroughgoing Abhidhammika, for while you groove on analysis (Dhammasangani approach), you show disdain for the synthetic approach (Patthana). ---------------------- Do you and Karunadasa maintain that the synthetic approach is incompatible with the analysis approach? I thought you did, but after reading Sukin's post I am now not so sure. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course they are *not* incompatible! They harmonize, and neither is expendable. ------------------------------------------------- So I will closely follow your conversation with Sukin. It might sort a few things out for me. At this stage it seems to me that you and Karunadasa (and TG and others) are saying that the analysis into paramattha dhammas is just a theoretical exercise, and there are really no such things as distinct, self existent, paramattha dhammas. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see it as proper convention to speak of them, but I do not attribute more than conventional existence to them. --------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard #93915 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Further Question About the Perfections nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 27-dec-2008, om 12:20 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > In her Xmas card she wrote: "It's been a very tough year for me - > there's no denying that. I'm trying to take one day at a time - > this is a time when you really know what you understand of the > dhamma - what you understand of life itself and the realities that > present each moment." ------- N: I find Bron's words very impressive, thank you for sharing these. Wondering about Han, I wrote to his personal address, no answer. As to the four patisambidhas, I was thinking about the Co stating that in later times, when Dhamma declines, there were arahats not endowed with them. But they were still arahats. I looked up now Vis. Ch XIV, 21-31, where they are all explained, and I quote: < 31. Herein, Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas reach discriminations through prior effort and through achievement. Disciples do so through all these means. And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discriminations. But in trainers the attaining of the discriminations comes about next upon the liberation consisting in trainers' fruition, and in non-trainers it does so next upon the liberation consisting in non-trainers' fruition. For the discriminations come to success in noble ones only through the noble fruition as the ten powers do in Perfect Ones. So these were the discriminations referred to when it was said above 'It is of four kinds ... as the four discriminations' > The Dispeller of Delusion II, p. 128 indeed mentions: < ***** Nina. #93916 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Sukin, Op 27-dec-2008, om 7:12 heeft Sukinder het volgende geschreven: > Sukin to Howard: In the above text, the author talks about the > importance of both > analysis and synthesis which I agree with. However I see this as being > about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves > around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned > variously and > NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored. > Rather, because you see limitation in the approach, I’ll suggest that > this is due exactly to your own bringing in an idea re: > ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, not only unnecessary, but in > fact > misleading. -------- N: I want to especially highlight this: Sukin: about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves > around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned > variously and > NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored.> What strikes me in all the discussions on Karunadasa and his own text is that it is so theoretical. Certainly, much in it is not incorrect, but as I suggested already, I am missing something important: the directness of Dhamma as it pertains to our life now. If we miss out on this we will never be able to realize the truth. Nina. #93917 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone nilovg Hi Howard, Op 27-dec-2008, om 16:11 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ken H: At this stage it seems to me that you and Karunadasa (and TG > and > others) are saying that the analysis into paramattha dhammas is just > a theoretical exercise, and there are really no such things as > distinct, self existent, paramattha dhammas. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see it as proper convention to speak of them, but I do not attribute > more than conventional existence to them. ------- N: Seeing now is a paramattha dhamma, is that conventional? It has a charactreistic to be experienced, it is a nama, different from visible object that is rupa. Mere conventional? Or leading to liberation from the cycle? Nina. #93918 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hi Sarah, > sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- On Fri, 26/12/08, Alex wrote: > >>A:....I personally > >am aware of ideas. They are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not >self. > > .... > A:> If something is experienced by citta then that awareness of > X "exists" . > ... > S: Two points: > a) If by 'awareness of' you mean 'experienced' (as Howard does), >then I agree that citta 'is aware of' ideas in this sense. Yes. >We need to be careful not to confuse this use of 'aware' with sati, >usually translated as awareness. Or mindfulness. > b) Concepts (pannatti) are experienced by cittas. This does not >mean they exist in an ultimate sense or that they have the ti- >lakkhana (3 characterisitics) which only refer to the khandhas, >conditioned realities. But the cittas that can be aware or experience the concepts do have tilakkhana. Moreover, it is senseless to posit concepts outside of the 5 aggregates just like it is senseless to posit some fictional Self outside of 5 Khandas and 3 characteristics. Re: Impermanence, a differernt post will be needed. With best wishes and happy holidays! :) #93919 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:36 am Subject: Re: Dispelling the Mahayanist notion of Bodhisatva path. truth_aerator Hi Charles, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charles.dacosta@..." > wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Based on readings on the history of the Buddha, I got it that he >saw suffering as something that plaged every one and he wanted to >find an answer to it (he was destinted to be a great teacher or a >great king). This is what initiated the personal quest. In MN26 and other similiar suttas he talks about his own destiny of birth, aging and death. No where in 4Nikayas is he stated that the cause was to liberate others. > His hesitation to teach does not mean that he was only thinking of > himself, so selfish that he wanted to keep it for himself (thus > saying mine, mine, mine). Of course not. It wasn't selfish. But it did occur to him that it would be difficult and that Dhamma IS hard to understand. He fully knew the toughness of the defilements. After all, there isn't any Samsaric rule that "You have to teach Dhamma!". > This would go against a common view about > enlightenment (it makes you think less, if not at all, about > yourself). > > I also, don't believe he hesitated to have a Hindu God beg him to > teach. This is what Comy says (as I understand it) or implies that he pretended to hesitate so that a well respected God would beg him, thus make his teaching more acceptable for those brought in that cultural setting. With lots of metta and holiday greetings. #93920 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/27/2008 10:53:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 27-dec-2008, om 16:11 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ken H: At this stage it seems to me that you and Karunadasa (and TG > and > others) are saying that the analysis into paramattha dhammas is just > a theoretical exercise, and there are really no such things as > distinct, self existent, paramattha dhammas. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see it as proper convention to speak of them, but I do not attribute > more than conventional existence to them. ------- N: Seeing now is a paramattha dhamma, is that conventional? It has a charactreistic to be experienced, it is a nama, different from visible object that is rupa. Mere conventional? Or leading to liberation from the cycle? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: An eye-door citta conceived of as a separate, unchanging phenomenon is a conventional entity. During a period of time that there is seeing there is constant change, and it is a convention, based on similarity, to think of it all as "the same" seeing. So, yes, mere convention. As soon as we speak of things, it is a matter of convention. There IS a wordless, thought-independent reality, but it is not what we think of, and it is not what we label as "a seeing." There is no harm in speaking of seeing. It is even useful to do so and needed for "navigation," but it is a product of thought - a matter of convention, for nothing real stays as is for any time at all. It seems to me that knowing anicca at the finest level of detail provides a means of knowing both dukkha and anatta, and enables the understanding of the conventional nature of all things that we cognize. I don't claim to know anicca at the finest level, but I do find a growing realization of anicca that is pointing me in a certain direction. I have never before found the observing and contemplation of impermanence so amazing and revealing as now. (Why this change I cannot say.) ----------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================== With metta, Howard #93921 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone scottduncan2 Dear connie and Nina, Regarding: c: "...I agree the two authors stress the more 'bookwormish, definitional' (or "artifactual" perhaps, rather than "artificial" building block) aspects over the more 'practical, applied, or daily life' side, but it is like the architect not losing sight of the overall finished project when sitting down to draw out the blueprints, when the focus would yet be narrowed down onto the details. Maybe the completed blueprint is 'artificial' in the sense of not being the 'actual' finished building, but that doesn't make it, or the need for it, any less 'real'. And maybe someone can come along and admire the building without any understanding of the 'theory' behind it, but that appreciation would not be the same as another's who did & who could more easily incorporate what they found lovely into their own project..." Scott: I appreciate the erudition above. 'Theory' gets a bad name because it is said to be divorced from every day life - that which is woefully named 'practise.' If the concepts refer to realities then this is, I think, good 'theory.' This would be 'artifactual.' Why? Because, with 'true theory,' that which is described designates that which is. Take, for example, the much misunderstood 'theoretical' distinction between 'concept' and 'reality.' Here on the list one can read not a little of how, even theoretically, this gets all mixed this up. It seems clear, again 'theoretically,' how pa~n~natti differ from paramattha dhammaa. And this distinction is not merely theoretical - there is a true difference between concept and reality. Reading Dhamma, for me, is like hearing Dhamma. Dhamma, when it is understood, is 'understood,' not in a theoretical way - although one reads Dhamma 'theory' and can grasp an idea - but by pa~n~naa. This sort of understanding is swift - momentary - and tends to leave the thinking far behind. There is thinking afterward as well but when something is known it is known. It is sometimes the case where simply reading a clear 'theoretical' description of the difference between concept and reality is not enough. And then there is the case where the reading ('hearing') leads immediately to understanding. In my experience, for example, it was the 'hearing' about the distinction between concept and reality - a 'theoretical' distinction at that point - that lead to an understanding that was clear. This leaves me almost incapable of discussing the 'theory' with others since the mere repetition of the 'theory' about the difference will not lead to understanding the difference if conditions are not conducive to it. So, for me, I find that the reading and studying of the texts *is* part of daily life - not just an intellectual exercise. 'Daily life' is the flow of dhammas arising and falling away. It includes the thinking and conceptualising. For me, the distinction between 'theory' and 'practise' is merely a conceptual distinction and it is only 'daily life' that flows on despite or in spite of such a conceptual distinction. Sincerely, Scott. #93922 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Anicca Part1 truth_aerator Hello Sarah and all, >sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Before the Buddha's time and in other religions/philosphies, of >course everyone knows that mountains and pens are impermanent. Actually no, not all. There were twisted philosophies about that things only APPEAR impermanent, but in reality they are unchanging oneness. Do I need to find a quote from Ditthisamyutta, Or Brahmajala sutta re: the above? > They wear away, get lost and disappear. However, this is not the >impermanence that it needed a Buddha to teach. With this idea of >impermanence, there will never be an understanding of dhammas, of >the ti-lakkhana of dhammas or any release from Dukkha. > .... Please don't slander the Buddha's Dhamma. It is THAT impermanence that is meant in the suttas. The difference between Buddha's teaching & others a) Buddha didn't teach Attavada. So while other teachers may have taught that 5 sense organs & objects were anicca - what they did teach was the permanence of Atta. Since atta was taught, the root of craving & aversion was left intact. Not so in Buddha's teaching. That is the biggest and most crucial difference. 2ndly) Some people didn't see the drawbacks of anicca things well enough to develop Nibbida & viraga. You know the typical unawakened attitute to change may be: "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may," "Eat, drink, and be merry, for death comes swiftly" , "Strike the iron when it is hot." "if you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life made of." As you see, rather than fostering nibbida & viraga the attitude increases KAMA! ===================================================== With best wishes, Part 2 coming soon Happy New Year. #93923 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 12/27/2008 7:53:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Seeing now is a paramattha dhamma, is that conventional? It has a charactreistic to be experienced, it is a nama, different from visible object that is rupa. Mere conventional? Or leading to liberation from the cycle? Nina. .......................................................... I vote "mere conventional" ... when couched in the terminology and theoretical "conventions" of "dhammas," "it has," "own characteristic," etc. I.E., the 'outlook' is conventional. And it is "conventional outlook" which is the delusion therein. What happens to "us" is ALWAYS actuality. It is only 'perspective' that makes it other than it is. The '"perspective" you posit above is just a "different type" of convention than what most people carry with them. But convention it is! TG OUT #93924 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sprlrt Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > Op 27-dec-2008, om 10:07 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > Sarah asked: What is the shape of visible object? > > > > A: I'm glad you asked it... :-) > > I think that shape can be used to refer to the disposition in space of > > the groups of rupa, kalapas, that make up the visible object. > -------- > N: Visible object is only that what appears through eyesense. We do > not have to think of any shape or group of rupas. > When we think of the shape and form of something, it is an experience > through the mind-door. > Nina. > > From Abhidhammattha sangaha, Rupa Sangaha Vibhago: Material objects, viz. form(16), sound, odour, taste and tangibility.... Narada note: (16) Rupa, both colour and shape are implied by this term. Alberto #93925 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 12/26/2008 6:26:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of one. