#98200 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 10:19 am Subject: Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sprlrt Hi Sarah, > I'm not quite sure what you mean aboe when you refer to "apart from nibbana, also includes other dhammas accompanied by plesaurable feeling". Nibbana and other desirable objects cannot be said to be "accompanied by pleasurable feeling" surely? Can there be an arammana without a vedana feeling it? In the case of an arammana adhipati, vedana experiencing it can also be upekkha as well Alberto > Also, although the cittas experiencing such objects will nearly always be with pleasant feeling, this isn't always so. For example, nibbana is usually experienced with pleasant feeling, but not always (such as when the highest jhanas are the basis). #98201 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 11:15 am Subject: Re: characteristic of thinking szmicio dear Sarah, Does samvara siila is the same as adhisiila? I would appreciate if you say more on this. > "As a person develops pa~n~naa, he acquires more understanding of the > excellent qualities of the Buddha and of the Dhamma he taught in all > details. One can appreciate the teachings from the beginning level, > the level of restraint, or "guarding", of the senses (samvara siila) > with regard to the Paa.timokkha, the Disciplinary code for the monks. > This is the conduct through body and speech befitting the "samana", > the person who is a monk, who leads a peaceful life. We read in the > "Visuddhimagga" (I, 50) about the restraint of the monk with regard > to seeing: > > What is proper resort as guarding? Here "A bhikkhu, having entered > inside a house, having gone into a street, goes with downcast eyes, > seeing the length of a plough yoke, restrained, not looking at an > elephant, not looking at a horse, a carriage, a pedestrian, a woman, > a man, not looking up, not looking down, not staring this way and > that." This is called proper resort as guarding. L: Yes but that's not samvara siila. That's ignorance. Even when we try to restraint by not looking for this or that, it's not samvara siila. How can there be samvara siila if there is no understanding of nama and ruupa?? samvara siila is that kind of restraint which is so nautural, no one can induce it. But reading about discipline or studing vinyana can be such a good condition for samvara siila to arise. If we are not reminded about nama and ruupa more and more we can start to think that samvara siila is when we try to cut our sense experiences, but that is not so. those are diffrent concepts that we have about samvara. We belive that it is possible to refrain from not doing evil deeds that is proper effort. But this is another idea. Reading about discipline and seeing our friends which restraint from doing bad deeds is such a good reminder to have more siila in our life. My best wishes Lukas #98202 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard, A few details are needed. Op 31-mei-2009, om 23:40 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The hindrances are suppressed as jhanas are entered, and the > hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas. The hindrances > and, more > generally the defilements, are uprooted by wisdom. ------- N: How uprooted? By thoroughly understanding them as non-self, as only conditioned dhammas. Hindrances should also be thoroughly understood as they arise, see the fourth Application of Mindfulness, Mindfulness of Dhammas. The hindrances are expressively mentioned. At the moment of jhaana the hindrances do not arise, but when the meditator emerges from jhaana he should know jhaanacitta as a dhamma and all akusala that arises as a dhamma. The only way. All stages of insight have to be reached after he emerges from jhaana, he cannot forego these. Nina. #98203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 12:46 pm Subject: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. nilovg Dear Lukas, Lodewijk has the same complaints as you used to have. The study of Dhamma makes him depressed. The goal seems too far away, forget about it, he said. I said that he should be grateful for being able to hear Dhamma and that is why I read to him early morning when he wakes up and also after dinner in the evening. He says that he cannot retain anything, and it seems that he goes further and further away, as if he is drowning. I listened to the recording of a Thai session where someone had similar complaints. Kh Sujin asked him whether he liked having aversion. He said: no. Kh Sujin explained that this shows that we take aversion and depression for self. We dislike having ignorance, and that shows that we take ignorance for self. When we worry, or when we are pleased about kusala we performed, we take these things for self. When we understand that everything is dhamma our life will be more at ease, it will be lighter. We believe that we are aware, but it is the task of sati. That person complained about his lack of progress. Kh Sujin said that understanding accumulates and progress is so slow that we cannot notice it. We cannot become a sotaapanna immediately. I said to Lodewijk that at each short moment of understanding, understanding is being accumulated. It is never lost. This is the way it grows. Lukas, anything you can add will be helpful for Lodewijk. Nina. #98204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 1:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) nilovg Dear Han, I liked Sarah's answer and will not add much. You need not comment further. Just this: we all feel helpless, at times, because the three characteristics of conditioned dhammas have not been directly understood by insight. However, feeling helpless means we take our ignorance for self as I just said to Lukas. We can begin to understand a little more what naama is and what ruupa is, as you also see it. Rock consists of elements that are impermanent but no reason for despair if we do not realize this. Let us begin with what can be experienced now: through touch just hardness, and this is only a dhamma. This is enough for the moment. The body is not any better than the rock, just impermanent elements. This is the point that the Buddha brought to our attention. Evenso the parts of the body: what beauty is in a nail or a hair. He pointed to detachment from what we take for our important body. Nina. Op 31-mei-2009, om 17:23 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > What I want to know is: as external earth element, do the rocks and > mountains arise and fall away all the time, like the internal earth > element? If yes, it is difficult for me to appreciate. If no, my > question is null and void. #98205 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, ============= > You say anatta *clearly means* what you think it means and bring up rules of language to support your point. But shouldn't you consider more that this is a statement reflecting an understanding of / result of enlightenment to, the way things are which no one would have any clue about without the Buddha teaching it? Rob: Of course not. I'm not going to purposely stupefy myself for no reason. S: And it is not what I'm encouraging. Your perception is that no explanation is being offered but instead you are being asked to just believe. From where I stand however, explanations have been given, only not to your satisfaction, which includes considering where you are possibly coming from in all this. And this kind of consideration would have to be with panna. ============ Rob: The word says 'not self,' that's what it says. If someone smarter than me explains that it means something else and can explain it to me I'll consider their higher knowledge. S: There are many explanations out there about Anatta, some right, some wrong. Those that are wrong will have their happy and satisfied supporters. Those that are right will have many who completely disagree and also those who agree but only after having interpreted what is said with their wrong view. Only Right View will discriminate rightly which is which. So you can see that it is not so much to do with the explanation offered, but whether it is read with right or wrong understanding. ============= Rob: But I'm not going to substitute a clear specific with a vague generality, like "don't you realize you don't know what it means?" Where is the evidence that my understanding is wrong? Can you give me a better definition? S: I've given you explanations direct and indirect, so if I state that you are wrong, it is about yours vs. my interpretation. But if there is ignorance and wrong view, we can both know it for ourselves. You seek a satisfactory explanation / definition as evidence of correct understanding, but I don't think that this is how it works. Surely you can understand for example that there are many who will see no value in, let alone be satisfied with, either of our explanations, don't you? Would this prove that we are both wrong? ============ Rob: If all you can say is "You have no idea and neither do I" then we can both stop reading altogether and just look at our reflections and talk baby talk. S: Of course I'm expressing my `understanding'. But pariyatti understanding informed by little or no patipatti is very weak. So there must be differences in the ability to explain such things wouldn't you say, especially since it also requires having some understanding of where the other person is coming from? ========= Rob: I will not replace my limited knowledge until I get something better to substitute for it. Please, feel free to contribute something specific and I will duly consider it. S: There is of course no `one' to decide what to give up or not. However the perception of having `limited knowledge', what if this is in fact conditioned by attachment and wrong view, would this not make it hard to accept the correct view in spite of what seems like a willingness to do so? I think we all think that we are right and most of the time look only to receive confirmation. ;-) ============== > Indeed the general language was based on perceptions of unrealities and reflection of delusion. Were the Dhamma just another view, one of the 60 odd kinds of wrong view, then it would not matter at all. But the Dhamma stands on a totally different ground, indeed the only place from which any and all those wrong views would clearly be seen for what they are. Rob : Well then we should be able to read it and get some correction for our ignorance. But what I see the Buddha say supports my view. You are coming from a different philosophy, informed by all sorts of commentaries that say anatta means something other than what the Buddha said. Until someone gives me a decent explanation of why that is so, I'll stick with the Buddha. S: The commentators stuck with the Buddha! So it never was nor is a matter of the commentaries vs. the Suttas, but those particular commentators vs. modern ones, in this case, Robert E. ;-) Those of us who have come to agree with the ancient commentators, have had experience with interpretations that could be said to be similar to those of yours and other modern Buddhists'. However, we've come away having trust in the commentators precisely because reading their interpretation / explanations has allowed for a reading of the original teachings which make more sense and encouraging of greater confidence. So if I respect the commentators, wouldn't this mean that I respect the Buddha even more? ============== > However this is about the development of Right View which is not a matter simply of holding a set of ideas meant to counter other ideas. It involves the study of present moment realities resulting in wisdom being developed to the point of having direct insight into the way things are. Rob: Yes, well I will try to develop pariyatti based on what the Boss says and not on idle speculation in the meantime. This idea that we must adopt