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Have you not considered dependent origination? Have you not considered the relations discussed in the Patthana? Actually. given that you ask for a *conventional* example, there wouldn't be enough time in a billion lifetimes, if I gave you one per microsecond, to exhaust the examples. There is no conventional object of any sort whose components don't form a complex web of variously interrelated components. But you can't think of one! Do you seriously think I believe that you are unaware of complex interrelationships? I don't get it, Ken. That's just plain silly. Do you think that provocation is good for it's own sake? .............................................................................. You took the words right out of my conventional mouth. ;-) Absolutely everything every moment pertains to a complex web of relationships. He who sees the Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) he who sees the Dhamma sees the Dependent Origination." (D.N. Maha Nidana Sutta) Ken's H's question is so staggering that it is hard to even approach it. TG #93926 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Connie, Howard and all, > > I wonder if anyone could give me a conventional example of a complex > web of relationships. That would be helpful because I can't think of > one. > > When we talk about a chariot can we say there are chariot parts > (tray, axle, wheels etc) or can we only say there is a complex web > of relationships? Personally, I believe there are distinct chariot > parts, but I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary. It seems to me that you are presenting an "either/or" choice between relations and parts that makes them sound mutually exclusive, whereas they coexist. A "relationship" is not a "thing" like an axle or wheel, but is a description or pointing to the way in which those "things" interact. Just as the wheel and axle exist as parts, so they necessarily have some relation to each other and do not exist each in a separate Platonic universe of "wheel" or "axle" for its own sake or in its own right. So the question is not whether there are "parts" or whether there is a "complex web of relationships" but whether something that suggests a complex set of interactions which mutually effect each other can be described with reference to the "parts." Yes, I agree with you that you should be able to identify the specifics, or at least some of them, that partake of the complex web of relationships, but having shown that such a web exists, it should not be necessary to list every single last part that exists in those relationships, as long as enough interactions between concrete identifiable parts have been shown to suggest that this complex web is a reality. There were some Greeks, as I vaguely recall, who would basically assert that the wheel did its function in a vacuum of wheelness, and that it coexisted but did not mutually affect the axle or body of the chariot, but aside from the obvious absurdity that the wheel itself breaks down into further relations of spoke, hub and the parts that hold those together, and that the axle has to have some way of laying and connecting and holding and moving in the wheel through additional parts as well, it is further absurd to suggest that they are able to function in an independent rather than an interdependent space. So it would be much more sensible to say that "the hub, the spokes, the rim, the axle, the adjoining axle parts, etc. all exist in their own right as elements but also never function outside of a complex mutually interpentrating set of relations which are ultimately so microscopically causally related with respect to each others' function that it could never be completely described, although it can be sensibly suggested. If one were to accept such a thesis, there would be two tasks set on a person who wanted to reasonbly describe such a process: one - as you suggest, to give some indication of the range of component parts that exist in the web of relationships between the parts, such that the concept of "chariot" were not just a fiction without any working understanding, and secondly, a description of the way in which the chariot functions and a suggestion of the complex way in which the parts interrelate and mutually affect each other. If you were to espouse such a theory what would you have? Nothing other than the Buddha's own teaching on "mutually dependent co- arising," sometimes also known as "mutually co-dependent arising." I think this is a sensible way of looking at things, and apparently so did the Buddha. I don't think the Buddha would ever be interested in a mere listing of parts and their functions without an understanding of how the parts interacted and affected each other. He wasn't that shallow, but looked for a view of the whole system and how it held together, from the smallest bolt to the largest structure of consciousness. Robert #93927 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hey, Rob!! :-) Wow! Long time no read!! So nice to hear from you!!! :-) In a message dated 12/27/2008 1:23:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: It seems to me that you are presenting an "either/or" choice between relations and parts that makes them sound mutually exclusive, whereas they coexist. A "relationship" is not a "thing" like an axle or wheel, but is a description or pointing to the way in which those "things" interact. ========================== An excellent characterization, Rob! :-) With metta, Howard #93928 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:37 am Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > What then is it that you mean when you quote the suttas refering to > > the Buddha as the self-awakened *one*? > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > So, Herman, are you all of a sudden no longer using normal English? What > > do you suppose I mean? > > ----------------------------------------------- > > I don't know, Howard, honestly. I am not deliberately trying to be > provocative. But were you, perhaps, in your statement 'an arahant is > an arahant is an arahant"? Would there be anyone who would be able to > identify an arahant if they tripped over them? Would there be anyone > who could rationally declare about themselves that they had no > self-view? > > Cheers > > > Herman Hi Herman! Why not? Self-view is not a matter of whether one says something or not. I can imagine it completely possible for one who is beyond self to say "This one has no self view" regarding their own organism. Certainly the Buddha suggested many times that he was beyond attachments to self-view. Why not an arahant? It's a good idea not to fall into conventionalism when regarding something like this, such as the idea that if someone uses the word "I" they are invoking a view of self, whereas they may perfectly well understand it as a mere convention. Robert ==================== #93929 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hey, Rob!! :-) > > Wow! Long time no read!! So nice to hear from you!!! :-) Thank you Howard! I'm on vacation in Orlando for the week with family, and my wife and child ditched me and went out for the day. I have a cold in any case, and the use of a computer, and it suddenly 'arose' in my mind to go visit dsg. Funny how these things happen! :-) When I saw your compelling thread, it felt like getting into a nice warm pool of water to jump in. Really got the cittas jumping! :-) Or maybe they are synapses..... I am happy to see that you and Herman and the others are still at it. I will try to hang around a bit before I get overwhelmed by how much more everyone knows than me. ;) Good to "see" you too! Best, Robert #93930 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Ken's H's question is so staggering that it is hard to even approach it. It has seemed to me, if I am not totally off, that the main problem in this kind of issue is the monadic idea that each citta arises independently and exists within itself with no co-conditions. Of course each citta incorporates the modifications that have somehow been transmitted from previous cittas, but for this to happen between independent monadic cittas a whole slew of intermediary phenomena have to be brought into play which somehow themselves have to be non- monadic in order to bleed attributes, understandings or changes from one citta to a newly arising one. I have never understood why this convoluted process should be postulated. There is no reason not to imagine the arising cittas as beads on a string in which the citta before "becomes" the citta arising next, rather than each one having a complete and independent existence without touching each other. In life we experience understandings and perceptions changing and shifting from moment to moment, even though we don't have the necessary sati to actually experience this exactly as it happens, but somewhat after the fact and only imperfectly in cittas that have some "cloudiness" as part of its characteristic. But why postulate a process of arising moments in which each one is frozen unto itself, when this seems the opposite of experience. Even in the example of a film, which seems to be moving but in fact is made up of separate still frames, each frame is related in a comprehensible way because they arose from a flowing reality which they froze in the first place. So the analytic portion of film editing, looking at individual still frames and choosing the timing and arrangement of how they will be set to "re-flow" at the faster speed, is itself based on an originary flowing reality, not a still one. By the same token, we can analytically break down the individual cittas that make up the progression of experience, but the original reality is a flowing one, not a string of still monads that only appear to move. Or is this in fact the argument? And what basis is there for it? It seems to me that if a total monadic reality is postulated of still- sitting cittas that are formed only unto themselves [by some mysterious process as they would never have a way of being distinct from each other in that case having no contact with anything other] that this must be a misinterpretation of an attempt to merely analyze the momentary reality with great descriptive clarity. It would be a mistake to translate the means of analysis into the actuality of existence, just as we can learn a lot by dissecting a frog, but no one would mistake the dissected frog for the actual living frog who does not lie still for analysis but continues to hop throughout its existence. Robert ===================================== #93931 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how to view the self nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 27-dec-2008, om 19:10 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > From Abhidhammattha sangaha, Rupa Sangaha Vibhago: > Material objects, viz. form(16), sound, odour, taste and > tangibility.... > Narada note: (16) Rupa, both colour and shape are implied by this > term. -------- N: I know that visible object is often translated as form and I find this misleading. Narada has his own personal notes and observations you would have to check. We can agree or disagree. You have to check this one: when you see a shape is this just seeing what is visible without any thought about it, or is it already thinking through the mind-door? Nina. #93932 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:40 am Subject: Re: On Anicca Part2 truth_aerator Hello Sarah, TG, and all, Seeing things as they are is a proximate cause for Nibbida & Viraga (see Upanisa sutta and others). Seeing impermanence is seeing things as they are, and in tilakkhana teachings the understanding of anicca makes one understand dukkha and understanding of dukkha, anatta. The doctrine of momentariness while not only being a flawed theory, doesn't really fit in to the Buddha's liberative teaching and into the description of the path leading to nibbida and viraga. It is very appropriately to be disgusted by the disgusting body and ist growing old, aging and decaying. But it is much less likely and much harder (if possible at all) to be disgusted merely with 36 trillion mind moments happening every second sort of change. This doesn't fit with Buddha's teaching such as "I am subject to aging, sickness, death, and loosing everything I hold dear" If it doesn't fit, then you must acquit! The literal impermanence of things is much more relevant, seen & felt here and now, not mere philosophising sort of thing! ========== There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five? "'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' "'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ... "'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ... "'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.' ... Subject to birth, subject to aging, subject to death, run-of-the-mill people are repelled by those who suffer from that to which they are subject. And if I were to be repelled by beings subject to these things, it would not be fitting for me, living as they do. As I maintained this attitude — knowing the Dhamma without paraphernalia — I overcame all intoxication with health, youth, & life as one who sees renunciation as rest. For me, energy arose, Unbinding was clearly seen. There's now no way I could partake of sensual pleasures. Having followed the holy life, I will not return. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html What does being without substance means? "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." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.15.than.html The "The world was entirely without substance." means quite different from what became emphasized in later teaching as "the world doesn't really exist" etc etc. Also in MN28 we have examples of inconstancy. Again, it is on macro level. ... #93933 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Rob Ep, I was happily surprised to see you back here. I thought of you some time ago and I am wondering about your book. Your daughter has grown big now. I read your posts and we differ in outlook on cittas but this does not matter. I do not think cittas touch each other. Each citta conditions the next one by anantara paccaya , contiguity-condition, but then the precvious one must have disappeared. Cittas do not know each other as the Vibhanga states. But never mind. Nina. Op 27-dec-2008, om 19:30 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Hey, Rob!! :-) > > Wow! Long time no read!! So nice to hear from you!!! :-) #93934 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone nilovg Hi Howard, Op 27-dec-2008, om 17:41 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > An eye-door citta conceived of as a separate, unchanging phenomenon > is a > conventional entity. During a period of time that there is seeing > there is > constant change, and it is a convention, based on similarity, to > think of it > all as "the same" seeing. So, yes, mere convention. ------- N: I do not take it that there is seeing during a period of time. It is so much faster than that, we cannot measure its time. A convention: perhaps we mean different things by this term. Not a reality, or, as you prefer: actuality? A concept we can think of but not experience directly? ------- Nina. #93935 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > I was happily surprised to see you back here. I thought of you some > time ago and I am wondering about your book. Your daughter has grown > big now. Hi Nina! So kind of you to remember about my book! Most have given up on me. :-) Believe it or not, I am still working towards finishing it, though I have not had time to do the necessary editing lately. I have a couple of colleagues/students who have agreed to read it and update me on the editing points that are still needed. I hope to carve a space to work on it around February - my birthday present to myself - and if I get the time I will complete it in a few months, if conditions allow. I have made some great progress on the later most substantive chapters, so I am at least very satisfied with the content. Presentation and editorial condition however are other matters. Hope I have not gone on too long about this! :) My daughter is 10 years old and experiencing both the happy and troublesome experiences that go along with growing up, including having a sometimes "mean" and disagreeable Dad. :) I do my best and try to be very close to her without giving up my paternal responsibilities, a nice balancing act if you can manage it..... Thank you for thinking about her as well. > I read your posts and we differ in outlook on cittas but this does > not matter. I do not think cittas touch each other. Each citta > conditions the next one by anantara paccaya , contiguity- condition, > but then the precvious one must have disappeared. Cittas do not know > each other as the Vibhanga states. But never mind. > Nina. Well, Nina, rather than dismissing this difference, if you have the chance, I would love a summary of how the anatara paccaya works to transmit new experience and changes, or however one might put it, from one citta to the next without the cittas making contact, and how the new citta "knows" its own "new" content [in terms of it differing from the former citta.] If it would not be too much trouble, I would love to see this analysis so I can grapple with it a bit. I know I am a bad student and do not have the time to read as much of the original material as I should, but this would be appreciated. Even though the citta is gone when this happens and the anatara paccaya appears to be a distinct arising or mechanism, it seems that through this process a kind of movement of "moment-to-moment" changes does take place. How this occurs and how it is experienced both with and without sati would be of great interest to me. Best, Robert ================================= #93936 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:56 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Rob E, Good to hear from you again! ---------- R: > It has seemed to me, if I am not totally off, that the main problem in this kind of issue is the monadic idea that each citta arises independently and exists within itself with no co-conditions. ---------- I'm sorry but you are totally, totally, off! :-) You couldn't be more off! No one is saying that dhammas are independent of other dhammas. As far as I know no one has *ever* said that at DSG. In the 8th Century AD a fellow by the name of Nagarjuna proposed that nothing had its "own being" and there was just a sea of conditions. That's what we are talking about here. It was a dramatically new teaching. It split the sangha. Let's not pretend it was just a new way of saying the same thing. Ken H #93937 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/27/2008 2:49:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 27-dec-2008, om 17:41 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > An eye-door citta conceived of as a separate, unchanging phenomenon > is a > conventional entity. During a period of time that there is seeing > there is > constant change, and it is a convention, based on similarity, to > think of it > all as "the same" seeing. So, yes, mere convention. ------- N: I do not take it that there is seeing during a period of time. It is so much faster than that, we cannot measure its time. A convention: perhaps we mean different things by this term. Not a reality, or, as you prefer: actuality? A concept we can think of but not experience directly? ------- Nina. ============================ Perhaps an analogy might help: We definitely observe a rainbow arcing across the sky, but there is no entity there - it is just a convention to speak as if there were. (Don't take this as literal comparison - I'm only using this example to point out that what is a convention is not thereby an utter unreality.) As for speaking literally, the best that I can say is that whatever constantly changes is not an entity in reality but only by convention. With metta, Howard #93938 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Robert, Howard In a message dated 12/27/2008 11:04:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: It has seemed to me, if I am not totally off, that the main problem in this kind of issue is the monadic idea that each citta arises independently and exists within itself with no co-conditions. Of course each citta incorporates the modifications that have somehow been transmitted from previous cittas, but for this to happen between independent monadic cittas a whole slew of intermediary phenomena have to be brought into play which somehow themselves have to be non- monadic in order to bleed attributes, understandings or changes from one citta to a newly arising one. I have never understood why this convoluted process should be postulated. There is no reason not to imagine the arising cittas as beads on a string in which the citta before "becomes" the citta arising next, rather than each one having a complete and independent existence without touching each other. In life we experience understandings and perceptions changing and shifting from moment to moment, even though we don't have the necessary sati to actually experience this exactly as it happens, but somewhat after the fact and only imperfectly in cittas that have some "cloudiness" as part of its characteristic. But why postulate a process of arising moments in which each one is frozen unto itself, when this seems the opposite of experience. Even in the example of a film, which seems to be moving but in fact is made up of separate still frames, each frame is related in a comprehensible way because they arose from a flowing reality which they froze in the first place. So the analytic portion of film editing, looking at individual still frames and choosing the timing and arrangement of how they will be set to "re-flow" at the faster speed, is itself based on an originary flowing reality, not a still one. By the same token, we can analytically break down the individual cittas that make up the progression of experience, but the original reality is a flowing one, not a string of still monads that only appear to move. Or is this in fact the argument? ........................................................ TG: I think this is in fact a large part of the argument. If the term "flow" is introduced to many in this group, they'll likely act as if something incomprehensible has been introduced into the realm of "Buddhism." As I interpret the statements of Nina, Sarah, Scott, Ken H, it in fact seems to be of paramount importance that these so called"dhammas" are "individual realities" that exists "as themselves" in isolation...albeit for very short periods of time. Of course this type of view crumbles in the face of statements such as "becoming-otherwise," yet, it doesn't phase em a bit...they carry on seeing "dhammas" as "individual existences." ......................................................................... And what basis is there for it? It seems to me that if a total monadic reality is postulated of still- sitting cittas that are formed only unto themselves [by some mysterious process as they would never have a way of being distinct from each other in that case having no contact with anything other] that this must be a misinterpretation of an attempt to merely analyze the momentary reality with great descriptive clarity. ........................................ TG: If I am understanding you correctly and I think I am, YES to the above! ................................................................... It would be a mistake to translate the means of analysis into the actuality of existence, ......................................................... TG: Hallelujah!!! This is exactly what is happening IMO and have said so many times. ....................................................... just as we can learn a lot by dissecting a frog, but no one would mistake the dissected frog for the actual living frog who does not lie still for analysis but continues to hop throughout its existence. .................................................... TG: Excellent post Robert but one other point... Dependent Arising has a deeper implication in that -- whatever arises in dependence lacks anything of "its own." This applies just as much to the "parts" as it does to the "wholes." While many in this group discount the "wholes," as being self, they certainly deal with the "parts" as if the "parts" were selves. This is just transferring self delusion onto a different object IMO. Dependent Arising entails that whatever arises in dependence is without anything of "its own." Any identification of any "individual thing" is mere convention. The mind is able to organize phenomena into bits and pieces. But bare phenomena is indifferent about this at every stage of occurrence. To see any of it as "itself" is delusion. Insight only "uses" the elements, aggregates to see the greater picture. The "greater picture" is that these elements and aggregates are empty, hollow, coreless, insubstantial, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick, etc. And this insight does not make the mind focus on elements, aggregates, etc., rather, it makes the mind detach from these. TG OUT #93939 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Robert and Howard, 2008/12/28 Robert Epstein : >> >> I don't know, Howard, honestly. I am not deliberately trying to be >> provocative. But were you, perhaps, in your statement 'an arahant > is >> an arahant is an arahant"? Would there be anyone who would be able > to >> identify an arahant if they tripped over them? Would there be anyone >> who could rationally declare about themselves that they had no >> self-view? >> > > Hi Herman! > Why not? Self-view is not a matter of whether one says something or > not. I can imagine it completely possible for one who is beyond self > to say "This one has no self view" regarding their own organism. It is wonderful to see you writing here again. I've always been a fan of your practical approach. But without further clarification I cannot see how any form of self-reference is not a form of self-reference :-) > Certainly the Buddha suggested many times that he was beyond > attachments to self-view. Why not an arahant? > > It's a good idea not to fall into conventionalism when regarding > something like this, such as the idea that if someone uses the > word "I" they are invoking a view of self, whereas they may perfectly > well understand it as a mere convention. I well accept as valid and sometimes experience moments of seeing, hearing, feeling etc only. It is superfluous, and actually destructive of that experience, to think or say that there is no self in that. The realisation of the absence of self is a return to, and dependent on self view. No self is just a subtle, pernicious version of self. I would say that to be beyond self-view is to be beyond both self and not-self. And that does not happen while there is discursive thought, let alone speech, occuring. Any communication is predicated on having conceived of others. Other whats, you ask? Other selves. Anybody who is communicating is thinking in terms of selves. So, I accept that there is a state beyond self and no self. And that there are and have been skilful people who readily attain that state at will. But they are not in that state all the time. A person may rightly have the title "world chess champion". But that title is irrelevant while he is watching TV with his children. The view of an arahant as being without self view whilst giving a dhamma talk to others doesn't gel with me. Cheers Herm #93940 From: "connie" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nichiconn dear Scott, yeah, that pesky distinction between ultimate and conventional... and yet, try to explain it without someone looking at you like the c-word or your saying that the objective realm/range of our physical senses are "limited" is insulting. (don't even start with "just how 'choice' it is"!) ... and what's the harm in a reappraisal? it could only increase the value of my already o-so-ever priceless thinking. well, of course, i mean our, but people get offended when you tell them they think they're important, too. in Karunadasa's: "In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations", it's the 'tightly interwoven' bit that gets me. not like staring at the fence & thinking 'no holes barred' will get you out of the yard, but man, there are holes... in the fence/understanding and the (holy reification, batman!) fence/weave - check out the patterns in the books. something to become conversant with. off to speech therapy then, connie #93941 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:21 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Sarah and Jon, > p.s I remember that Vicki had some health issues before...wishing her well in this regard too. > ======= Thanks for all your kind wishes. From Vicki as well. She is quite handicapped these days with her frozen shoulder. Vick and I will be spending a full day in Hong Kong in August, on the way to Europe. What would you recommend as a must see / must do given a one-day stopover? We arrive at about 11pm and leave at 11pm the next night. All the best to you and Jon for the festive season, and for the New Year and beyond. Cheers Herman #93942 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I haven't read your messages (or any others yet this morning) - just got up late (for me)! But just seeing your name is the best Xmas/Holiday gift I've received this year - like the return of a family member from a long trip away! (If any other old friends are lurking around, pls also pop out of the woodwork to exhange greetings!!!!!!!!!!) Anyway, look forward to catching up later - I remember all our super-long discussions with joy. Maybe you can add a new pic to the album of your family.....(for others, it was Rob who started the photo album, see pic no 1.) Best wishes for the Holiday season and New Year.....don't run away before we all 'reconnect'! Metta, Sarah p.s (Jon's also delighted to hear from me that you're around!) #93944 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:50 pm Subject: Mere 'Considering' leads to liberation? truth_aerator Hello all, In Samyutta Nikaya Khandavaggo there are suttas where Buddha teaches Anattalakkhana. He then teaches 5 aggregates are anicca, dukkha, anatta. "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html At first this seems supporting the idea that if you think or 'consider' 5 aggregates in a tilakkhana way that somehow you are going to become an Arahant. Is that really the case? The sutta basicly shows a progression of seeing (nanadassana) -> Nibbida -> Viraga -> Vimutti. A progression shown in various suttas such as Upanisa sutta. However, what is the cause of "seeing thus..."? Looking at upanisa sutta we see that SAMADHI IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF 'SEEING THUS...'! There is even a Samadhi sutta which says this: "The Blessed One said: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html So, far from advocating simple 'seeing' or 'considering' there is more than meets the eye in those khandasamyutta (and others) suttas. The monks at those stages may have been a super advanced meditators who meditated very diligently for days, weeks, months or years! It is no wonder when we read those suttas even 100 times we do not become even stream-enterers, nothing to say about Arahatship! With best wishes, Happy holidays! #93945 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi Ajahn Jose, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > My Dear James, I saw all the episodes of Oz, I am understand what you are talking. The black guy in the wheel chair is quite clever and always explain the episode. Congratulations for your observations. Metta. Ajahn Jose > I am very glad that you saw all of the episodes and understand what I mean. I think it takes one who has gone forth (or would like to go forth) to deeply see the meaning of the first noble truth. Householders like to think/pretend that they are free- but they are not. Metta, James #93946 From: "connie" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:09 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi TG, RobEp, RobEp: There is no reason not to imagine the arising cittas as beads on a string in which the citta before "becomes" the citta arising next, rather than each one having a complete and independent existence without touching each other. c: does anyone really say that anything has a "complete and independent existence"? i think what people are not liking is expressed in Asl 39: Dhamma's may be defined as those states which bear their own intrinsic natures, or which are borne by causes-in-relation, or which are borne according to their own characteristics. Shrug, just pick the one you're most comfortable with, i say, and the rest will come, or not. it's ok to say each bead on the string is a bead, but yellow beads do not turn red, etc. & there must be valid reasons for the texts to point out various classifications of things. it also leaves out way-back kamma coming into play, i'd think, and a lot of the rest of the usual 24 conditions. perhaps i misunderstand your example. peace, connie #93947 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone scottduncan2 Dear connie, Hey (well-written): c: "yeah, that pesky distinction between ultimate and conventional... and yet, try to explain it without someone looking at you like the c-word or your saying that the objective realm/range of our physical senses are 'limited' is insulting. (don't even start with 'just how 'choice' it is'!) ... " Scott: Yes. Why defend the conventional? Why insist on its importance? When kindness happens to arise it arises with a concept as object as does every other element that arises when relationships with 'people' are concerned. Why insist on the reality of persons? There is no need for a person to be 'real' in order that realities arise in relation to that concept. And my young daughter still tries my patience one moment and draws my love the next. And I think that I see her growing up before my eyes. Go figure. I read about this. Why defend the conventional? It *is* what we all see every waking moment. I can drive a car, hack my way through a song on Rock Band 2 or 'for real' with the boys in a jam, for that matter, talk to the kids and all that, and know its what I see and what I do *and* also have no doubt that, although I see it all, it is not what it appears to be. 'My' perception is limited. I don't know a thing. This is the Dhamma. I read about it. The Buddha did not restate the conventional views - he shattered them. c: "...and what's the harm in a reappraisal?" Scott: None. And without the encumbrance of seeking 'a practise,' I can read the texts in peace. And think, better of Dhamma than of conventionality's banalities. c: "...it could only increase the value of my already o-so-ever priceless thinking. well, of course, i mean our, but people get offended when you tell them they think they're important, too." Scott: Don't I know it. I couldn't care less about my opinions about the Dhamma, while having them, of course. And restating the now famous and oft recalled rejoinder: [I am] No one. And never tell someone his or her theory is of as little worth as mine or that he or she thinks too much of it. A little reappraisal, indeed. c: "...in Karunadasa's: 'In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations', it's the 'tightly interwoven' bit that gets me. not like staring at the fence & thinking 'no holes barred' will get you out of the yard, but man, there are holes... in the fence/understanding and the (holy reification, batman!) fence/weave - check out the patterns in the books. something to become conversant with." Scott: Holey reification, man. And not so wholey, either, come to think of it. 'Cause I read it often. Not to be misunderstood as relations of nothing at all, mind you. Not to be reduced to only relations. Recursion. Readcursion. Listen again and again. What next Robin? Sincerely, Scott. #93948 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:19 pm Subject: The Final State... bhikkhu0 Friends: Which Six Things leads to Final Knowledge? The Blessed Buddha once pointed out: 1: Considering the Transience of all Constructions, leads to final knowledge... 2: Contemplating the Pain within all passing states, leads to final knowledge... 3: Comprehending the Impersonality of all phenomena, leads to final knowledge... 4: Considering the advantage of Withdrawal by Detachment, leads to final knowledge... 5: Contemplating the Fading Away of Greed by fine Disillusion, leads to final knowledge... 6: Comprehending the Freedom, Bliss & Peace of Stilled Ceasing, leads to final knowledge... One endowed with Final Knowledge (AÃ±Ã±Ä ) knows: Rebirth has ceased, completed is this Noble life, done is what had to be done, there is state of being higher, beyond or after this... Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V 345], section 55:3 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 The Final State... #93949 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:10 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > Good to hear from you again! > > ---------- > R: > It has seemed to me, if I am not totally off, that the main > problem in this kind of issue is the monadic idea that each citta > arises independently and exists within itself with no co- conditions. > ---------- > > I'm sorry but you are totally, totally, off! :-) You couldn't be more > off! No one is saying that dhammas are independent of other dhammas. > As far as I know no one has *ever* said that at DSG. > > In the 8th Century AD a fellow by the name of Nagarjuna proposed that > nothing had its "own being" and there was just a sea of conditions. > That's what we are talking about here. It was a dramatically new > teaching. It split the sangha. Let's not pretend it was just a new > way of saying the same thing. > > Ken H > Are you in agreement with Nina's view that each citta has no contact with any other cittas, but is influenced by an intermediary force after the former citta has faded? Robert = = = = = = = = = = #93950 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Robert, Howard > > > In a message dated 12/27/2008 11:04:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > It has seemed to me, if I am not totally off, that the main problem > in this kind of issue is the monadic idea that each citta arises > independently and exists within itself with no co-conditions. Of > course each citta incorporates the modifications that have somehow > been transmitted from previous cittas, but for this to happen between > independent monadic cittas a whole slew of intermediary phenomena > have to be brought into play which somehow themselves have to be non- > monadic in order to bleed attributes, understandings or changes from > one citta to a newly arising one. I have never understood why this > convoluted process should be postulated. There is no reason not to > imagine the arising cittas as beads on a string in which the citta > before "becomes" the citta arising next, rather than each one having > a complete and independent existence without touching each other. In > life we experience understandings and perceptions changing and > shifting from moment to moment, even though we don't have the > necessary sati to actually experience this exactly as it happens, but > somewhat after the fact and only imperfectly in cittas that have > some "cloudiness" as part of its characteristic. But why postulate a > process of arising moments in which each one is frozen unto itself, > when this seems the opposite of experience. Even in the example of a > film, which seems to be moving but in fact is made up of separate > still frames, each frame is related in a comprehensible way because > they arose from a flowing reality which they froze in the first > place. So the analytic portion of film editing, looking at > individual still frames and choosing the timing and arrangement of > how they will be set to "re-flow" at the faster speed, is itself > based on an originary flowing reality, not a still one. By the same > token, we can analytically break down the individual cittas that make > up the progression of experience, but the original reality is a > flowing one, not a string of still monads that only appear to move. > Or is this in fact the argument? > > ........................................................ > > > TG: I think this is in fact a large part of the argument. If the term > "flow" is introduced to many in this group, they'll likely act as if something > incomprehensible has been introduced into the realm of "Buddhism." > > > As I interpret the statements of Nina, Sarah, Scott, Ken H, it in fact seems > to be of paramount importance that these so called"dhammas" are "individual > realities" that exists "as themselves" in isolation...albeit for very short > periods of time. Of course this type of view crumbles in the face of > statements such as "becoming-otherwise," yet, it doesn't phase em a bit...they carry > on seeing "dhammas" as "individual existences." > > > .................................................................... ..... > > > > > And what basis is there for it? It > seems to me that if a total monadic reality is postulated of still- > sitting cittas that are formed only unto themselves [by some > mysterious process as they would never have a way of being distinct > from each other in that case having no contact with anything other] > that this must be a misinterpretation of an attempt to merely analyze > the momentary reality with great descriptive clarity. > > ........................................ > > > TG: If I am understanding you correctly and I think I am, YES to the above! > > > ................................................................... > > > > > It would be a > mistake to translate the means of analysis into the actuality of > existence, > > ......................................................... > > > TG: Hallelujah!!! This is exactly what is happening IMO and have said so > many times. > > > ....................................................... > > > > > just as we can learn a lot by dissecting a frog, but no > one would mistake the dissected frog for the actual living frog who > does not lie still for analysis but continues to hop throughout its > existence. > > .................................................... > > > TG: Excellent post Robert but one other point... Dependent Arising has a > deeper implication in that -- whatever arises in dependence lacks anything of > "its own." This applies just as much to the "parts" as it does to the > "wholes." > > > While many in this group discount the "wholes," as being self, they > certainly deal with the "parts" as if the "parts" were selves. > > > This is just transferring self delusion onto a different object IMO. > > > Dependent Arising entails that whatever arises in dependence is without > anything of "its own." Any identification of any "individual thing" is mere > convention. > > > > The mind is able to organize phenomena into bits and pieces. But bare > phenomena is indifferent about this at every stage of occurrence. To see any of > it as "itself" is delusion. Insight only "uses" the elements, aggregates to > see the greater picture. The "greater picture" is that these elements and > aggregates are empty, hollow, coreless, insubstantial, like a mirage, like a > conjurer's trick, etc. And this insight does not make the mind focus on > elements, aggregates, etc., rather, it makes the mind detach from these. > > > TG OUT > Thanks TG, on it's face your argument seems to make sense to me. I will be happy to see how others respond to this. Robert = = = = = = = = = #93951 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Robert and Howard, > > 2008/12/28 Robert Epstein : > >> > >> I don't know, Howard, honestly. I am not deliberately trying to be > >> provocative. But were you, perhaps, in your statement 'an arahant > > is > >> an arahant is an arahant"? Would there be anyone who would be able > > to > >> identify an arahant if they tripped over them? Would there be anyone > >> who could rationally declare about themselves that they had no > >> self-view? > >> > > > > Hi Herman! > > Why not? Self-view is not a matter of whether one says something or > > not. I can imagine it completely possible for one who is beyond self > > to say "This one has no self view" regarding their own organism. > > It is wonderful to see you writing here again. I've always been a fan > of your practical approach. But without further clarification I cannot > see how any form of self-reference is not a form of self- reference :-) Well, it would be a form of self-reference if that is what it were. What if I were to say, "There is awareness that your eyes are looking at my body as if there were someone there. Please note that there is no entity or other discrete being residing either within or without this body or consciousness." Even though to my way of seeing this would not be a form of self- reference; rather a clarification that there is no self to reference; still, it doesn't seem necessary that one who has realized that there is no separate self would have to do linguistic tricks in order to prove it, or that they would fall back into self by making a conventional reference. I refer to movie characters while watching the film and both I and my friend understand that we are merely watching a movie and that the people we refer to are just characters in the story who 'aren't really there.' Why can't this psychophysical organism, aware of what is taking place, refer to the nonexistence of a supposed character in the "story of life" who happens to be confused with their given identity? Ramana Maharshi used to say "This conversation is not taking place and there is no distinction between you and I, as neither of us is actually here." He could say this while carrying on the conversation. Why not? I have always contended that whatever enlightenment may be, it should not make one stupider or less capable of communicating. To say that the awakened is banned from saying certain things because they will contradict his realization would be a restriction, rather than a greater freedom. I say, for convenience let him say whatever allows him to speak the truth as he is able to communicate it. If the language only allows for "I am an awakened one," then let him say it. Buddha himself was reported [somewhere] to have said "I am awake." If he did, I don't mind, because we all know what he was trying to communicate. I think the real fear is that someone who says this is indulging a spiritual ego, and not really an egoless one. If this is the case, I hope there is a deeper way to test this. Good to see you too!!! Best, Robert = = = = = = = = > > > Certainly the Buddha suggested many times that he was beyond > > attachments to self-view. Why not an arahant? > > > > It's a good idea not to fall into conventionalism when regarding > > something like this, such as the idea that if someone uses the > > word "I" they are invoking a view of self, whereas they may perfectly > > well understand it as a mere convention. > > I well accept as valid and sometimes experience moments of seeing, > hearing, feeling etc only. It is superfluous, and actually destructive > of that experience, to think or say that there is no self in that. The > realisation of the absence of self is a return to, and dependent on > self view. No self is just a subtle, pernicious version of self. I > would say that to be beyond self-view is to be beyond both self and > not-self. And that does not happen while there is discursive thought, > let alone speech, occuring. Any communication is predicated on having > conceived of others. Other whats, you ask? Other selves. Anybody who > is communicating is thinking in terms of selves. > > So, I accept that there is a state beyond self and no self. And that > there are and have been skilful people who readily attain that state > at will. But they are not in that state all the time. A person may > rightly have the title "world chess champion". But that title is > irrelevant while he is watching TV with his children. The view of an > arahant as being without self view whilst giving a dhamma talk to > others doesn't gel with me. > > > > Cheers > > > Herm > #93952 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) > > I haven't read your messages (or any others yet this morning) - just got up late (for me)! But just seeing your name is the best Xmas/Holiday gift I've received this year - like the return of a family member from a long trip away! (If any other old friends are lurking around, pls also pop out of the woodwork to exhange greetings!!!!!!!!!!) > > Anyway, look forward to catching up later - I remember all our super-long discussions with joy. Maybe you can add a new pic to the album of your family.....(for others, it was Rob who started the photo album, see pic no 1.) > > Best wishes for the Holiday season and New Year.....don't run away before we all 'reconnect'! > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s (Jon's also delighted to hear from me that you're around!) > > --- On Sun, 28/12/08, Robert Epstein wrote: > > From: Robert Epstein > <...> > Thank you, Sarah. It's very joyful to be here and to hear from you. thank you for the lovely greeting. I will have to stick around a bit and have a chance to say "hello" at greater length. Many good wishes to you and Jon! Best, Robert P.S. Not home at present, but when I return in a few days I will try to find a new photo to add to the photo gallery. Thanks for mentioning that. - - - - - - - - - #93953 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:30 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi TG, RobEp, > > RobEp: There is no reason not to > imagine the arising cittas as beads on a string in which the citta before "becomes" the citta arising next, rather than each one having a complete and independent existence without touching each other. > > c: does anyone really say that anything has a "complete and independent existence"? > > i think what people are not liking is expressed in Asl 39: Dhamma's may be defined as those states which bear their own intrinsic natures, or which are borne by causes-in-relation, or which are borne according to their own characteristics. Shrug, just pick the one you're most comfortable with, i say, and the rest will come, or not. > > it's ok to say each bead on the string is a bead, but yellow beads do not turn red, etc. & there must be valid reasons for the texts to point out various classifications of things. it also leaves out way- back kamma coming into play, i'd think, and a lot of the rest of the usual 24 conditions. perhaps i misunderstand your example. > > peace, > connie Difficult to say for me, as I am exploring in the dark to some extent. I don't have great familiarity with the commentaries, so I am basing my observations on what I have at my disposal. The mechanism by which cittas' characteristics are passed on and change defines the way that consciousnesses progress towards the desired [or other] endpoint on the path. Whatever mechanism is at play, it must allow for gradual transmutation to take place. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = #93954 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sprlrt Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > Op 27-dec-2008, om 19:10 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > From Abhidhammattha sangaha, Rupa Sangaha Vibhago: > > Material objects, viz. form(16), sound, odour, taste and > > tangibility.... > > Narada note: (16) Rupa, both colour and shape are implied by this > > term. > -------- > N: I know that visible object is often translated as form and I find > this misleading. > > Narada has his own personal notes and observations you would have to > check. We can agree or disagree. > You have to check this one: when you see a shape is this just seeing > what is visible without any thought about it, or is it already > thinking through the mind-door? > > Nina. > I think that Narada note makes sense, "seeing" a table is thinking, seeing shape isn't, "seeing" green is thinking, seeing colour isn't. Alberto #93955 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how to view the self nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 28-dec-2008, om 9:15 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > I think that Narada note makes sense, "seeing" a table is thinking, > seeing shape isn't, "seeing" green is thinking, seeing colour isn't. ------- N: Yes, correct, except seeing shape. Shape: I think of perceiving the contours of a table. Here there are many moments of seeing just colour and in between thinking, defining of what was seen, and sa~n~naa marks and remembers former experiences. Thus, seeing is not paying attention to shape and form. If we have no misunderstandings we do not mind the translation of form, because whatever is seen is visible object and we can call it anything. It does not matter how we call it. When there is the summing up of ruupa, sadda (sound), etc. ruupa stands for visible object. But ruupa can also be used in a general sense for all physical phenomena. It depends on the context. Nina. #93956 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas, was: cornerstone nilovg Hi TG, Op 27-dec-2008, om 18:59 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > N: Seeing now is a paramattha dhamma, is that conventional? It has a > charactreistic to be experienced, it is a nama, different from > visible object that is rupa. Mere conventional? Or leading to > liberation from the cycle? > .......................................................... > TG: I vote "mere conventional" ... when couched in the terminology and > theoretical "conventions" of "dhammas," "it has," "own > characteristic," etc. I.E., > the 'outlook' is conventional. And it is "conventional outlook" > which is the > delusion therein. > > What happens to "us" is ALWAYS actuality. It is only 'perspective' > that > makes it other than it is. > The '"perspective" you posit above is just a "different type" of > convention > than what most people carry with them. But convention it is! ----------- N: Let us first speak about the moments a paramattha dhamma does not appear: I, I want to do something, I want to speak, my attachment. As you say, there is always actuality, and I can add: there are always paramattha dhammas, but we do not know them. Parama: higher, attha: sense or meaning. In the higher sense (different from what we knew before we heard the Dhamma): there is no self, no I. Paramattha dhamma : It is dhamma, not I who acts, speaks, is attached. But no names are necessary, no names and lables. Characteristics appear: this means: no names, just that. When we continue to listen and consider there are conditions for a beginning mindfulness of just any dhamma that appears. We touch something hard and label it hardness, that is not sati, it is thinking. But without expecting it, sometimes there can be a moment of mindfulness of hardness and no naming; just a little more understanding of it as a mere dhamma, not my hand, no I who experiences. Only thus it can be understood what characteristics of paramattha dhammas are. This outlook can change our life. Sarah gave an example of Bron who lost her husband. The realities that present each moment. One will be less shaken by trying circumstances and there will be more equanimity, when one learns to see that whatever appears through the six doors is a mere dhamma, condiiioned, not self. This is the understanding of paramattha dhammas. Nina. #93957 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sprlrt Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > Op 28-dec-2008, om 9:15 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > I think that Narada note makes sense, "seeing" a table is thinking, > > seeing shape isn't, "seeing" green is thinking, seeing colour isn't. > ------- > N: Yes, correct, except seeing shape. Shape: I think of perceiving > the contours of a table. Here there are many moments of seeing just > colour and in between thinking, defining of what was seen, and > sa~n~naa marks and remembers former experiences. Thus, seeing is not > paying attention to shape and form. > > If we have no misunderstandings we do not mind the translation of > form, because whatever is seen is visible object and we can call it > anything. It does not matter how we call it. > > When there is the summing up of ruupa, sadda (sound), etc. ruupa > stands for visible object. But ruupa can also be used in a general > sense for all physical phenomena. It depends on the context. > Nina. > I don't understand why not selecting a particular colour from those that sanna remembers is ok, while not selecting a particular shape from those that sanna remembers isn't. Alberto #93958 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] When and how did the view of Anatta translate, to self , in english ? sarahprocter... Hi Charles, I'm also glad to see you back after a break:-). This morning we went up the Peak and had our breakfast in the same place I took you, followed by a gentle walk, but not a Kung Fu lesson! Anyway, wishing you and your family in Denmark happy holidays:). You raise a good point about the translation of anatta. As we know, it means 'not atta'. As you say, atta was often translated as 'soul' and usually now is translated as 'self'. Neither are very adequate. When we think of what is seen or heard as being something lasting or having substance, such as a pencil or a computer or a person in actuality, it is because of atta-view and atta-perception. So, I believe the only way that there can be any understanding of anatta, no matter how it's translated, is by understanding directly what the realities are at this moment - those dhammas which experience objects, such as seeing or hearing and those dhammas which don't experience anything, such as visible object or hardness. No atta anywhere to be found. ... --- On Sat, 27/12/08, charles.dacosta@... wrote: ... C: >I can see how the term "self" would better imply a characteristic that the Buddha spoke against: owner/controller. I guess, in the West, we never associate the Soul with owning or controlling anything (it just experiences) , and the Self by definition is the owner/controller. But on the other hand, we do associate the Soul as being eternal and some even go as far to say unchanging; now the self never had these connotations. Selves have always been viewed as dynamic and needing control. ... S: Yes, we bring along our own baggage, no matter what term is used. ... C: >This all brings me back to a point that was made while communicating with Sarah, a long time ago: It is better to stick with the Pali, to reduce these translation problems. >I found an interesting view in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Anatta) ... S: Thx for the link and your other comments I've cut for now. With regard to the comment you kindly repeat above, I think it's also useful to try to use our own words and language to explain such truths to others or to make sure we understand the same by the Pali words. Metta, Sarah p.s Do you and anyone else have a family photo you'd like to add in the photo album? James willingly assists anyone in this regard. ============ #93959 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison sarahprocter... Hi James, Ven Yanatharo & all, You gave some good reminders: --- On Sat, 27/12/08, buddhatrue wrote: >When you watch the series, you see that most of the characters try to pretend that they aren't in prison. They take drugs, form gangs, have sex, watch TV, read books, pray to God, etc.