a view contrary to the Buddha's words because we are too dumb to see the real secret hidden truth and probably won't for many lifetimes is really really pernicious. S: How did you arrive at such a conclusion regarding my attitudes towards the Buddha and his direct words? The Dhamma is subtle and hard to understand, surely you wouldn't dispute this? Nothing is secret, but look, there is `seeing' right now, how much do we understand this? And about Anatta, haven't I suggested that there can be a beginning understanding of this even now? ============= Rob : We should be working on our understanding now, using the resources we have, not making up a whole different system based on the presumption of ignorance. S: Any idea about ignorance and wrong view at work can only be had as a result of hearing the Dhamma and it is only through study and wise consideration that this is seen better and better. So no, accepting that one is ignorant does not necessarily lead to making up things about the Dhamma, rather coming to appreciate the fact of ignorance as a result of having heard the Dhamma; this can condition more confidence and sense of urgency. ========== > This means that if upon reading the Dhamma, one fails to relate whatever that has been read to present moment experiences, chances are that one's understanding of what has been read is not quite right. The first step is Pariyatti and pariyatti must as I said, relate to the present moment. Rob: Fine, relate it to the present moment. So far all I have to work with are general principles that somehow what I say is wrong. Why is it wrong? What is right? Please lend me a bit of your pariyatti and explain it to me in a way that even a simple layperson can understand so that my pariyatti can develop. S: Pariyatti *is* understanding. So in fact it is the starting point. As I said, it is not so much in the explanation, but having pariyatti understanding arise to understand the explanation. And this would be only having related what is said to the preset moment experience. Take `seeing' now. It arises again and again uncontrollably. Thinking about it now, is conditioned by many factors including seeing and reading about it here. This is an understanding not of anicca nor is it of a dukkha, but pertaining to a reality, it is what I've come to associate with `anatta'. Remember the Buddha associated `self' with control, therefore is it wrong to make the same kind of association with `no self' when perceiving `no control'? Would this perception of no control need to be dependent on `memory of what it feels like to control'? I don't think so, what can come across is that it is in the nature of the dhamma itself. ============ Rob: When I look at the present moment I see it is very fleeting, has no substantiality or self and that clinging to it causes suffering. That's the Buddha's teaching as well. If you say 'well you are just talking you don't know that directly,' then I will say, "at least it is correct pariyatti, so I am fine." S: No, I would not appeal to the need for `direct experience', but to pariyatti ;-). At this point I don't have the understanding deep enough to come to a conclusion, the kind that you have made above. But I suspect that when and if I do, my impression would not be the same as yours. ;-) =========== > And no one has ever suggested that the `not' in `not self' is of no import. I have even said that its choice must have been the ideal, considering that `self view' is inevitable if there is no Dhamma. However the Buddha was not just another teacher and the Teachings are not just another set of ideas meant to replace or counter other prevailing ideas. It is the *only* teaching which points to the way things actually are and this includes the Fourth Noble Truth, namely the Path. RoB: This is all general; it's all fine, but what does it have to do with my simple assertion that an-atta means no-self? S: I'm saying that if `no-self' meant what you say it means it is not something that needed to be particularly stressed, especially given the audience at the time. After all, the Buddha could simply have stated to the effect that `in Truth and reality there are only namas and rupas', this should be enough for some to conclude that there is no `self' or `atman'. The fact that he did stress `Anatta' I would think, is because it is one very important aspect of these namas and rupas and needed to be appreciated from the very outset. ============== > It would not be in accordance with the aim were his teachings to condition thinking without any level of application. > > ==================== > > Rob Ep: I do not pretend to see realities directly, although I may have had a half-glimpse or two, but I disagree that my view on this does not serve the attempt to see realities directly and to observe anatta in the present moment. > > Sukin: The suggestion that Anatta means simply that there is no `self' and this is understood as a result of seeing nama and rupa for what they are makes it just `theory', of little or no practical consequence in the meantime. Rob: Then what are we talking about? Please tell me. S: What arises *now* can be understood at the level of pariyatti. If it is Anatta that we are talking about, this too can be understood at this very moment. ============== > Sukin: The purpose of the Dhamma is to draw the attention to the present moment reality and this begins with pariyatti. Pariyatti understanding at a beginning level would have it that whatever this is, it is just a dhamma arisen by conditions and already fallen away. So while one insists on having a satisfying definition and not knowing that such thinking is conditioned, one actually accumulates more ignorance. Rob: I disagree. I think that obscuring the teachings of the Buddha is a bad idea, and that invoking the present moment doesn't make it any more correct. S: The importance of understanding the present moment comes from the understanding of there being at any moment, only namas and rupas arising and falling away. It comes from the understanding of the reality/concept distinction, the danger of ignorance and the value of developing understanding of present moment realities. Other religions and beliefs talk about the importance of knowing the present, but theirs for want of pariyatti, is from `self view' and the object is concept. Pariyatti can't be wrong, and again this is what I stress here. The problem it seems to me is that you do not understand what pariyatti is! ========= > Sukin: Yes it is very important to be clear as possible what is read, and when expressing to others, there is also the factor of responsibility. But we have to consider the purpose as well. If I fail to see that the aim is to understand the present moment and end up instead being involved in `thinking', I'll then also encourage the same in others. If on the other hand I'm constantly being drawn to study the present moment, this is what I will encourage in others as well. Studying the present moment is how you and I would both come to know *exactly* what Anatta is wouldn't we? Rob: Perhaps so. In the meantime, we are talking about questions of Dhamma, and we may as well either clarify them or not say anything at all. It's all about the present moment, but when we are talking we should know what we are saying as well. S: With increase in understanding one is drawn more and more to the present moment, not to identify and label, but to study characteristics of dhammas. In the end it is not important what `concepts' have been accumulated. You insist that I should be able to explain at least to myself my understandings. The kinds of explanations I've given to you are what I find helpful in leading me to consider the present moment. This to me is far more useful than any detailed explanation about how things work, which of course I too have accumulations for. ;-) ============ > > Rob Ep: Buddha defined anatta in terms of the beliefs of the day, and in terms of the *inherent* belief in a self that is part of our legacy as a human species, as sentient beings. As sentient beings we tend to belief in self without any proof because all things that happen in our conventional perception seem to lead back to the center of consciousness, and we presume there is someone in there and that phenomena circulate around this self. > > Sukin: You've got a story there which you use to support your position. Rob: No it's just an adjunct. My story is based on the Buddha's story. I follow what he said and I believe it. Do you? S: There is also this that the Buddha for a moment thought not to teach the Dhamma seeing that it goes so much against the uninstructed worldling's way of thinking. As I said before, yours is a conclusion which almost anyone can make based on philosophical considerations without having to relate what is heard to the reality of the present moment, which is what a correct understanding of the Dhamma should lead to. ============= > But know also that `self view' arises even at sense door experience taking such as `visible object' for self. Yes you could say that this is `inherent' in the sense that it is inevitable in the absence of the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths. But how would anyone have known `self view' at the moment of it taking visible object as object were the teaching about Anatta not applicable at this level? In other words, the problem is not a well formed belief in `self', but that these beliefs originate from wrong perception at the paramattha level. Rob: That is possible but since Buddha bothered to preach I would like to believe what he said. Then I can have it handy as the moment arises. S: He preached yes, and those who could see the Truth at the level, reached enlightenment there and then. They insighted into the true *characteristics* of dhammas and didn't need to be convinced about the non-existence of `atman'. =============== > Besides what do you think about the teachings on the three kinds of sanna, namely anicca sanna, dukkha sanna and anatta sanna and their opposites? Where would anatta sanna apply in the suggestion that anatta means simply the `absence of self'? Rob: The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. S: If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what you mean by `thingies' and how what I've stated about anatta makes this into one? ============ Rob: The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion. S: But samsara is real, being just this recurrence of conditioned existence, namely the continued arising of nama and rupa. Are you saying that I'm supposed to come to understand that all this is unreal? Also I'd like to know what you mean by `insubstantiality' here. ============= > Also there is this that at the moment of enlightenment, depending on accumulations, one person will experience Nibbana via penetrating the characteristic of anicca, another by dukkha and another by anatta? What do you make of this? Rob: I don't know about those specifics or even if they are true. I will have to experience them at some time in the future. However, I can imagine that one person may be more predisposed to observe one characteristic or the other. What is so strange about that? S: Suddenly you're not interested in correct pariyatti anymore? ;-) Yes, the above reflects the fact of `different persons being more predisposed to observe one characteristic or the other'. But my point is that these particular experiences involve vipassana panna taking on the *characteristic* be it anicca, dukkha or anatta of any paramattha dhamma, just for a moment, before lokuttara citta then arising to experience Nibbana. Indeed, that one of these three is gateway through which enlightenment is attained puts them on the same plain. It would not therefore be the case that anatta is a mere conclusion drawn from understanding the other two characteristics, would it? ============ > Sukin: Atman does not