- anything they can do to avoid the reality that they are in prison. Isn't that what we all do? Sure, we can walk out of our front door, travel around the world, and eat whatever we want, but that is just the illusion of freedom. We are also in prison, the boundaries are just a little larger. >Most people have a very hard time with the first Noble Truth because they don't want to admit that life is a prison. That would be considered too pessimistic and scary. But, the real freedom begins to happen when we stop pretending that we aren't in prison.... .... S: Yes, we are firmly in the bonds of attachment and delusion. "In short, the five khandhas of attachment are dukkha". I think the Buddha showed us the way out in the Fourth Noble Truth: the eightfold path, leading to the eradication of attachment. "That which is made of iron, wood or hemp, is not a strong bond, say the wise; the longing for jewels, ornaments, children, and wives is a far greater attachment." Dhp. 345 "That bond is strong, say the wise. It hurls down, is supple, and is hard to loosen. This too the wise cut off, and leave the world, with no longing, renouncing sensual pleasures." Dhp. 346. "Story Some monks passing a prison house observed the criminals bound by chains. They inquired of the Buddha whether there were other bonds stronger than what they had seen. The Buddha replied that the bond of craving was a thousand times stronger. " (Narada's translation of the Dhammapada and summary of story). Metta, Sarah =========== #93960 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sirens + Just Seeing book sarahprocter... Hi Antony, --- On Sun, 21/12/08, Antony Woods wrote: >Thanks for the detailed reply and clarification. >I reckon that the issue of letting go of sirens is much more immediate than stories about past hearing and thinking as if they are not reinforced by repeated thinking and recycling of memories. ... S: Yes, exactly. It always comes back to the present moment, the present reality. Now there are no sirens, but still thinking about the past stories, clinging on to the details. There can be awareness of thinking now as 'just thinking', just a conditioned dhamma, not of any importance. ... >An expression I coined for my forgiveness in Buddhism group: "The past is not static as it is constantly being added to." What I meant is that thinking about the past is not done by a self that is outside of further-mental actions but is actions itself so that memories of the 2005 incident are complicated by many copies re-recorded when it is brought up again in June & Dec 2008 . .... S: I understand what you mean. Sanna in particular marks and remembers all that has been experienced and is forever adding fuel to the fire. It can be sanna, vitakka and other mental factors accompanying cittas rooted in ignorance, attachment or aversion (usually) or sanna, vitakka and other mental factors accompanying cittas rooted in wisdom, non-attachment or non-aversion. .... >Regarding immediacy, I found this quote from the Brahmavihara Sutta: "Death, monks, is but a gap of a thought away." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an10/an10. 208.than. html ... S: Thanks, Antony - I like that. Death can come anytime at all, and in a momentary sense, it comes all the time with the passing away of each citta. TB: "Neither a woman nor a man can go taking this body along. Death, monks, is but a gap of a thought away." BB: "A man or a woman cannot take their body with them and depart; mortals have consciousness as the connecting link." Woodward: "A woman or a man, monks, cannot take this body and go away. This mortal being, monks, is but a between-thoughts." S: The last translation gives this foot-note for the last phrase: " 'Citt'antaro aya.m macco.....Comy. says it is 'citta-kaara.no or citten'eva antariko - i.e., at one thought-moment one is in this world, at the next in the deva-world or purgatory, etc." Wishing you a happy and wise New Year in sunny Sydney! Metta, Sarah =========== #93961 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:35 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) scottduncan2 Dear friends, Continuing on from the last set (#93657 Threes (34-36) (cy: #93720, #93811, #93841): CSCD Tayo theraa â€" jaatithero, dhammathero, sammutithero [sammatithero (syaa. ka.m.)]. Walshe DN 33.1.10(37) Three elders: an elder by birth, in Dhamma, by convention*1044. Olds [3.37] Three elders: by birth, in the Dhamma, by rank. RD's [3.37] Three kinds of seniors, to wit, an aged layman, an eminent bhikkhu, a bhikkhu officially ranked as 'senior.' *walshe: 1044 The last receives the courtesy title of 'elder' from juniors without being strictly entitled to it. **olds: [3.37] in other words by age, by wisdom, and by way of occupying a position given the title of elder (seniority), by common consent, not necessarily by way of merit. ***rd: 3.37 Whom the novices speak of as 'thera.' Comy. CSCD Tii.ni pu~n~nakiriyavatthuuni â€" daanamaya.m pu~n~nakiriyavatthu, siilamaya.m pu~n~nakiriyavatthu, bhaavanaamaya.m pu~n~nakiriyavatthu. Walshe DN 33.1.10(38) Three grounds based on merit: that of giving, of morality, of meditation. Olds [3.38] Three bases for the expectation of benefit, the expectation of benefit based on making gifts, the expectation of benefit based on ethical behavior and the expectation of benefit based on self-improvement. RD's [3.38] Three bases by merit accomplished, to wit, the bases composed of giving, of virtue, of study. **olds: [3.38] (Tini pu~n~na-kiriya-vatthuuni: Daana- (siila-, bhaavanaa-) maya.m pu~n~na-kiriya-vatthuu. I take the meaning here to be the grounds on which one can reasonably expect to have created some future benefit. Rhys Davids has "bases by merit accomplished" meaning that one has created a basis for some unstated thing based on doing something meritorious; Walshe has "grounds based on merit" meaning the same thing as Rhys Davids. Since the statement is: X: y-X; that would really result (meaning that their translations fudge the second half of the equation), for these translators in the statement: "Bases by Merit Accomplished: that of (composed of) Giving based merit accomplished (i.e., merit accomplished by giving, not a basis created by the merit of giving), which gives a different meaning for each half of the statement. (Usual point here: this system is almost mathematically presented, and I believe this is done with the deliberate intent of forcing this sort of analysis. Being forced into this analysis of detail there is far greater likelihood that the real meaning will be revealed/preserved). pu~n~na: PED: favourable, good, merit, meritorious action, virtue...always represented as foundation and condition of heavenly rebirth and a future blissful state; kiriya: PED: 1A. action, performance, deed; the doing=fulfilment. (MO: Often apparently serving the function of turning another word into one meaning the act of doing that: kusala- performance; dana- bestowing; papa- commission; mangala- celebration; sacchi- realization); B. an act in a special sense=promise, vow, dedication, intention, pledge; C. philosophically: action ineffective as to result, non-causative, an action which ends initself; 2. making no difference, indefinite; of no result; indifferent, neither good nor bad and having no fruit of kamma vatthuu: PED: lit. "ground," hence 1. (lit) object, real thing, property, thing, substance; (applied meaning) object, item; 3. occasion for, reason, ground bhaavanaa:Becoming, Development, -- I think Walshe's "meditation," and Rhys Davids' "study" for bhavana are cases of what is being developed, but the word is more general and probably intended to be inclusive of all forms of development or self-development = becoming; or in the other sense of the word "living" meaning manner of living. See: The Pali Line: Giving, and Ethical Culture, the rest of BuddhaDust is devoted to mental development. ***rd: 3.38 Grounds for profit, advantages. CSCD Tii.ni codanaavatthuuni â€" di.t.thena, sutena, parisa'nkaaya. Walshe DN 33.1.10(39) Three grounds for reproof: based on what has been seen, heard, suspected. Olds [3.39] Three bases for making testimony: based on the seen, based on the heard, based on the suspected. RD's [3.39] Three bases for reproof, to wit, that which has been seen, that which has been heard, that which one suspects. **olds: [3.39] (Tini codanaa-vatthuuni: This has two aspects: from the point of view of one contemplating an act, one needs to be sure that what one is about to do does not provide a basis for reproof; and from the point of view of the group examining it's members; that which must be inquired into in order for it to be cleared up. PED: codeti: to urge, incite, exhort; to reprove, reprimand, to call forth, to question. ***rd: 3.39 To be consulted in detail in the Saamanta paasaadikaa (B.'s Comy. on the Vinaya). Comy. Sincerely, Scott, connie, Nina. #93962 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:52 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "4. For lovingkindness should not be developed at first towards the following four kinds of persons: an antipathetic person, a very dearly loved friend, a neutral person, and a hostile person. Also it should not be developed specifically towards the opposite sex, or towards a dead person." The Path of Purity. "Verily this (sort of) love should not be developed towards these four: - beings one does not hold dear, very dear friends, neutral beings, enemies. It should not be developed specifically twoards those of the opposite sex, and not at all towards the dead." Aya~nhi mettaa appiyapuggale, atippiyasahaayake, majjhatte, veriipuggaleti imesu catuusu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa. Li.ngavisabhaage odhiso na bhaavetabbaa. Kaalakate na bhaavetabbaava. Sincerely, Scott. #93963 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Rob (and Ken) - In a message dated 12/28/2008 2:10:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Are you in agreement with Nina's view that each citta has no contact with any other cittas, but is influenced by an intermediary force after the former citta has faded? =========================== Rob, you (at least) formulate this in a way that doesn't ring quite true with me as regards what Nina has said. Now, it happens that I don't view mindstates in the same way that Nina and others here do, the main difference being that I consider cittas and cetasikas etc to be merely conventional objects. (BTW, I don't consider "conventional" to be a curse word! LOL!) But I will put that aside to address your post. As far as I know, Nina accepts the full variety of conditional relations discussed in the Patthana, including contiguity condition, namely the relation holding between a mindstate and its immediate successor which IS that immediate successor relation. Also, getting to your mentioned "intermediary force," terminology I've not seen Nina use, Nina accepts the absence relation [I think it is called], also holding between a mindstate and its immediate successor that is the relation holding between the 1st state and its successor that pertains to the 2nd not arising until the instant that the 1st ceases. This is simply a consequence of the impossibility of two different states occurring simultaneously. No "force" of any sort is involved. Now, dealing directly with your idea of states needing to "touch" one another in order for conditionality to be operative, I do not believe that this everyday, commonsense, physically motivated perspective matches up with the perspective of conditionality in the Dhamma. I think that action-at-a-temporal-distance is definitely countenanced in the Buddha's teaching on conditionality, somewhat along the lines found in quantum theory. It is just a matter of "When this is, that will be" - a mere matter of a phenomenon arising when, but only when, the last of the requisite conditions have arisen, with many possibly having occurred in the far-distant past. BTW, I think that the "touching" view that you seem to have but that I am not wed to is actually much the same as the view that Nina and others here share, with "causal influence" being passed along from each state to its immediate successor by way of "accumulation." (States must become very fully packed with accumulations, since there is no beginning to the flow of states! ;-) So, there's is strictly a push-pull, common-sense mechanistic perspective of conditionality they seem to express much along the lines I think that you adopt, and quite different from my perspective (and what I view as the Dhammic perspective). With metta, Howard #93964 From: "connie" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:41 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.5 continues: To effect continuity is a prominent function of consciousness, and this was already recognized in the Atthasaalinii. Among the traditional categories of definition, the manifestation (paccupa.t.thaana) of consciousness is called "connecting" (sandahana), which is explained as follows: "Consciousness presents itself as a 'connecting,' because when any later state of consciousness arises, it does so by immediately succeeding the preceding state; that is why 'connecting' is its manifestation." {63} {n.63: Asl 112. This holds good also of the bhava'nga, the life-continuum. The word a'nga in the compound bhava'nga is usually explained in the commentaries by kaara.na, "cause"; accordingly the entire term would mean literally "cause (or condition) of (continued) existence." But we would suggest that a'nga may here have the alternative meaning of "link" as well, and consequently bhava'nga would signify "link of existence".} This implies that each state of consciousness is "open" to the past as well as to the future: it has "depth" in time. Though a moment of consciousness has no rigid boundaries, it nevertheless does not lack individuality - in the same way as there will be a characteristic blend of colors where several multicolored beams of light intersect; but its shade will change at once if even one of these beams of light moves away or varies its intensity. Likewise, when a change of direction or intensity occurs in the components of consciousness, the "color" or the subsequent mental state will be different. Apart from the divergent past and future "life story" of the single components of consciousness, also in the point of their intersection, that is, in the given moment of consciousness, there is no motionless stability or self-identity. A single moment too passes through the three phases: (1) the arising (uppaada) or the nascent state; (2) the (relative) stability (.thiti) or state of continuation, which may be understood as the culmination point of the respective process or as the point of the closest contact in the temporary combination of mental factors; (3) the gradual dissolution (bha'nga) of that combination. In other words, these three phases represent the approaching and departing movement in the mutual relationship of the mental concomitants. This corresponds to the changes occurring in that greater temporary combination called "personality," and in the still greater one of society, where a similar rhythm may be observed. We spoke of this previously as the alternating process of assimilation and dissimilation. Here in this context our purpose is merely to explain the first statement of the commentarial stanza quoted above: "By time the Sage described the mind..." We found that this statement has a twofold meaning: firstly, a moment of consciousness is limited in its duration by the simultaneity of its concommitants, and only by that simultaneity of factors can a description of it be given; secondly, a moment of consciousness, in its full significance, with all its implications, can be explained only in terms of time, and by referring to all three divisions of time - to the past, present, and future. Because of the conditioned nature of consciousness, no present mental state is self-explanatory. peace, connie #93965 From: "connie" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:42 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends, This begins part II. The Development of the Theory: The foregoing is a brief summary of the earliest phase of the dhamma theory as presented in the books of the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka, particularly the Dhammasangani and the Patthana. About a hundred years after its formulation, as a reaction against it, there emerged what came to be known as puggalavada or "personalism," 19 a philosophical theory that led to a further clarification of the nature of dhammas. Now here it may be noted that according to the early Buddhist discourses there is no denial as such of the concept of the person (puggala), if by "person" is understood, not an enduring entity distinct from the five khandhas nor an agent within the khandhas, but simply the sum total of the five causally connected and ever-changing khandhas. From the point of view of the dhamma-analysis, this can be restated by substituting the term dhamma for the term khandha, for the dhammas are the factors that obtain by analysis of the khandhas. However, this way of defining the concept of person (puggala) did not satisfy some Buddhists. In their opinion the dhamma theory as presented by the Theravadins led to a complete depersonalization of the individual being and consequently failed to provide adequate explanations of such concepts as rebirth and moral responsibility. Hence these thinkers insisted on positing the person (puggala) as an additional reality distinct from the khandhas or dhammas. As recorded in the Kathavatthu, the "Points of Controversy," the main contention of the Puggalavadins or "Personalists" is that the person is known in a real and ultimate sense (saccikatthaparamatthena upalabbhati).20 Against this proposition a number of counter-arguments are adduced, which need not concern us here. What interests us, however, is that in denying that the person is known in a real and ultimate sense, the Theravadins admit that the khandhas or dhammas are known in a real and ultimate sense. Thus in their view what is real and ultimate is not the person but the khandhas or dhammas that enter into its composition.21 Now the use of the two words, saccikattha and paramattha ("real and ultimate") as indicative of the nature of dhammas seems to give the impression that in denying the reality of the person the Theravadins have overstressed the reality of the dhammas. Does this amount to the admission that the dhammas are real and discrete entities existing in their own right? Such a conclusion, it appears to us, is not tenable. For if the dhammas are defined as real and ultimate, this means, not that they partake of the nature of absolute entities, but that they are not further reducible to any other reality, to some kind of substance which underlies them. That is to say, there is no "behind the scenes" substance from which they emerge and to which they finally return. This means, in effect, that the dhammas represent the final limits of the Abhidhammic analysis of empirical existence. Hence this new definition does not erode the empirical foundation of the dhamma theory as presented by the Theravadins. Moreover, this view is quite consonant with the statement occurring in the earlier texts that the dhammas come to be without having been (ahutva sambhonti) and disappear without any residue (hutva pativenti).22 Why, unlike the dhammas, the person (puggala) is not recognized as real and ultimate needs explanation. Since the person is the sum total of the causally connected mental and corporeal dhammas that constitute the empiric individual, it lends itself to further analysis. And what is subject to analysis cannot be an irreducible datum of cognition. The opposite situation is true of the dhammas. This brings into focus two levels of reality: that which is amenable to analysis and that which defies further analysis. Analysability is the mark of composite things, and non-analysability the mark of the elementary constituents, the dhammas. notes: 19. See "L'origine des sectes bouddhiques d'apres Paramartha," trans. P. Demievielle, MTlanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, Vol. I, 1932, pp.57ff.; J. Masuda, "Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools" (trans. of Vasumitra's Treatise), Asia Major, Vol. II, 1925, pp.53-57; Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought in India (London, 1962), pp.122ff.; A.K. Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi, 1970), pp.289ff. 20. Kvu 1ff. See too the relevant sections of its commentary. 21. Ibid. 22. Cf. Ahutva sambhutat hutva na bhavissati (Psm 76). Evat sabbe pi ruparupino dhamma ahutva sambhonti hutva pativenti (Vsm 512). peace, connie #93966 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AS time upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 12/28/2008 10:42:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: #92964 ============== My attention is drawn (Of course, LOL!) to the large, central paragraph: This implies that each state of consciousness is "open" to the past as well as to the future: it has "depth" in time. Though a moment of consciousness has no rigid boundaries, it nevertheless does not lack individuality - in the same way as there will be a characteristic blend of colors where several multicolored beams of light intersect; but its shade will change at once if even one of these beams of light moves away or varies its intensity. Likewise, when a change of direction or intensity occurs in the components of consciousness, the "color" or the subsequent mental state will be different. Apart from the divergent past and future "life story" of the single components of consciousness, also in the point of their intersection, that is, in the given moment of consciousness, there is no motionless stability or self-identity. A single moment too passes through the three phases: (1) the arising (uppaada) or the nascent state; (2) the (relative) stability (.thiti) or state of continuation, which may be understood as the culmination point of the respective process or as the point of the closest contact in the temporary combination of mental factors; (3) the gradual dissolution (bha'nga) of that combination. In other words, these three phases represent the approaching and departing movement in the mutual relationship of the mental concomitants. This corresponds to the changes occurring in that greater temporary combination called "personality," and in the still greater one of society, where a similar rhythm may be observed. We spoke of this previously as the alternating process of assimilation and dissimilation. This paragraph decribes a middle way, as I see it, between discrete, separate existence on the one hand and indistinguishability on the other hand that allows for constant change along with distinguishable quality. IMO, no description can capture reality, but, in fact, always falsifies. But I find some descriptions to be better pointings than others, and I find this to be a rather good pointing. With metta, Howard #93967 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone nilovg Dear Rob Ep and Howard, I think Howard understands what I mean. The absence-condition is quite clear, showing us that the previous citta must have fallen away before the following one arises. As to accumulations this is another topic, I better deal with later on. Nina. Op 28-dec-2008, om 15:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > As far as I know, Nina accepts the full variety of conditional > relations > discussed in the Patthana, including contiguity condition, namely the > relation holding between a mindstate and its immediate successor > which IS that > immediate successor relation. Also, getting to your mentioned > "intermediary > force," terminology I've not seen Nina use, Nina accepts the > absence relation [I > think it is called], also holding between a mindstate and its > immediate > successor that is the relation holding between the 1st state and > its successor that > pertains to the 2nd not arising until the instant that the 1st > ceases. This > is simply a consequence of the impossibility of two different states > occurring simultaneously. No "force" of any sort is involved. > Now, dealing directly with your idea of states needing to "touch" one > another in order for conditionality to be operative, I do not > believe that this > everyday, commonsense, physically motivated perspective matches up > with the > perspective of conditionality in the Dhamma #93968 From: Philip Miller Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member pem218 Thank you, Connie. The site posted below and other sites offered by others have been an embarrassment of riches! Of course every translator beings his/her background (AKA prejudices) to the task. And while reading the classical texts and/or commentaries in the original, is there not the danger the reader may not comprehend the concepts in the same manner as the original author? We would like to think that we can somehow get to the original sense, but all we can do is make "guesses." A note of serendipitous luck - Last Tuesday I was a Manhattan's famed Strand Book Store on my lunch hour and came across a hard-bound copy of the John Ross Carter & Mahinda Palihawadana edition of the Dhammapada (the 400+ page edition, as opposed to the skinny paperback which nonetheless has a wonderful introduction the hardcover does not) in excellent condition - at only $7.00. Naturally I snapped it up! My apologies for the delay in acknowledging you message. We had house-guests over the holiday and it would have been unseemly for the host to disappear to read e-mail. with metta Phil M --- On Thu, 12/25/08, connie wrote: imo, everyone should take full advantage of the offerings on scribd.com/people/ documents/ 1746908-alanwell er?page=1 <....> #93969 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > "That which is made of iron, wood or hemp, is not a strong bond, say the wise; the longing for jewels, ornaments, children, and wives is a far greater attachment." Dhp. 345 > > "That bond is strong, say the wise. It hurls down, is supple, and is hard to loosen. This too the wise cut off, and leave the world, with no longing, renouncing sensual pleasures." Dhp. 346. > > "Story > > Some monks passing a prison house observed the criminals bound by chains. They inquired of the Buddha whether there were other bonds stronger than what they had seen. The Buddha replied that the bond of craving was a thousand times stronger. " (Narada's translation of the Dhammapada and summary of story). > Thanks Sarah! I was not aware of this commentary and the story of the prison! It is good to know that the Buddha used the metaphor of a prison also to describe the dukkha of life. Metta, James #93970 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Scott and All, I find these instructions from the Vism. absurd. I want to break it down: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Continuing: > > The Path of Purification. > > "4. For lovingkindness should not be developed at first towards the > following four kinds of persons James: What does that really mean "at first"? Considering that we have all lived countless lifetimes and have experienced metta toward all sorts of beings during those lifetimes, there is no "at first" development of metta. That like saying "The first time you start to breathe make sure it isn't too shallow, rapid, etc." What first time? Maybe the first time I sit down to meditate on loving kindness? Well, how about the second time? What is the difference between the first time and the second time. When would I know that I am no longer in that "at first" stage? It's absurd no matter how you slice it. : an antipathetic person, James: The Buddha specifically said that the only way to appease hatred toward an enemy is with loving kindness toward that enemy. Now, here are instructions that we shouldn't try to do that! The Buddha didn't say "Love your enemy only when you are mentally ready to love your enemy." Again, absurd. a very dearly > loved friend, James: Now the natual metta that we feel toward friends is taboo? The Buddha specifically said that we should love all beings "like a mother loves her child". In other words, we should recognize the natural metta that we feel for our loved friends and family and extend that to all beings. To block that metta toward a loved friend is really counterproductive. a neutral person, James: What is the harm in extending metta toward a neutral person? It seems like the approved list of metta recepients is getting shorter and shorter. and a hostile person. James: Again, the Buddha said to love your enemies. Also it should > not be developed specifically towards the opposite sex, James: Now this really makes no sense at all. I happen to be gay, does that mean I shouldn't develop metta toward the same sex? Well, it doesn't say that so I guess the opposite sex is off limits for me as well. Metta does not equate to sexual desire or lead to sexual desire so this guideline is silly. or towards a > dead person." James: Now, what is wrong with extending metta toward a dead person? As Buddhists, we know that the dead person has been reborn. Death is not the end of that person's life stream. Again, this is an absurd direction. Taken all together, these directions make no sense at all to me. I have no idea when the period of "at first" is supposed to begin or be ended. The list of those excluded from receiving metta "at first" excludes everyone except oneself. Then, extending metta toward "oneself" becomes a very strange exercise is forced scizophrenia (what self is sending and what self is receiving?). The Buddha said that the Brahma viharas are supposed to be extending to all beings in all directions in all spheres of existence. There is no list of exclusions (for the first, second, or third time developing metta). Metta, James #93971 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear James, Regarding: J: "I find these instructions from the Vism. absurd..." Scott: No worries, just stay tuned... Sincerely, Scott. #93972 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:00 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Dear James, I am sorry to say but I disagree here. Even though I am no fan of Buddhaghosa, in some areas here he is right: a) A beginner should NOT start with a person they dislike. A beginner may not be able to feel metta for an enemy. After a while and when metta gets better developed, then one will definately be able to do this. It is a matter of difficulty. b) As a beginner one shouldn't send metta to a dearly beloved person as that could create attachment (a near enemy of metta) and if the person is of opposite sex - lust. Only after a while one should send metta to all. With best wishes, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Scott and All, > > I find these instructions from the Vism. absurd. I want to break it > down: > > #93973 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear James, > > > I am sorry to say but I disagree here. Even though I am no fan of > Buddhaghosa, in some areas here he is right: > > > a) A beginner should NOT start with a person they dislike. A beginner > may not be able to feel metta for an enemy. After a while and when > metta gets better developed, then one will definately be able to do > this. It is a matter of difficulty. > > > b) As a beginner one shouldn't send metta to a dearly beloved person > as that could create attachment (a near enemy of metta) and if the > person is of opposite sex - lust. > > Only after a while one should send metta to all. I already explained my reasons why I don't agree. If you can show me where the Buddha said this in a sutta, I will agree with you. Otherwise, I think that these precautions are completely unnecessary. Metta, James #93974 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: #93963 Hi Howard. You are addressing at least two points at once, and a few others are raised as well. So I'd like to clarify if I can: a/ I think it's a mistake to impute a physicalistic, mechanistic, pool-table view of causality to me. I have been focusing on this microscopic issue to try to get some clarity on it: How do cittas interact and how do they pass on tendencies or characteristics, according to abhidhamma. My own view is less settled, and also more in tune with the idea of infinite mutually arising causality, without single events of any kind being isolatable out of the field of occurences. I don't even see an identifiable citta as a single identifiable thing, except for analytic purposes, and I made this fairly clear in my other recent post on the difference between an analytic and living object. b/ Your points about Nina's view of the citta and what kinds of events are possible within and between cittas is both interesting and calls for further explanation. I am not schooled enough in the different kinds of events that may take place to know what is or isn't included, which is why I was interested in the "intermediary event" as I called it, because I'm not sure what else to call it, that Nina hinted at as the way in which cittas "communicate" to each other. I am still unclear how that works, not trying to reify Nina's view. c/ You mention your view of the dhamma at the end as being different from both what I think Nina thinks, and what you say I and the others probably have in common, although I think this is probably not true. What is your view, and how is it different? Thanks, Robert ================================ #93975 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: cornerstone epsteinrob Hi Howard. I wanted to return to this post to speak of one more item in your interesting rundown: the idea that cittas shouldn't have to "touch" in a physicalistic way in order to influence each other, or even exist at the same time in order for one to participate in creating an accumulation of conditions that will by its own weight cause an inevitable [?] effect resulting in a change in the succeeding citta [or whatever object one might want to apply it to] without them having direct contact. You suggest this may have resonance with the "quantum" view of reality, as opposed to a more linear and mechanistic view, and that this would be more in keeping with the Buddha's idea of accumulations leading to changes of specific kinds - if I am reading you correctly. I found this very intriguing and hope you can say more about it, as it might be worthy of a more detailed discussion. The example that came to my mind as an acting teacher is something that I call "human activities" in my line of work. I point out to students that while physical activities to objects almost always involve working on them in a direct physicalistic way, ie, you have to touch them, do something to them in physical space; that humans act upon each other through space and don't need to touch physically to have a concrete and definite effect on the other person. So I can wave to you and say hello, and that can cause pleasantness to arise in you and cause you to smile back, even if we are twenty feet apart. I find this in itself to always be a very intriguing subject, but in this context I find it an interesting example as to how "waves" or "causes" or "forces" may be put into play that may move across space and effect another sort of wave or form or object without being in proximity or direct contact. It can even happen that I might wave to you and keep walking and after I turn the corner the greeting might hit you and cause you to smile after I am gone. Although this set of reactions is still somewhat linear in nature and doesn't point to the further complexity in mutual causes and arisings that may be in play, it is at least intriguing for the kind of point you made with regard to direct contact. Robert = = = = = = = = = = = = #93976 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:55 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Scott and All, > > I find these instructions from the Vism. absurd. I want to break it > down: It would be interesting to prove your point by successfully sending lovingkindness to the authors of the instructions that offend you. Robert = = = = = = = = = = = = #93977 From: "connie" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:16 pm Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Howard, H: IMO, no description can capture reality, but, in fact, always falsifies. c: falsifies, i guess, in that a moment once captured is likewise gone while the presentation would have it seem stable. the old freeze frame thing again... Bergson? But i like the abstract intersecting light beams pictorial too; might want to take another look sometime at ch.iv part 15 - Gradations of Intensity among Parallel Factors. Thought you might like this too: <<... experience infinite rapturous joy in reflecting. As though grouping the multitude of stars in the sky (into constellations), the Teacher taught things mental and material, dividing them into various parts and portions - things subtle and abstruse such as the unique content of aggregates, sense-organs, elements, controlling faculties, powers, factors of wisdom, kamma and its result; and the distinction between mind and matter. >> asl 11 Sensible 'presentations' in 'real-time' occur at the sense doors while what's reflected back thru the avenue of the mind is 'represented', too. Still thinking about the "two truths" thing. peace, connie #93978 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member nilovg Dear Phil M, what a coincidence. Mahinda is most helpful on our Pali