exist, period. This can be seen as being purely the product of `thinking' even now. So obviously the teaching on anatta must require an understanding much deeper than this. If I am not mistaken, I think you apply anatta to concepts of people and things as well, am I right? If so, I wonder why would it then require seeing namas and rupas as being all there is that exists? Rob: It is a closer view of the reality, like looking through the microscope and seeing the microscopic particles close up. Of course that is more precise knowledge, but the conventional objects are still causing suffering and are still temporary, even so. S: You are not talking here about the *characteristic* of dukkha, which concepts don't have but only conditioned paramattha dhammas do. And the insight into the nature of paramattha dhammas is not akin to looking through the microscope and seeing particles close up. This comparison is in fact quite misleading, since in the case of microscopic particles, there is taking of both the sample as well as those particles observed to be real and lasting. In the development of wisdom on the other hand, rather than involving the perception of some `whole' which is then studied in order to see the parts, it is understanding at that very moment of perceiving, the distinction between concept and reality. For example, a `person' is not presumed to be object of study whereby the different elements are then observed as being its components. Seeing experiences visible object and this is not `of' a person or anything. ============== > > Rob Ep: Anatta is a positive characteristic of all things in the sense that all things when seen in reality are lacking a self and are not part of self, and it takes wisdom to see this. > > Sukin: What do you mean by "characteristic" here?! Are you going to define it as being a concept with no reference to a reality? Rob: No. > > Rob Ep: That does not mean that "anatta" is something other than what it actually is, which is 'not' 'self.' > > Sukin: And this is the "characteristic"? Rob: Yup, that's what the Buddha said, and I believe him. If it is something else could you **please** tell me what it is? No one who thinks this can say a word about it... I wonder why..... S: What would `characteristic' be of, if not a reality? If anatta simply pointed to the `denial of self', how is this not an abstraction? How the `absence of self' is perceived, what is the actual object of consciousness at that moment? If it is about direct perception of realities, why is there then for e.g. not also such perception as `not-concept'? But I'm beginning to blur badly now, I've spent too many hours on this post, so I'll stop here. Besides I have not yet read your other reply which would need to be responded to as well, perhaps in two or three days though. Metta, Sukin Ps: Robert, others may choose not to read my posts, but you have to. I feel that it must be quite difficult for you to read them, not only because I fail to satisfy your demand for an explanation, but on top of that because they are extremely long. I hope it is an opportunity for you to develop patience and please don't mind too much. #98206 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 5:29 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (12) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. Please note that I am using square brackets for quotation marks. If I type quotation mark, it appears in Email message as un-readable characters. -------------------- As regards the element of water (in Paali: aapo dhaatu) or cohesion, the Visuddhimagga (XI, 93) defines it as follows [Note 1] [...The water element has the characteristic of trickling. Its function is to intensify. It is manifested as holding together.] The element of water or cohesion cannot be experienced through the bodysense, only through the mind-door. When we touch what we call water, it is only solidity, temperature or motion which can be experienced through the bodysense, not cohesion. Cohesion has to arise together with whatever kind of materiality arises. It makes the other ruupas it accompanies cohere so that they do not become scattered. The Atthasaaliní (II, Book II, Ch III, 335) explains: [... For the element of cohesion binds together iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, they are called rigid. Similarly in the case of stones, mountains, palm-seeds, elephant-tusks, ox-horns, etc. All such things the element of cohesion binds, and makes rigid; they are rigid because of its binding.] We read in the above quoted sutta that Saariputta explained to the monks about the internal liquid element (element of water): [.... Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an individual or derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine or whatever other thing is liquid, fluid, is internal....] When we shed tears or swallow saliva we can be reminded that what we take for the fluid of [my body] are only elements devoid of self. Saariputta reminded the monks that the external liquid element can become agitated and can bring destruction to villages, towns, districts and regions, or that the water of the oceans may go down and disappear. It is liable to change and it is impermanent. Both the internal and the external liquid element are impermanent and not self. Note 1: See also Dhammasangani #652 and Atthasaalinii II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 332. -------------------- with metta, Han #98207 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 8:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Dear Ken, > Ken: Have you noticed a link on the Edit page (or the Post Message page) that reads: "New! Compose your message with Rich Text Editor (beta)?" Han: My computer knowledge is absolutely useless. I do not even know where to look for the Edit page or the Post Message page. Which one I have to click to get to these pages? Thank you very much. Yours sincerely, Han #98208 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 9:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > > Ken: Have you noticed a link on the Edit page (or the Post Message page) that > reads: "New! Compose your message with Rich Text Editor (beta)?" > > Han: My computer knowledge is absolutely useless. > I do not even know where to look for the Edit page or the Post Message page. > Which one I have to click to get to these pages? > Hi Han, You are not alone. It seems we all have problems with Yahoo, but each of us has a different problem from everyone else. :-) I don't know how you have set up your DSG account. Some members have selected the option of having DSG messages sent directly to their own email accounts. Others have selected the option of logging on to DSG's web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages and reading the messages from there. I have taken the second of those two options. If you have taken the first then my advice might not be of any use to you. So, in my case, I log on to that DSG link (that I have saved or bookmarked as a favourite in my web browser). Then I go to the "Reply" link at the bottom (or in some cases at the top) of the message I want to reply to. Clicking on it causes a new page to be opened up. At the top of that new page is the heading "Post Message" and so I suppose we can call it the Post Message page. It contains a "text box" in which there is a copy of the message I want to reply to, and in which I can type (or paste) my reply. Close to the top of the Post Message page is the link I was telling you about. It reads: "New! Compose your message with Rich-Text Editor (Beta) ." Before doing anything else, I click on that link. The whole page disappears and a new Post Message page eventually takes its place. The new Post Message page is identical to the previous one except that text in the text-box has a noticeably different appearance. It must be what they call "Rich Text" (or "Beta"). If you follow this method, the reply that you type or paste into the text-box will be in this different form, and maybe (with luck), it will let your quotation marks come out properly. I hope so! Please let me know if this advice doesn't apply in your case, or if it simply doesn't work. I am sure there is a solution to your problem, and I would like to help you find it. Ken H #98209 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 10:49 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Re: Physical Phenomena (11) dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Dear Ken, Thank you very much for your kind help. > Ken: You are not alone. It seems we all have problems with Yahoo, but each of us has a different problem from everyone else. :-) I don't know how you have set up your DSG account. Some members have selected the option of having DSG messages sent directly to their own email accounts. Others have selected the option of logging on to DSG's web site http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/dhammastud ygroup/messages and reading the messages from there. I have taken the second of those two options. If you have taken the first then my advice might not be of any use to you. ----- Han: A friend of mine did that for me. He is not here any more. I do not know which option was taken -------------------- > Ken: So, in my case, I log on to that DSG link (that I have saved or bookmarked as a favourite in my web browser). Then I go to the "Reply" link at the bottom (or in some cases at the top) of the message I want to reply to. Clicking on it causes a new page to be opened up. At the top of that new page is the heading "Post Message" and so I suppose we can call it the Post Message page. It contains a "text box" in which there is a copy of the message I want to reply to, and in which I can type (or paste) my reply. Close to the top of the Post Message page is the link I was telling you about. It reads: "New! Compose your message with Rich-Text Editor (Beta) ." ----- Han: I click on Reply at the bottom of your current message to me. Then, I saw at the top, [New! Compose your message with Rich-Text Editor (Beta)]. -------------------- > Ken: Before doing anything else, I click on that link. The whole page disappears and a new Post Message page eventually takes its place. The new Post Message page is identical to the previous one except that text in the text-box has a noticeably different appearance. It must be what they call "Rich Text" (or "Beta"). If you follow this method, the reply that you type or paste into the text-box will be in this different form, and maybe (with luck), it will let your quotation marks come out properly. I hope so! Please let me know if this advice doesn't apply in your case, or if it simply doesn't work. I am sure there is a solution to your problem, and I would like to help you find it. ----- Han: I clicked on Rich-Text Editor (Beta) and a new page appears. I will type this message to you as a text case, and see what happens. Test passage: The Buddha said "sabbe sa"nkhaaraa aniccaa". I pay attention to the Buddha's words – very carefully. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #98210 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 11:06 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Dear Ken, Your instructions are excellent. It works. But I could not trim your message or delete your message, after I have pasted my message. Next time, I will try to delete the message to which I am replying first, and only then I will paste my message. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #98211 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 1:14 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) kenhowardau Hi Han, So pleased to see your quotation marks again! Congratulations! --------- Han: > Test passage: The Buddha said "sabbe sa"nkhaaraa aniccaa". --------- I notice that an extra set has appeared in the middle of the word sankharraa. Let's hope that was a one-off. ----------------- Han: > It works. But I could not trim your message or delete your message, after I have pasted my message. ------------------ I haven't struck that problem yet. One thing I have noticed, however, is that when I press the "enter" (or "return") key to start a new line I get a double space. To go to a new line without a double space I have to press the "control" key at the same time. Ken H #98212 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 2:31 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) kenhowardau Hi Han, Sorry for adding to the confusion. I wrote: ------ > To go to a new > line without a double space I have to press the "control" key at the > same time. ------- That should have been: "I have to press the "shift" key at the same time." Ken H #98213 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 10:45 pm Subject: Origin is Mental: It from Bit! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Some Clues about the Fundamental Mentality creating all Existence: Observer Participation: The world emerges, when it is observed! The world is not 'out there' independent of the mind, but it is indeed synthesized by a mass-collective asking of yes-no questioning by many being’s observation, through an immense number of prior universes passing from big bang to implosion (big crunch)! This creation by creating binary information can be epitomized in the dogma: - It from Bit - !!! John Archibald Wheeler - Quantum Physicist, Princeton. Information is Physical and not Subjective: Any gain in information (which is a measure of order) induces a decrease in entropy (which is a thermodynamic measure of disorder)! The creation and transfer of information happening at any measurement & observation, thus changes the energetic state & thus future development of the observed system! Observation itself - by definition, per se - thus influence, transform & change the observed object, including the entire world... Modified freely after W.H. Zurek. Quantum Physicist, Los Alamos. Appearance by intentional determination of directed attention: We are actually bringing about, what seems to be happening to us! Thomas Mann. Philosopher What Exists is identical with the thought that recognizes it! Parmenides of Elea (515-450 BC) Phenomena appears and are created by the very act of directing attention to them... This advertence which is deliberate, specific and intentional is produced by desire... The 'scene' or 'image' appears only, and exactly when actually observing it! Just Modes of Conceptualization: Time and space are not conditions in which we live, but modes by which we think... Albert Einstein. Time and space are not objective things, but mentally imposed orders of things... Leibniz Just Cause and Effect: Intentional action (karma = Kamma) is decisive information about to do this & not that! This information creation reduces the universal thermodynamic entropy (degree of disorder)... This newly created order limits, restricts & thus affects the future evolution of the universal system! The probability of certain future events happening have thereby been increased, while the probability of other future events have been reduced. Any intention by any being thereby modifies & partitions the potentiality of the universe - seen as a giant network of cause and effect- which then naturally later falls out and manifests as another - now intentionally changed! - actuality... The moral efficacy of kamma = karma = action is therefore not a religious metaphysical postulate, but a simple & ultra-basic inevitable consequence of the mentally derived nature of the universe itself... Morality is thus a natural and inevitable Law on par with gravity: Do good and get pleasure (Sukha)... Do evil and get pain (Dukkha)... The Buddha on the ORIGIN: Intention always comes first, Intention is of all states the primer, By intention are all things initiated, By thought of mind are all phenomena formed! So - if with good intention one thinks, speaks or acts Joy surely follows one like the never-leaving shadow! However!!! - if with evil intention one thinks, speaks or acts Pain certainly follows one like the wheel follows the car! Dhammapada 1 + 2 The Buddha was first on pragmatic Radical Empiricism: Attention is the proximate cause of all phenomena! Samyutta Nikāya V 184 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Causes_of_sati.htm The Participant Observer principle: The universe as a self-excited circuit: Starting from small (thin right line) it gradually grows denser (thick left line) by observers participating in creation, by merely intentionally (mental causation!) observing what is gradually emerging! Illustration by John Archibald Wheeler. Source: Law without Law. http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/pdfs/wheeler_law_without_law.pdf Have a nice creating by observing day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Origin is Mental: It from Bit! #98214 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 3:18 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. My God, do I have to read the whole post? You are trying to wear me down! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > ============= > > You say anatta *clearly means* what you think it means and bring up rules of language to support your point. But shouldn't you consider more that this is a statement reflecting an understanding of / result of enlightenment to, the way things are which no one would have any clue about without the Buddha teaching it? > > Rob: Of course not. I'm not going to purposely stupefy myself for no reason. > > S: And it is not what I'm encouraging. Your perception is that no explanation is being offered but instead you are being asked to just believe. From where I stand however, explanations have been given, only not to your satisfaction, which includes considering where you are possibly coming from in all this. And this kind of consideration would have to be with panna. I can look at my own view and properly demand some evidence at the same time. General statements that 'we just don't know' are not adequate for any kind of discussion. > ============ > Rob: The word says 'not self,' that's what it says. If someone smarter than me explains that it means something else and can explain it to me I'll consider their higher knowledge. > > S: There are many explanations out there about Anatta, some right, some wrong. Those that are wrong will have their happy and satisfied supporters. Those that are right will have many who completely disagree and also those who agree but only after having interpreted what is said with their wrong view. Only Right View will discriminate rightly which is which. So you can see that it is not so much to do with the explanation offered, but whether it is read with right or wrong understanding. Again, this may be true, but is still an evasion. If no one can say anything about what the characteristic of anatta is, then the discussion is nonsensical in nature. We may as well stop talking and wait for panna to strike. Each of us is responsible for developing our own best view of the truth, and then be open to further understanding, not put all knowledge on hold because we cannot defend the official position with any facts. > ============= > Rob: But I'm not going to substitute a clear specific with a vague generality, like "don't you realize you don't know what it means?" Where is the evidence that my understanding is wrong? Can you give me a better definition? > > S: I've given you explanations direct and indirect, so if I state that you are wrong, it is about yours vs. my interpretation. But if there is ignorance and wrong view, we can both know it for ourselves. You seek a satisfactory explanation / definition as evidence of correct understanding, but I don't think that this is how it works. Sure it is. What do you propose instead? More general comments? > Surely you can understand for example that there are many who will see no value in, let alone be satisfied with, either of our explanations, don't you? Would this prove that we are both wrong? No, but I can't have a discussion with someone who won't provide a clear statement of what they believe to be the truth. It's very simple: a/ You say that anatta is a positive characteristic of a dhamma. b/ You cannot say what that is or what that means. c/ You say that you believe it is true because it is a given in the Abhidhamma, but that one needs adequate panna to see directly what that consists of. I say that anatta is the absence of self in all dhammas. I say that the characteristic of anatta is the lack of any self in the dhamma, which in positive terms = the dhamma being exactly what it is with nothing added. To me this makes sense: panna can see directly that there is no being, no control, no 'doer,' just changes caused by conditions. For me, this is no problem. For you, it is not acceptable; BUT you can't offer an alternative, so what is there to say? > ============ > Rob: If all you can say is "You have no idea and neither do I" then we can both stop reading altogether and just look at our reflections and talk baby talk. > > S: Of course I'm expressing my `understanding'. But pariyatti understanding informed by little or no patipatti is very weak. So there must be differences in the ability to explain such things wouldn't you say, especially since it also requires having some understanding of where the other person is coming from? That's what I want to know: where are you coming from? What is your definition of the characteristic of anatta? What do you think it is, rightly or wrongly? > ========= > Rob: I will not replace my limited knowledge until I get something better to substitute for it. Please, feel free to contribute something specific and I will duly consider it. > > S: There is of course no `one' to decide what to give up or not. However the perception of having `limited knowledge', what if this is in fact conditioned by attachment and wrong view, would this not make it hard to accept the correct view in spite of what seems like a willingness to do so? I think we all think that we are right and most of the time look only to receive confirmation. ;-) Who knows? Give me the correct view in ANY form and I will see if I can accept it. Let's give it a try. But don't keep being evasive and expect to me accept general principles and general statements with no definition, no description, nothing to show your case. > ============== > > Indeed the general language was based on perceptions of unrealities and > reflection of delusion. Were the Dhamma just another view, one of the 60 odd kinds of wrong view, then it would not matter at all. But the Dhamma stands on a totally different ground, indeed the only place from which any and all those wrong views would clearly be seen for what they are. > > Rob : Well then we should be able to read it and get some correction for our ignorance. But what I see the Buddha say supports my view. You are coming from a different philosophy, informed by all sorts of commentaries that say anatta means something other than what the Buddha said. Until someone gives me a decent explanation of why that is so, I'll stick with the Buddha. > > S: The commentators stuck with the Buddha! So it never was nor is a matter of the commentaries vs. the Suttas, but those particular commentators vs. modern ones, in this case, Robert E. ;-) No, I am commentating, you are saying nothing. That is not a fair contest. I could say nothing too, and then we would be playing poker for a very long time, with neither of us playing any cards. > Those of us who have come to agree with the ancient commentators, have had experience with interpretations that could be said to be similar to those of yours and other modern Buddhists'. However, we've come away having trust in the commentators precisely because reading their interpretation / explanations has allowed for a reading of the original teachings which make more sense and encouraging of greater confidence. So if I respect the commentators, wouldn't this mean that I respect the Buddha even more? If you have gotten any knowledge from the commentators, say what it is that you have learned about anatta. What is it? How is it described by the commentators? What in general speech does panna see when it looks correctly at the characterstic of anatta? I will consider getting on board when someone tells me something other than general self-referential self-justification. > ============== > > However this is about the development of Right View which is not a matter simply of holding a set of ideas meant to counter other ideas. It involves the study of present moment realities resulting in wisdom being developed to the point of having direct insight into the way things are. > > Rob: Yes, well I will try to develop pariyatti based on what the Boss says and not on idle speculation in the meantime. This idea that we must adopt a view contrary to the Buddha's words because we are too dumb to see the real secret hidden truth and probably won't for many lifetimes is really really pernicious. > > S: How did you arrive at such a conclusion regarding my attitudes towards the Buddha and his direct words? The Dhamma is subtle and hard to understand, surely you wouldn't dispute this? Nothing is secret, but look, there is `seeing' right now, how much do we understand this? And about Anatta, haven't I suggested that there can be a beginning understanding of this even now? Great, what is your beginning understanding? I am still waiting for an answer to the question I have been asking for months now, over and over again, and to which I get a bunch of other stuff back: What is the definition or description of anatta as a positive characteristic? How would you describe or define it? I will take the "beginner's" version, I don't need anything more. Please, say anything: I am starving for a taste of this knowledge. I have been saying that the positive characteristic of anatta is that the dhamma is simply what it is. The arahat sees that there is nothing behind the dhamma, nothing willing it, nothing causing it other than impersonal conditions, and that it simply is what it is. That is anatta. "No self" involved in its operation. Is this acceptable, or do you think anatta is something else? If so, what? That is ALLLLLL I'm asking! > ============= > Rob : We should be working on our understanding now, using the resources we have, not making up a whole different system based on the presumption of ignorance. > > S: Any idea about ignorance and wrong view at work can only be had as a result of hearing the Dhamma and it is only through study and wise consideration that this is seen better and better. So no, accepting that one is ignorant does not necessarily lead to making up things about the Dhamma, rather coming to appreciate the fact of ignorance as a result of having heard the Dhamma; this can condition more confidence and sense of urgency. That's fine, but it's still all general talk. It is saying little about the subject. I want to talk about anatta, not every other thing about the general state of the worldling. Let's talk about anatta. What do you have to say about it? > > ========== > > This means that if upon reading the Dhamma, one fails to relate whatever that has been read to present moment experiences, chances are that one's > understanding of what has been read is not quite right. The first step is > Pariyatti and pariyatti must as I said, relate to the present moment. > > Rob: Fine, relate it to the present moment. So far all I have to work with are > general principles that somehow what I say is wrong. Why is it wrong? What is right? Please lend me a bit of your pariyatti and explain it to me in a way that even a simple layperson can understand so that my pariyatti can develop. > > S: Pariyatti *is* understanding. So in fact it is the starting point. As I said, it is not so much in the explanation, but having pariyatti understanding arise to understand the explanation. And this would be only having related what is said to the preset moment experience. So you cannot say anything about anatta? You have to wait until my pariyatti develops on its own? What about wise council and wise friends and all that? Tell me something that will help me to see anatta as a positive characteristic, at least intellectually so I can have 'right view.' > > Take `seeing' now. It arises again and again uncontrollably. Thinking about it now, is conditioned by many factors including seeing and reading about it here. This is an understanding not of anicca nor is it of a dukkha, but pertaining to a reality, it is what I've come to associate with `anatta'. Remember the Buddha associated `self' with control, therefore is it wrong to make the same kind of association with `no self' when perceiving `no control'? Would this perception of no control need to be dependent on `memory of what it feels like to control'? I don't think so, what can come across is that it is in the nature of the dhamma itself. Well that is a specific sense of anatta and I thank you for it. I have no problem with this statement, and I agree with it. "No self" is associated with "no control." That is good and I agree it is correct. We can perceive 'no control' but there is still no such thing as 'no control' without two poles: the dhamma which cannot be controlled and an agent who either can or can't control it. I guess that is my problem, that I don't see 'no control' as existing without relation. My question for you is this: who or what is unable to control the dhamma, if it is inherently uncontrollable? There must be something that can't control it, no? "No control" does not exist between the dhamma and itself, does it? So what is the agent that can't control it, since there is no self? > ============ > Rob: When I look at the present moment I see it is very fleeting, has no > substantiality or self and that clinging to it causes suffering. That's the > Buddha's teaching as well. If you say 'well you are just talking you don't know that directly,' then I will say, "at least it is correct pariyatti, so I am > fine." > > S: No, I would not appeal to the need for `direct experience', but to pariyatti ;-). At this point I don't have the understanding deep enough to come to a conclusion, the kind that you have made above. But I suspect that when and if I do, my impression would not be the same as yours. ;-) Why not? What do you 'suspect' your impression would be? You must have an idea, since you don't think you would agree with mine. What is it? Don't keep it a secret. > > =========== > > And no one has ever suggested that the `not' in `not self' is of no import. I > have even said that its choice must have been the ideal, considering that `self view' is inevitable if there is no Dhamma. However the Buddha was not just another teacher and the Teachings are not just another set of ideas meant to replace or counter other prevailing ideas. It is the *only* teaching which points to the way things actually are and this includes the Fourth Noble Truth, namely the Path. > > RoB: This is all general; it's all fine, but what does it have to do with my simple assertion that an-atta means no-self? > > S: I'm saying that if `no-self' meant what you say it means it is not something that needed to be particularly stressed, especially given the audience at the time. I totally disagree with this particular point. The culture at the time believed firmly in two different aspects of spiritual self: the individual soul, known as atta, jiva, or purusha - the unchanging eternal personal soul; and Atman, the Divine Self as experienced in the heart of the yogi or meditator. Jivanmukti was the highest spiritual state, in which the practitioner discovered that his identity was really the eternal higher self, rather than the mortal human self. So there was a definite set of self-concepts to fight against in order to present true liberation. > After all, the Buddha could simply have stated to the effect that `in Truth and reality there are only namas and rupas', this should be enough for some to conclude that there is no `self' or `atman'. No, to cut through Hindu culture he would have to show logically ad indisputably that the personal and spiritual self or soul did not exist in the world of form, or beyond it. And this he did very clearly and very purposefully - surgically really. There is no doubt that anatta was the extreme and unique medicine that basically set off a brand new wave of spiritual thought in the Eastern world, a revolution. > The fact that he did stress `Anatta' I would think, is because it is one very important aspect of these namas and rupas and needed to be appreciated from the very outset. It is nothing quite so philosophical. It is more like the key to liberation by no longer having a self to protect, defend, grow and cultivate, or an eternal soul to comfort oneself in the afterlife. > ============== > > It would not be in accordance with the aim were his teachings to condition thinking without any level of application. > > > > > ==================== > > > Rob Ep: I do not pretend to see realities directly, although I may have had a half-glimpse or two, but I disagree that my view on this does not serve the attempt to see realities directly and to observe anatta in the present moment. > > > > Sukin: The suggestion that Anatta means simply that there is no `self' and this is understood as a result of seeing nama and rupa for what they are makes it just `theory', of little or no practical consequence in the meantime. No, it is the key to liberation. Why you would call this "theory" and of "no use" is mind-boggling to me. It makes no sense. > > Rob: Then what are we talking about? Please tell me. > > S: What arises *now* can be understood at the level of pariyatti. If it is Anatta that we are talking about, this too can be understood at this very moment. Fine, I have no problem with that. But why bring it up when we are talking about what anatta *is?* > > ============== > > > Sukin: The purpose of the Dhamma is to draw the attention to the present > moment reality and this begins with pariyatti. Pariyatti understanding at a > beginning level would have it that whatever this is, it is just a dhamma arisen by conditions and already fallen away. So while one insists on having a satisfying definition and not knowing that such thinking is conditioned, one actually accumulates more ignorance. > > Rob: I disagree. I think that obscuring the teachings of the Buddha is a bad idea, and that invoking the present moment doesn't make it any more correct. > > S: The importance of understanding the present moment comes from the understanding of there being at any moment, only namas and rupas arising and falling away. It comes from the understanding of the reality/concept distinction, the danger of ignorance and the value of developing understanding of present moment realities. Other religions and beliefs talk about the importance of knowing the present, but theirs for want of pariyatti, is from `self view' and the object is concept. Are you sure this is true, or did someone tell you that? How do you know that others' view of the present moment is based on self view? How could you possibly know that? > Pariyatti can't be wrong, and again this is what I stress here. Only if you have it, not if you just think you do. > The problem it seems to me is that you do not understand what pariyatti is! Great, what is it? > ========= > > > Sukin: Yes it is very important to be clear as possible what is read, and when expressing to others, there is also the factor of responsibility. But we have to consider the purpose as well. If I fail to see that the aim is to understand the present moment and end up instead being involved in `thinking', I'll then also