list and whatever he says is very good. Nina. Op 28-dec-2008, om 18:44 heeft Philip Miller het volgende geschreven: > came across a hard-bound copy of the John Ross Carter & Mahinda > Palihawadana edition of the Dhammapada (the 400+ page edition, #93979 From: "connie" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: New Member nichiconn Phil M - (: thanks for sharing the Dhammapada story. glanced at the intro in the limited view google books has up & liked the way they put the "best guesses" issue: < Mistake the grammar of a single word and a whole set of explanations will be on the wrong track. > Interesting, their first twin verses: < preceded by perception are mental states for them is perception supreme, from perception they have sprung > etc. I'm used to reading "mind is the forerunner". no reply expected, but feel free, connie #93980 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > It would be interesting to prove your point by successfully sending > lovingkindness to the authors of the instructions that offend you. > That would prove difficult as there are no authors of instructions which "offend me". Just because I disagree with something that doesn't mean it "offends me". Whoever came up with these instructions, I'm sure that they had good intentions. They thought that this systematic development of metta would be somehow better or more beneficial for people than just starting out with sending metta to all beings everywhere. I, however, don't agree with that and believe it would be better and more beneficial to follow the Buddha's original instructions. I posted my disagreement out of metta and compassion for the members of this group. I think that they will find it more beneficial to practice the Buddha's original teaching. As for me, I have a Buddhist bead bracelet which I use to assist me in my metta meditation. I bought it here in Taiwan. It is composed of little beads on a stretchy elastic string. I am wearing it right now at school, actually. I will take the bracelet off and hold one bead between my fingers and wish metta to all living beings everywhere. Then I will move on to the next bead and do the same thing again. I will keep doing that, bead after bead, for however long I have free, when I have time to myself. I call it my metta bracelet. Robert, by your blunt question I am assuming that you think I don't have much metta because of the tone of my posts (i.e. "offended you"). Well, you can join Connie in that also. As she said, I am like "mountains of metta from a molehill of dosa" :-). Granted, I am not extremely proficient at metta meditation, but I try my best. And, believe it or not, I do care about people and want them to be happy and free from suffering. Metta (believe it or not), James #93981 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:43 am Subject: thinking thinks szmicio Dear Nina Can you start another nama-rupa series? I think I need to hear more about reality. In daily life we are so involved in stories and also forget about what is real. The thinking is real.It has its own characteristic. But concepts as dog, my mother, my father aren't real. Also The Buddha, Tipitaka, they are concepts too. Why we are so involved in those dreams? Best wishes Lukas #93982 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how to view the self nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 28-dec-2008, om 11:04 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > I don't understand why not selecting a particular colour from those > that sanna remembers is ok, while not selecting a particular shape > from those that sanna remembers isn't. -------- N: I do not quite get what you ask here about selecting, but I shall try to add a few more points on seeing and paying attention to shape and form. Seeing just sees anything that impinges on the eyesense; we can call it colour or visible object. In Pali also the word va.n.na is used, appearance. When there is paying attention to shape and form, contours of something, (you call it selecting ?) these are moments different from seeing. Seeing does not think or define anything, but I think you know this already. Seeing does not select visible object, there are the proper conditions for seeing to see visible object: visible object impinges on the eyesense so that there are conditions for seeing, and kamma produces seeing, it is vipaakacitta as you know. When reading a text, it seems that there is seeing and at the same time recognizing the letters and their meaning. But seeing does not know: this is A, this is B, seeing cannot read, it can only see. Cittas arising in a mind-door process recognize the letters and translate them into meaning. Actually we are 'translating' all day long. It seems that we see figures of persons, contours of tables, but seeing does not 'translate", it merely experiences whatever has impinged on the eyesense. Hearing hears sounds, and it seems that at once their meaning is known. These are other cittas, different from just hearing. The characteristic of seeing cannot be understood when we still take it for my seeing. We do, even when we do not think: it is I who is seeing. It is not yet understood as a mere dhamma, arisen because of its own conditions. Gradually we can understand that whatever arises is a mere dhamma and also sati is a mere dhamma. Sati and seeing and all other dhammas arise without us expecting them, they are unforeseeable. When sati begins to be aware, only then, understanding can be developed of whatever reality appears at that moment, be it seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. But if we are trying to find out what seeing is or doubting about it, seeing cannot be known as it is. When we have doubts, there is not seeing, and how could seeing then be understood? When sati arises and is aware, no names are given, just characteristics appear and there is no selection of any object. Does this answer your question on selecting and sa~n~naa? Nina. #93983 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:28 pm Subject: Final Tools! bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Three Steps to Freedom, Peace & Happiness ? If Awareness by Breathing is frequently trained & repeatedly refined over a period, the Four Foundations of Awareness are gradually completed & entirely perfected... If the Four Foundations of Awareness are frequently trained and repeatedly refined, the Seven Links to Awakening are gradually completed & finally entirely perfected... If the Seven Links to Awakening are quite frequently trained & repeatedly refined, then Release by Knowing is gradually completed and finally entirely perfected... Only this release induced by understanding - itself - is the End of Suffering ... Understanding Frees! <....> Understanding Sees Light! Source: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya. Sutta 118 AnapanaSati. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Final Tools! #93984 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] thinking thinks nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 29-dec-2008, om 9:43 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Can you start another nama-rupa series? > > I think I need to hear more about reality. > ------- N: Not only you, we all need to hear about reality, it never is enough. First we have to understand that all realities that appear now are just dhammas, nothing to do with us. We cannot make any reality appear, it has its own conditions. It takes time before this sinks in, and that is the same for all of us. --------- > L: In daily life we are so involved in stories and also forget > about what > is real. The thinking is real.It has its own characteristic. But > concepts as dog, my mother, my father aren't real. Also The Buddha, > Tipitaka, they are concepts too. Why we are so involved in those > dreams? ------- N: We all are involved in stories, not only you. We have accumulated ignorance of characteristics for aeons, that is the reason. We often hear from Kh Sujin: 'if understanding is not accumulated now, when can it grow?' It is accumulated by hearing and discussion so that, to begin with, the intellectual understanding is correct. We should not mind thinking of stories but see it as conditioned dhamma, just dhamma. When we think of others, for example, of bad qualities of others, it seems that these people are lasting and that they possess certain qualities. But in reality there is only citta that thinks in that way, and other persons are citta, cetasika and ruupa; they have gone already when we think about them. When we understand this more we can appreciate the saying: there is no world, only citta that thinks of the world. We may be inclined to think: I want to do this or that to have more sati. But actually, it is viriya cetasika that performs its function, not just for a few months or this life, but for many lives. And it is not my viriya, it has to be understood as dhamma, not self. Otherwise we shall go astray. ------ Nina. #93985 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 12/28/2008 11:14:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. You are addressing at least two points at once, and a few others are raised as well. So I'd like to clarify if I can: a/ I think it's a mistake to impute a physicalistic, mechanistic, pool-table view of causality to me. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I apologize for misreading you on that! ------------------------------------------------ I have been focusing on this microscopic issue to try to get some clarity on it: How do cittas interact and how do they pass on tendencies or characteristics, according to abhidhamma. My own view is less settled, and also more in tune with the idea of infinite mutually arising causality, without single events of any kind being isolatable out of the field of occurences. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I join you in being resistant to the notion of discrete, isolated events, states, and entities. ----------------------------------------------- I don't even see an identifiable citta as a single identifiable thing, except for analytic purposes, and I made this fairly clear in my other recent post on the difference between an analytic and living object. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: We agree on this. Karunadasa also presents the dhamma theory in a way that seems resistant to isolation of states, though he is bit "poetic" on that point. ------------------------------------------------ b/ Your points about Nina's view of the citta and what kinds of events are possible within and between cittas is both interesting and calls for further explanation. I am not schooled enough in the different kinds of events that may take place to know what is or isn't included, which is why I was interested in the "intermediary event" as I called it, because I'm not sure what else to call it, that Nina hinted at as the way in which cittas "communicate" to each other. I am still unclear how that works, not trying to reify Nina's view. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: As far as "communication" is concerned, I believe that Nina's (and Khun Sujin's) perspective on this is exactly the standard Abhidhammic view that there are no gaps (at all!) between cittas, so that the communication is by literal, direct abutment. Again, from my perspective, cittas are conventional objects, and, in fact, are "over-thought" and somewhat problematical as to detail, but that story IS the standard Abhidhammic one. -------------------------------------------------- c/ You mention your view of the dhamma at the end as being different from both what I think Nina thinks, and what you say I and the others probably have in common, although I think this is probably not true. What is your view, and how is it different? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: We are probably closer in view than I had realized. Clearly I misunderstood what you were saying. As for my view, that's just too much to get into. (It's not simple, and it's taken me thousands of posts to express! ;-) I was thinking that maybe I should try to outline its main points in reply, but just a minute of thinking about what to say makes it clear to me that I'd best not try, because much too much would be left out, and it just would be absurdly inadequate. Anyway, my views are always "works in progress" that I entertain tentatively and are nothing more than mere perspectives-of-the-moment. Much more than being concerned with view, I'm concerned with pacifying and clarifying the mind, and constantly attending to experience with the aim of replacing "perspective and belief" by "knowing and certainty." ----------------------------------------------- Thanks, Robert ========================= With metta, Howard #93986 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > > Agreed that understanding needs the right conditions. What are > those > > conditions, as set out by the Buddha in the suttas? Thanks for the sutta quotes you've provided. However, none of your passages addresses the specific question of the conditions necessary for the development of understanding. There is, however, a sutta that does address that question. It is SN 55:5: "What is a factor for stream-entry? "Association with superior persons is a factor for stream-entry. Hearing the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Careful attention is a factor for stream-entry. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry..." "What is the stream? "This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. "What is a stream-enterer? "One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: this venerable one of such a name and clan." Later in SN 55 the same 4 factors (Association with superior persons, etc) are given as things that when developed and cultivated lead to: - the obtaining of wisdom [SN 55:59] - the growth of wisdom [SN 55:60] - the expansion of wisdom [SN 55:61] - the realization of the fruit of stream-entry [SN 55:55] - the realization of the fruit of once-returning [SN 55:56] - the realization of the fruit of non-returning [SN 55:57] - the realization of the fruit of arahantship [SN 55:58] > In the Upanisa sutta it says that Samadhi is proximate condition to > seeing things as they are! > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html Yes, but as the commentary explains, this is in the context of insight with jhana as basis (see note 69 to the CDB version of the sutta). Also, we need to understand the nature of the particular relationship (upanisaa, "proximate cause") being described in the sutta. As you will have noticed, samadhi is just one of a number of links which include ignorance, sankhara, vinnana, nama-rupa, tanha (craving) and dukkha. These are not necessary conditions in the sense we're discussing, since several of these factors are common to everyone. (Actually, the sutta is dealing with dependent origination.) > The Blessed One said: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated > monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he > discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & > disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... > perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of  consciousness." - SN22.5 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html Here the Buddha is saying that monks who are concentrated are able to make progress in the development of insight. This of course is so. However, the sutta is not making a causal connection between jhana and the arising of insight. Also, "concentration" (samadhi) is not a synonym for "jhana". Each reference must be considered in its context. > Thus, verily, monks, concentration is the way, non-concentration the > no-whither way. > Samadhi Maggo, asamadhi kummaggo AN6.64 Yes, but the concentration that is a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path is the momentary concentration that accompanies the path consciousness. That concentration is always of the intensity of jhana, regardless of whether mundane jhana has been developed prior to enlightenment. Jon #93987 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 12/28/2008 11:51:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. I wanted to return to this post to speak of one more item in your interesting rundown: the idea that cittas shouldn't have to "touch" in a physicalistic way in order to influence each other, or even exist at the same time in order for one to participate in creating an accumulation of conditions that will by its own weight cause an inevitable [?] effect resulting in a change in the succeeding citta [or whatever object one might want to apply it to] without them having direct contact. You suggest this may have resonance with the "quantum" view of reality, as opposed to a more linear and mechanistic view, and that this would be more in keeping with the Buddha's idea of accumulations leading to changes of specific kinds - if I am reading you correctly. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Two points: 1) I'm not at all sure that I accept the notion of "accumulations." As I see it, our intentional actions (kamma) that occur at any time serve as conditions *right then and there*, amounting to promissory notes that eventually "get paid" after all the other requisite supportive conditions for fruition (vipaka) have occurred. I do not presume anything being passed along - sometimes the effects are immediate, but often far removed in time, and 2) The only similarity between that and quantum theory, of which I am largely seriously ignorant, is exactly the matter of action at a distance. In quantum theory, as I understand it, an event at one place in the universe can simultaneously relate to something occurring many light years away without physical connection. That is similar to my (temporal) perspective on conditionality. ------------------------------------------------ I found this very intriguing and hope you can say more about it, as it might be worthy of a more detailed discussion. The example that came to my mind as an acting teacher is something that I call "human activities" in my line of work. I point out to students that while physical activities to objects almost always involve working on them in a direct physicalistic way, ie, you have to touch them, do something to them in physical space; that humans act upon each other through space and don't need to touch physically to have a concrete and definite effect on the other person. So I can wave to you and say hello, and that can cause pleasantness to arise in you and cause you to smile back, even if we are twenty feet apart. I find this in itself to always be a very intriguing subject, but in this context I find it an interesting example as to how "waves" or "causes" or "forces" may be put into play that may move across space and effect another sort of wave or form or object without being in proximity or direct contact. It can even happen that I might wave to you and keep walking and after I turn the corner the greeting might hit you and cause you to smile after I am gone. Although this set of reactions is still somewhat linear in nature and doesn't point to the further complexity in mutual causes and arisings that may be in play, it is at least intriguing for the kind of point you made with regard to direct contact. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do see the similarity, but I suspect that at the level you are addressing, there may be a series of direct "touchings" involved, some physical and some mental. --------------------------------------------------- Robert =========================== With metta, Howard #93988 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:41 am Subject: Re: Sangiitisutta Corner DN 33 1.9, padesa jonoabb Hi Connie Thanks for remembering my interest in "padesa" ;-)) > a bit of refreshing: > - Expositor, p.38 [(SN v 12) Padesavihaarasutta]: There are *ten positions*: of the aggregates, the field of sense, the elements, the Truths, the controlling powers, the causal signs, applications of mindfulness, jhaana, mind and states. Of these the Teacher at the foot of the great Wisdom Tree intuited the five aggregates fully; ... > *dasa padesa* > N: Padesa: range, location. Interestingly, it seems there is another meaning of "padesa", namely, "part". The BB translation of the passage quoted in Expositor from S v 12 (see SN 45:11 at p. 1531 of CDB) talks about "dwelling in part of the abode in which I dwelt just after I became fully enlightened." A footnote (n.19 at p. 1894) mentions the terms "nippadesa" (in full) and "padesena" (partly). > - DPPN extract: > 1. Padesa Sutta A sekha is one who has only partially cultivated the four satipatthaanas. S.v.174f. Here, padesa seems to have the meaning of "partially" (for BB's translation see SN 47:26 at CDB p. 1652). > ok. > I just wanted to add a bit from #59236 where Sarah quotes the commentary to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (PTS): << Wandering in the domain: practising even partial insight meditation (padesa = vipassanaa). >> Thanks for this reference. Is this yet another meaning, I wonder. Haven't managed to track down the source yet, but will let you know when I do ;-)). Jon #93989 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] AS time upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/29/2008 1:17:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Howard, H: IMO, no description can capture reality, but, in fact, always falsifies. c: falsifies, i guess, in that a moment once captured is likewise gone while the presentation would have it seem stable. the old freeze frame thing again... Bergson? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, mentally stopping what doesn't stop. (Trying to catch a speeding bullet or grab a falling knife. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- But i like the abstract intersecting light beams pictorial too; might want to take another look sometime at ch.iv part 15 - Gradations of Intensity among Parallel Factors. Thought you might like this too: <<... experience infinite rapturous joy in reflecting. As though grouping the multitude of stars in the sky (into constellations), the Teacher taught things mental and material, dividing them into various parts and portions - things subtle and abstruse such as the unique content of aggregates, sense-organs, elements, controlling faculties, powers, factors of wisdom, kamma and its result; and the distinction between mind and matter. >> asl 11 ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Pretty prose, though I'm not certain of the meaning. Does this pertain to detection of patterns? -------------------------------------------------- Sensible 'presentations' in 'real-time' occur at the sense doors while what's reflected back thru the avenue of the mind is 'represented', too. Still thinking about the "two truths" thing. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not a simple matter! ------------------------------------------------- peace, connie ======================== With metta, Howard #93990 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sprlrt Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > Op 28-dec-2008, om 11:04 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > I don't understand why not selecting a particular colour from those > > that sanna remembers is ok, while not selecting a particular shape > > from those that sanna remembers isn't. > -------- > N: I do not quite get what you ask here about selecting, but I shall > try to add a few more points on seeing and paying attention to shape > and form. We've a terminology issue here, I think you are using shape (and form) as a translation of nimitta (and anubyanjana), the objects that cittas experience in mind door processes, following a sense door one in this case, which is another topic and which would apply only to the rupa that is visible object and not to nimitta of the other rupas, flavour for instance, which has no shape and form, though it has its nimitta and anubyanjana; nor to the other khandhas, vedana, for instance, which has no shape and form while it does have its nimitta and anubyanjana etc. > Seeing just sees anything that impinges on the eyesense; we can call > it colour or visible object. > In Pali also the word va.n.na is used, appearance. Doesn't appearence imply shape as well as color? Alberto #93991 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how to view the self upasaka_howard Hi, Alberto (and Nina) - In a message dated 12/29/2008 8:00:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sprlrt@... writes: Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > Op 28-dec-2008, om 11:04 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > I don't understand why not selecting a particular colour from those > > that sanna remembers is ok, while not selecting a particular shape > > from those that sanna remembers isn't. > -------- > N: I do not quite get what you ask here about selecting, but I shall > try to add a few more points on seeing and paying attention to shape > and form. We've a terminology issue here, I think you are using shape (and form) as a translation of nimitta (and anubyanjana), the objects that cittas experience in mind door processes, following a sense door one in this case, which is another topic and which would apply only to the rupa that is visible object and not to nimitta of the other rupas, flavour for instance, which has no shape and form, though it has its nimitta and anubyanjana; nor to the other khandhas, vedana, for instance, which has no shape and form while it does have its nimitta and anubyanjana etc. > Seeing just sees anything that impinges on the eyesense; we can call > it colour or visible object. > In Pali also the word va.n.na is used, appearance. Doesn't appearence imply shape as well as color? Alberto ============================== As I view the matter, when we see a sight (also called "visible object"), it is an entire palette of color. The colors are all there, and form a variety of shapes, but the inventory of colors and the shape-patterns they form are not part of the sight, per se. Further processing, mind-door processing, is required to cognize these. With metta, Howard #93992 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:57 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "5. What is the reason why it should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and the others? To put an antipathetic person in a dear one's place is fatiguing. To put a very dearly loved friend in a neutral person's place is fatiguing; and if the slightest mischance befalls the friend, he feels like weeping. To put a neutral person in a respected one's or a dear one's place is fatiguing. Anger springs up in him if he recollects a hostile person. That is why it should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and the rest." The Path of Purity. "Why should it not be developed first towards beings one does not hold dear, and so on? By holding an unloved person dear one gets tired; by being indifferent to a very dear friend, one gets tired; for should the dear friend experience the slightest pain, one feels disposed to weep. By showing respect and love towards a neutral person, one gets tired. Anger arises in him who thinks of his enemy. Therefore love should not be developed first towards the unloved ones and so on." Ki.mkaara.naa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa? Appiya.m hi piya.t.thaane .thapento kilamati. Atippiyasahaayaka.m majjhatta.t.thaane .thapento kilamati, appamattakepi cassa dukkhe uppanne aarodanaakaarappatto viya hoti. Majjhatta.m garu.t.thaane ca piya.t.thaane ca .thapento kilamati. Verimanussarato kodho uppajjati, tasmaa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa. Sincerely, Scott. #93993 From: Philip Miller Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member pem218 Thank you, Connie. I looked at my physical volume more closely, and lo! It is not Oxford University Press, but a special printing for the History Club, and it lacks the last 100 pages of the OUP edition! Grrr! Well, I know those last 100 pages are more detailed notes on the commentary text, which I have quite a ways to go until I am ready for them. I do not feel "cheated" however. Caveat emptor, and all that. But already I see how useful the commentary is, even without the notes. And I agree with you about the opening verses - They certainly gave me much to puzzle over when compared with other translations. Phil M --- On Mon, 12/29/08, connie wrote: < preceded by perception are mental states for them is perception supreme, from perception they have sprung > etc. I'm used to reading "mind is the forerunner". <....> #93994 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:30 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Scott and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Continuing: > > The Path of Purification. > > "5. What is the reason why it should not be developed at first towards > an antipathetic person and the others? To put an antipathetic person > in a dear one's place is fatiguing. To put a very dearly loved friend > in a neutral person's place is fatiguing; and if the slightest > mischance befalls the friend, he feels like weeping. To put a neutral > person in a respected one's or a dear one's place is fatiguing. Anger > springs up in him if he recollects a hostile person. That is why it > should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and > the rest." James: I don't know if this would really happen or not. It could be that it would happen- would depend on the individual practitioner and his or her state of mental purity. However, the practice of metta meditation isn't supposed to be directed toward any one individual, so all of this is moot. As the Buddha taught: Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever beings there may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short, subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart. Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here & now. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html Metta meditation is supposed to be developed toward all beings, at the same time, not developed by thinking of people that we personally know. When metta has been sufficiently developed toward all beings, then the mind will be purified of ill will. When that has been accomplished, metta will naturally extend to enemies, friends, strangers, etc. on an individual basis when they are encountered or thought about. Metta, James #93995 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:51 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Dear Jon and all, >"jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > > Agreed that understanding needs the right conditions. What are > > those > > > conditions, as set out by the Buddha in the suttas? > > Thanks for the sutta quotes you've provided. However, none of your > passages addresses the specific question of the conditions >necessary for the development of understanding. They do. One shouldn't twist them around and avoid seeing what one doesn't want to. > > There is, however, a sutta that does address that question. It is SN > 55:5: > > "What is a factor for stream-entry? > "Association with superior persons is a factor for stream-entry. > Hearing the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Careful > attention is a factor for stream-entry. Practice in accordance >with > the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry..." Please explain: Careful attention & PRACTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DHAMMA! > "What is the stream? > "This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right > intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right > effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. > "What is a stream-enterer? > "One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: > this venerable one of such a name and clan." Exactly: A stream enterer posseses samma-samadhi which is defined as 4 Jhanas. > > Later in SN 55 the same 4 factors (Association with superior persons, > etc) are given as things that when developed and cultivated lead to: > - the obtaining of wisdom [SN 55:59] > - the growth of wisdom [SN 55:60] > - the expansion of wisdom [SN 55:61] > - the realization of the fruit of stream-entry [SN 55:55] > - the realization of the fruit of once-returning [SN 55:56] > - the realization of the fruit of non-returning [SN 55:57] > - the realization of the fruit of arahantship [SN 55:58] But it isn't just "hanging around" that leads to the above. The point in being near superior people is to becoming motivated, learn and PRACTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DHAMMA! > Here the Buddha is saying that monks who are concentrated are able to > make progress in the development of insight. This of course is so. > However, the sutta is not making a causal connection between jhana > and the arising of insight. Concentration is defined as 4 Jhanas. > > Also, "concentration" (samadhi) is not a synonym for "jhana". Each > reference must be considered in its context. It is. Just check the definition of samma-samadhi of the N8P. > > Thus, verily, monks, concentration is the way, non-concentration the > > no-whither way. > > Samadhi Maggo, asamadhi kummaggo AN6.64 > > Yes, but the concentration that is a factor of the Noble Eightfold > Path is the momentary concentration that accompanies the path > consciousness. Sutta quotes please? What about all the times when the Buddha (and others) could remain up to 7 days motionless, in one posture and in concentration? With metta, #93996 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:01 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear James, Regarding: J: "...Taken all together, these directions make no sense at all to me. I have no idea when the period of 'at first' is supposed to begin or be ended. The list of those excluded from receiving metta 'at first' excludes everyone except oneself. Then, extending metta toward 'oneself' becomes a very strange exercise is forced schizophrenia (what self is sending and what self is receiving?)..." Scott: I believe the context of these instructions to be in relation to the development of concentration, and in particular, the cultivation of jhaana. I think that the ease with which the development of jhaana is to be effected is much underestimated by most jhaana devotees. In this case, and as with the kasinas, it is to be remembered that the 'person' as 'meditation subject' is a concept and the concern then becomes the impediments to the development of concentration to access and absorption - akusala which arises. A misunderstanding of the exact nature of 'self' or 'person' will naturally lead to misunderstandings in relation to 'self' or 'person' as 'meditation subject.' In this case, I think, it is mettaa itself that must be present in order for mettaa to be developed. And I'd suggest that sati-sampa~n~naa is the final arbitrator in this regard - knowing when mettaa is mettaa and not some akusala state, which would be more likely to be the case. What this highlights to me is that the virtue of patience is required in the cultivation of mettaa through the development of concentration in this manner. I don't intend to pursue jhaana. More importantly for me, I understand that mettaa needs to be known, and, in order for mettaa to be developed, it must needs be mettaa - and not some other dhamma which one mistakes for it - that arises in relation to the 'meditation subject.' I consider this section in order to contemplate the nature of patience and the nature of mettaa, not to learn to develop jhaana. To me, the cultivation of patience and mettaa is not an easy process. I cannot simply think of developing mettaa in order to do so. Mettaa is not to be willed into existence. Considering patience in regards to mettaa has a sobering effect on me which seems to allow more peace in relation to the concepts which share my life, including myself. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #93997 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:04 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear James, Sorry: Me: "...And I'd suggest that sati-sampa~n~naa is the final arbitrator in this regard -" Scott: That should be 'sati-sampaja~n~naa.' Sincerely, Scott. #93998 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/29/2008 2:33:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Whoever came up with these instructions, I'm sure that they had good intentions. They thought that this systematic development of metta would be somehow better or more beneficial for people than just starting out with sending metta to all beings everywhere. I, however, don't agree with that and believe it would be better and more beneficial to follow the Buddha's original instructions. I posted my disagreement out of metta and compassion for the members of this group. I think that they will find it more beneficial to practice the Buddha's original teaching. ============================= In looking over the article _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html_ (http://ww w.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html) , it does seem to me that the approach to metta meditation that, incidentally, has been widely adopted, does differ from what is said in the suttas, with the suttas getting no more specific than distinguishing classes of people, geographical directions, etc, and this without any particular order. Of course, perhaps there is a sutta somewhere that is different, and that gives an ordered list of types of people one knows to whom to direct thoughts of metta - I just haven't seen one. With metta, Howard #93999 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:11 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, Abhidhamma Studies, cont'd: The second line of the stanza says: "And by the mind [he] described the time." This means that the