encourage the same in others. If on the other hand I'm constantly being drawn to study the present moment, this is what I will encourage in others as well. Studying the present moment is how you and I would both come to know *exactly* what Anatta is wouldn't we? > > Rob: Perhaps so. In the meantime, we are talking about questions of Dhamma, and we may as well either clarify them or not say anything at all. It's all about the present moment, but when we are talking we should know what we are saying as well. > > S: With increase in understanding one is drawn more and more to the present moment, not to identify and label, but to study characteristics of dhammas. I still consider all of this evasion when you do not know what to say. You said earlier that anatta is associated with lack of control. That was a good statement and the basis for a discussion. The stuff you keep saying inbetween about the present moment and namas and rupas is all general Abhidhamma philosophy. It is just taking up space unless it is applied to the question at hand, that is, what is anatta? I think it would be better to develop the subject and get some depth into it, if one really desires pariyatti, rather than going back to a refrain about general principles that just masks the issue. > In the end it is not important what `concepts' have been accumulated. You insist that I should be able to explain at least to myself my understandings. The kinds of explanations I've given to you are what I find helpful in leading me to consider the present moment. This to me is far more useful than any detailed explanation about how things work, which of course I too have accumulations for. ;-) I disagree. I think it is self-hypnotizing to keep reciting the same general dogma over and over again: namas and rupas, namas and rupas, present moment, pariyatti. It makes more sense to talk about something specific. If you want to talk about how we can experience namas and rupas in the present moment or the variety of namas and rupas in the present moment, then let's start another thread, and really talk about it. Right now we are talking specifically about anatta, not generally about the same old general namas and rupas with no name and no description, just repetition like a tired old mantra. > ============ > > > Rob Ep: Buddha defined anatta in terms of the beliefs of the day, and in > terms of the *inherent* belief in a self that is part of our legacy as a human > species, as sentient beings. As sentient beings we tend to belief in self > without any proof because all things that happen in our conventional perception seem to lead back to the center of consciousness, and we presume there is someone in there and that phenomena circulate around this self. > > > > Sukin: You've got a story there which you use to support your position. > > Rob: No it's just an adjunct. My story is based on the Buddha's story. I follow what he said and I believe it. Do you? > > S: There is also this that the Buddha for a moment thought not to teach the Dhamma seeing that it goes so much against the uninstructed worldling's way of thinking. As I said before, yours is a conclusion which almost anyone can make based on philosophical considerations without having to relate what is heard to the reality of the present moment, which is what a correct understanding of the Dhamma should lead to. Well, if I say, reality of the present moment five times fast without stopping, you will consider this more useful? I don't. I think saying something specific about my understanding of anatta and having you say something specific back is the only purpose to having a discussion. To say 'you have a story' in order to avoid answering my specifics is just more evasion of the subject matter. Hey, if you don't want to talk about anatta, just say so! > ============= > > But know also that `self view' arises even at sense door experience taking such as `visible object' for self. Yes you could say that this is `inherent' in the sense that it is inevitable in the absence of the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths. But how would anyone have known `self view' at the moment of it taking visible object as object were the teaching about Anatta not applicable at this level? In other words, the problem is not a well formed belief in `self', but that these beliefs originate from wrong perception at the paramattha level. Whatever level it takes place on, anatta is the solution to the problem of self-view. Whether seen through the microscope or in the big picture of everyday life. Self-view is delusion; anatta is the medicine. > Rob: That is possible but since Buddha bothered to preach I would like to believe what he said. Then I can have it handy as the moment arises. > > S: He preached yes, and those who could see the Truth at the level, reached enlightenment there and then. They insighted into the true *characteristics* of dhammas and didn't need to be convinced about the non-existence of `atman'. No, they saw it directly, but it is not that the concepts of self were not involved. They had to be confronted and dissolved. It it happened in a moment or a year makes no difference. > > =============== > > Besides what do you think about the teachings on the three kinds of sanna, namely anicca sanna, dukkha sanna and anatta sanna and their opposites? Where would anatta sanna apply in the suggestion that anatta means simply the `absence of self'? > > Rob: The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. > > S: If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what you mean by `thingies' and how what I've stated about anatta makes this into one? Anatta sanna is perceiving anatta directly. To me that means seeing that there is no self, directly and clearly. To you it means that one sees the characteristic 'anatta' like it is "something." That is what I mean. > > ============ > Rob: The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion. > > S: But samsara is real, being just this recurrence of conditioned existence, namely the continued arising of nama and rupa. Are you saying that I'm supposed to come to understand that all this is unreal? Also I'd like to know what you mean by `insubstantiality' here. Things do not have the solidity and stability that concept makes of them. Samsara is an uncontrollable constantly shifting array of changing conditions. What we think is real is unreal. What is real is seen when concepts and interpretations are not influencing our minds. In other words, kusala citta as opposed to deluded akusala citta. > ============= > > Also there is this that at the moment of enlightenment, depending on > accumulations, one person will experience Nibbana via penetrating the > characteristic of anicca, another by dukkha and another by anatta? What do you make of this? > > Rob: I don't know about those specifics or even if they are true. I will have to experience them at some time in the future. However, I can imagine that one person may be more predisposed to observe one characteristic or the other. What is so strange about that? > > S: Suddenly you're not interested in correct pariyatti anymore? ;-) No just happy to say what I don't know when I am clear that I don't know it. I see that is not good either? Oh well... > Yes, the above reflects the fact of `different persons being more predisposed to observe one characteristic or the other'. But my point is that these particular experiences involve vipassana panna taking on the *characteristic* be it anicca, dukkha or anatta of any paramattha dhamma, just for a moment, before lokuttara citta then arising to experience Nibbana. Indeed, that one of these three is gateway through which enlightenment is attained puts them on the same plain. It would not therefore be the case that anatta is a mere conclusion drawn from understanding the other two characteristics, would it? I don't see that impacting the nature of the characteristics. If one person is concentrating on the nature of non-self, and another on impermanence, this is their gateway whether it is a positive actuality, or an understanding of a principle that they can see clearly. Either way they can follow it to the next stage. > ============ > > > Sukin: Atman does not exist, period. This can be seen as being purely the product of `thinking' even now. So obviously the teaching on anatta must require an understanding much deeper than this. If I am not mistaken, I think you apply anatta to concepts of people and things as well, am I right? If so, I wonder why would it then require seeing namas and rupas as being all there is that exists? > > Rob: It is a closer view of the reality, like looking through the microscope and seeing the microscopic particles close up. Of course that is more precise knowledge, but the conventional objects are still causing suffering and are still temporary, even so. > > S: You are not talking here about the *characteristic* of dukkha, which concepts don't have but only conditioned paramattha dhammas do. And the insight into the nature of paramattha dhammas is not akin to looking through the microscope and seeing particles close up. This comparison is in fact quite misleading, since in the case of microscopic particles, there is taking of both the sample as well as those particles observed to be real and lasting. In the development of wisdom on the other hand, rather than involving the perception of some `whole' which is then studied in order to see the parts, it is understanding at that very moment of perceiving, the distinction between concept and reality. For example, a `person' is not presumed to be object of study whereby the different elements are then observed as being its components. Seeing experiences visible object and this is not `of' a person or anything. I have my doubts about such a dualistic notion. In the analogy of the chariot we see that there is no chariot *because* we become aware of the chassis, the spokes and wheel and that even these break down further, so our attention goes to the true constitutes rather than the overall concept. Same with concepts and realities. They are not too separate worlds. The concept is a mistaken notion of the realities. They are not in two worlds, but a delusion of the same world. In India there is the analogy of the rope and snake. When you realize that the frightening snake is merely a rope that had moved for a moment, the snake disappears, but you are seeing the reality of the same object, not some other object, but the real object which you were deluded about before. A person does not exist; but what we call a person consists of the same set of realities that we mistook for a person before. There is only one world, the real world. The rest is misinterpretation. The idea that the two worlds are separate rather than correct and incorrect versions of the only world, leaves you in a permanent state of duality. That is not good. > ============== > > > Rob Ep: Anatta is a positive characteristic of all things in the sense that > all things when seen in reality are lacking a self and are not part of self, and > it takes wisdom to see this. > > > > Sukin: What do you mean by "characteristic" here?! Are you going to define it as being a concept with no reference to a reality? > > Rob: No. > > > > Rob Ep: That does not mean that "anatta" is something other than what it actually is, which is 'not' 'self.' > > > > Sukin: And this is the "characteristic"? > > Rob: Yup, that's what the Buddha said, and I believe him. If it is something else could you **please** tell me what it is? No one who thinks this can say a word about it... I wonder why..... > > > S: What would `characteristic' be of, if not a reality? If anatta simply pointed to the `denial of self', how is this not an abstraction? I think that 'no self' as something other than.... 'no self' is the abstraction. It is purely philsophical, rather than pragmatic like the Buddha's words. > How the `absence of self' is perceived, what is the actual object of consciousness at that moment? f Exactly! If it is not 'no self, please tell ME: what is the object of consciousness at that moment? What is anatta other than not self? What is it that you perceive if NOT the lack of self? I say it is "just the dhamma as is" with nothing added. What do you say? Can you say anything about what this positive characteristic is, this reality that you speak of? What is it? > If it is about direct perception of realities, why is there then for e.g. not also such perception as `not-concept'? That's what *I'd* like to know about anatta. That is why I am saying that it can't be a "something," it has to be perception that there is NO....SELF...... And if you fall back on 'direct realities,' 'nama rupa' and all these other generalities, it is because you cannot confrot this question and give any kind of answer. That is what I am looking for, a direct simple answer to this question. > But I'm beginning to blur badly now, I've spent too many hours on this post, so I'll stop here. Besides I have not yet read your other reply which would need to be responded to as well, perhaps in two or three days though. > > Metta, > > Sukin > > Ps: Robert, others may choose not to read my posts, but you have to. I feel that it must be quite difficult for you to read them, not only because I fail to satisfy your demand for an explanation, but on top of that because they are extremely long. I hope it is an opportunity for you to develop patience and please don't mind too much. I have gathered much strength from getting through this entire post. I hope it does not tax you too much to do the same. Pretty soon we should conclude this thread and start over, if only to shorten the message span! But please answer my question first: What is the characteristic of anatta as a positive observable attribute of a dhamma? I have left a space below for your answer: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Best Regards, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #98215 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 4:13 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (13) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- As to the element of fire, heat or temperature (in Paali: tejo dhaatu), the "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 93) gives the following definition of it [Note 1] "...The fire element has the characteristic of heat. Its function is to mature (maintain). It is manifested as a continued supply of softness. " [Note 2]. The element of heat or temperature can be experienced through the bodysense and it appears as heat or cold. Cold is a lesser degree of heat. The element of heat accompanies all kinds of materiality that arises, ruupas of the body and materiality outside. It maintains or matures them. The element of heat is one of the four factors that produce ruupas of the body. At the first moment of life, kamma, a deed committed in the past, produces the rebirth-consciousness and also ruupa. After the rebirth-consciousness has arisen temperature also starts to produce ruupas of the body . Ruupas which are materiality outside such as those of a plant or a rock are produced solely by temperature. [Note 1] See also Dhammasanga.ni #648 and Atthasaalinii II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 332. [Note 2] The Atthasaalinii (II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 332) states that it has "the gift of softening (co-existent realities) as manifestation". It states: "When this body is accompanied by the fife-controlling faculty, by the element of heat, by consciousness, then it becomes lighter, softer, more wieldy." In a corpse there is no body heat, it is stiff and not wieldy. -------------------- with metta, Han #98216 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 4:29 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (13) hantun1 Dear All, I am interested in Note 2 of Physical Phenomena (13), in the following sentence. When this body is accompanied by the fife-controlling faculty, by the element of heat, by consciousness, then it becomes lighter, softer, more wieldy. the life-controlling faculty = aayu the element of heat = usumaa consciousness = vi~n~naa.na These three factors (aayu, usumaa, vi~n~naa.na) are also used in the definition of Death. If these three factors are absent in a person that person can be declared is dead. Yours truly, Han #98217 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 4:36 am Subject: Re: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. szmicio Dear Lodewijk, It seems that we have to act in such and such way to have sati, but in reality sati is just dhatu that can only arise when there are proper conditions. That is not Self that is aware, but only a kind of citta that arises supported by sati and pa~n~na. Nothing can be done to have sati. Nothing in life belong to you. So there is really no problem. Those are just fleeting moments, that thinks, sees and have more dosa. no Lodewijk. Nothing can be done with it. We dont know what will be next. Whether it be dosa and doubts or anything else. Grief and sorrow arises on their own conditions and they are all conditioned in the same way as everything else. They are not yours so thats why you cant control them. No one can. Dosa would be there as long as there are conditions for it. It's not diffrent then sati or pa~n~na. When I wrote to Nina for the first time, I was such deeply depressed and confused. I grieved in such pains and Nina said somethin about vedana, that is out of control. And hearing this Dhamma was such a big relief. Lodewijk, look how natural in daily life yoniso manasikara is. You can walk down the street or being involved in discussions with your friends and there can be a few moments of kusala. When you start to act in the right way, there can be metta or anything else. That's so natural. Only few moments in life of siila, only few moments of dana, only few moments of sati. And no more. There wouldnt be more, because there is no self that has control over realities. Lead your daily life. Let you to be suprised by realities, no matter how they are. Whether they are kusala or not. Just lead your daily life. There is this very moment. Nothing to be done. My best wishes Lukas #98218 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] K.Sujin in Sri Lanka 77 (3) - Aversion - any patience? sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I've skipped to these comments because they are related to the topic of aversion and depression recently raised. "If you like aversion then have it more..." More from the seminars in Colombo, April 1977. ======= Sujin: "If you remember what Buddha says, "patience", you can see that if there is patience you will stop doing something bad towards the other. If you are going to speak harsh words and patience arises, it stops, it's not you. But aversion has different degrees as well. When one speaks harshly one can see that person has no patience at all, but the finer aversion is there still in one's mind. One [can]understand that it's unwholesome to have such aversion, because the more you have aversion the more you'll be a person with such bad character that no body likes any more. By seeing so, one can see one's own different degrees of aversion. Is it not good to see different degrees of aversion? If you like aversion then have it more, but if you don't like it, better see of what degree it is now. If it's so slight, the other cannot notice it at all. But if it's more than that, sometimes it appears on your face, on your ears, many ways to let the others know about your own aversion. And when you raise your hand up, it's a higher degree of aversion. So study any reality which appears and then there can be moments of kusala instead of moments of akusala. [This is] because by studying one can understand reality as it is at that very moment, even it's like anger, you know it's there, when it's stronger you know it's there, so by knowing so, it stops the very gross aversion which will lead to ill deeds and ill speech." ***** Metta, Sarah ====== #98219 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 7:46 am Subject: Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. nilovg Mike had trouble posting to dsg. Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 2 juni 2009 3:26:15 GMT+02:00 > Aan: Nina Van Gorkom > Onderwerp: Not Posted > > Hi Nina, > > I sent the messages below to dsg, they weren't posted. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Howard (and Nina), > > Please excuse the interruption. > > "...the hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas." > > Is this consistent with the Paali texts? Can anyone cite an > occurrence of this idea from the texts? I'm drawing a blank. > > Thanks in advance. > > mike > > --------------------------------------------------------- #98220 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 8:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas (and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 6/2/2009 12:37:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Dear Lodewijk, It seems that we have to act in such and such way to have sati, but in reality sati is just dhatu that can only arise when there are proper conditions. --------------------------------------------- Certainly. And what *are* those conditions, Lukas? Are they not involved, in the sense of "underlying," certain conventional activities of ours that cultivate the mind? If not, what *are* they? Just saying "proper conditions" is tautologous and gives no information. ---------------------------------------------- That is not Self that is aware, but only a kind of citta that arises supported by sati and pa~n~na. Nothing can be done to have sati. Nothing in life belong to you. So there is really no problem. ------------------------------------------- That is a good litany, but so long as we *experience* a problem, there IS one. ------------------------------------------- Those are just fleeting moments, that thinks, sees and have more dosa. no Lodewijk. --------------------------------------------- True - no individual, separate thing that is Lodewijk. But the kammically engendered mental and physical phenomena that constitute the ever-flowing stream we call "Lodewijk," do hang together interrelatedly, and are distinguishable from the namas and rupas of what we call "you" and "I". --------------------------------------------- Nothing can be done with it. We dont know what will be next. Whether it be dosa and doubts or anything else. --------------------------------------------- What we do now conditions what will be. It *matters* what we do now. -------------------------------------------- Grief and sorrow arises on their own conditions and they are all conditioned in the same way as everything else. ------------------------------------------ And what are these conditions? Have they nothing to do with kamma, our inheritance? ------------------------------------------ They are not yours so that's why you cant control them. No one can. Dosa would be there as long as there are conditions for it. It's not different then sati or pa~n~na. -------------------------------------------- You chose to write this post, Lukas. That is an example of conventional control. Nobody means anything other than such as that when speaking of "control." If it is "control" in some other, unspecified sense that you deny, I am not bothered by it in the slightest. -------------------------------------------- When I wrote to Nina for the first time, I was such deeply depressed and confused. I grieved in such pains and Nina said somethin about vedana, that is out of control. And hearing this Dhamma was such a big relief. Lodewijk, look how natural in daily life yoniso manasikara is. You can walk down the street or being involved in discussions with your friends and there can be a few moments of kusala. --------------------------------------------- Or not! Is it random? No, you correctly say it is conditioned, but you give no indication of what are the conditions. Are there conventional actions that can be taken that can change the mind and favor the arising of kusala over akusala and favor the cultivation of relinquishment? Is your answer "No, there are not!"? I think that such an answer contradicts the Buddha. ------------------------------------------- When you start to act in the right way, there can be metta or anything else. That's so natural. ------------------------------------------ Ahh, here you are saying something I agree with. That acting the right way is wholesome kamma. ---------------------------------------------- Only few moments in life of siila, only few moments of dana, only few moments of sati. And no more. There wouldn't be more, because there is no self that has control over realities. Lead your daily life. ---------------------------------------------- How, if there is no leading? --------------------------------------------- Let you to be surprised by realities, no matter how they are. Whether they are kusala or not. Just lead your daily life. There is this very moment. Nothing to be done. --------------------------------------------- No leading of one's life, then. Just an automaton dominated by its stabilizing circuitry, short-circuiting its innovation circuitry, and repeating the same actions over and over again, without the possibility of alteration. A sad, hopeless situation - stagnant, and mired in dukkha. -------------------------------------------- My best wishes Lukas =========================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98221 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 2:31 pm Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, You wrote that you often wake up with mindfulness. I often wake up with attachment, lobha, or aversion, dosa. For example, I think, “What difficult thing do I have to do today?” Sometimes I have to hear unpleasant words from other people, and then I feel unhappy. Why? Because at those moments I do not see the world in the ariyan sense. When we hear unpleasant words, the hearing is only vipåka (citta which is result of kamma), it is nåma which arises just for a moment and then falls away immediately. When I have aversion, there is akusala citta (unwholesome consciousness), which is another kind of nåma. In the ariyan sense there is no “I”who experiences, there is no experiencer. There is not this or that person who says unpleasant words to me. There are only nåma and rúpa. There is seeing, hearing, thinking and other phenomena which appear for a moment and are then gone. There are different feelings arising because of different conditions. The teachings are very helpful for the understanding of our life. When we listen to the sutta texts we can be reminded to be aware of realities. You find that there is more awareness when you do things which do not require so much attention, things which are done automatically, like shaving. You wrote “Shaving is there. It presents itself as if done by someone else.” “Shaving is there”, these are words you use to describe a whole situation you can think of, but which are the realities you can directly experience? There is the world in the ariyan sense: different phenomena presenting themselves through the six doors. Seeing, touching or thinking are realities, but shaving is not a reality. “Shaving presents itself as if done by someone else”. What is this? It is a thought, that is all. We should not cling to special sensations, they are only nåmas which do not stay. Thinking is only one kind of reality which appears, and then there are other realities. ******* Nina. #98222 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 2:47 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. nilovg Hi Howard and Lukas, Op 2-jun-2009, om 14:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Only few moments in life of siila, only few moments of dana, only few > moments of sati. And no more. There wouldn't be more, because there > is no self > that has control over realities. > Lead your daily life. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: How, if there is no leading? > --------------------------------------------- > Nina: The lesson is: not wishing for more than conditions allow. I > find these reminders of Lukas to Lodewijk very good. If we wish for > more the self comes in! Let us be contented, humble. This does not mean being lazy. Howard, you ask about conditions. Remember the Sangiitisutta passage we just had: < DN 33.1.11(13) 'Four factors of Stream-Attainment (sotaapattiyangaani): association with good people (sappurisa- sa'mseva), hearing the true Dhamma, thorough attention (yoniso manasikaara), practice of the Dhamma in its entirety (dhammaanudhamma- pa.tipatti).> The subco states that wise attention is attention to the three general characteristics of impermanence, etc. I wrote in addition: We have to be patient to listen and consider over and over again. --------- > Lukas: Let you to be surprised by realities, no matter how they > are. Whether they > are kusala or not. Just lead your daily life. There is this very > moment. > Nothing to be done. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: No leading of one's life, then. Just an automaton dominated > by its > stabilizing circuitry, short-circuiting its innovation circuitry, and > repeating the same actions over and over again, without the > possibility of > alteration. A sad, hopeless situation - stagnant, and mired in dukkha. -------- Nina: Not sad and hopeless, but on the contrary. Each short moment of understanding is accumulated as I recently wrote. Lukas wrote: be surprised by realities and this means: we never know the next moment, they are all anattaa, conditioned dhammas. No need to worry. There is the present moment and understanding of it can be developed, also when the present moment is akusala. ****** Nina. #98223 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & Mike - Thank you for sending this on, Nina. In a message dated 6/2/2009 3:47:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Mike had trouble posting to dsg. Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 2 juni 2009 3:26:15 GMT+02:00 > Aan: Nina Van Gorkom > Onderwerp: Not Posted > > Hi Nina, > > I sent the messages below to dsg, they weren't posted. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Howard (and Nina), > > Please excuse the interruption. > > "...the hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas." > > Is this consistent with the Paali texts? Can anyone cite an > occurrence of this idea from the texts? I'm drawing a blank. > > Thanks in advance. > > mike > > --------------------------------------------------------- ====================================== I've read this in numerous places, and it certainly, based on accumulations, makes sense to me. As regards suttas, there IS the following, going beyond hindrances (to defilements): From the Jhana Sutta, _AN 9.36_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html) : "I tell you, the _ending of the mental fermentations_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html) depends on the _first jhana_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html\ #j1) ... the _second jhana_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html\ #j2) ... the _third_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html\ #j3) ... the _fourth_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html\ #j4) ... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception." and, suggesting repeated jhana entry, "Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, wh en s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #98224 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 3:41 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Jon, and Robert Epstein How are you? Jon, I briefly dropped in. When you replied to Robert E's sensible traditional Theravada questions in his excellent post on this thread, please kindly address a few issues. Jon wrote: "On the issue of "practice", what I've said is that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice. It's a matter of having a better understanding of the way things are, gained from reflecting on how what one has heard and understood relates to the present moment." On behalf of Robert E, a traditional Theravada teacher called Suan Lu Zaw asked Jon, a follower of K Sujin who is a teacher of her personal opinions based on her STUDY of abhidhamma and other Buddhist teachings: When you (Jon) said that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice, what did you mean by "doing specified things"? Did they mean wholesome mental associates (kusala cetasikas) other than insight (vipassanaa, or paññaa)? In the context of following the Path as Robert E mentioned, did you mean that development of insight does not need to based on the practice of undertaking precepts (Siila) and the practice of concentration (Samaadhi)? When you wrote the above paragraph, were you merely asserting or putting forward your personal opinions? Or were you repeatng K Sujin's personal opinions? On the other hand, did you write it with the backing of Theravada Pali texts? If so, could you produce the Pali texts that support your assertion? You do not need to translate them. Just the relevant passags in Pali would be fine. I will translate them for Robert Epstein. When you answer the above questions, you do not need to address to me as I could not participate in this thread. All you need to do is include your answers in your reply post to Robert Epstein. I have little time for any discussion now as I have been undertaking intensive meditation using Aanaapaana (inhalation and exhalation) as meditation objects since March 2009. I have upgraded my formal meditation to intensive meditation. In fact, I have informed Nina of my intensive meditation practice when I thanked her for receiving her book on Physcal Phenomena off-line during April. Thanking you in advance. Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98225 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 6:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. nilovg Hi Howard (and Mike), may I butt in? This is about someone who develops jhaana first and then emerges, develops vipassanaa of naama and ruupa, described here as the five khandhas. He reaches the deathless, and this is not possible without developing all stages of insight. Nina. Op 2-jun-2009, om 17:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & > remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, > accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever > phenomena there > that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & > consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an > arrow, painful, an > affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He > turns his > mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his > mind to the > property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the > resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all > acquisitions; the ending > of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' #98226 From: "m_nease" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. m_nease Hi Howard (and Nina), Thanks for the citations. If you'd like to select a single passage stating explicitly that "...the hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas", I'd be glad to discuss it with you. Thanks for your time and patience. mike #98227 From: "connie" Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 8:51 pm Subject: re: Not Posted nichiconn Hi, mike! > "...the hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas." > > Is this consistent with the Paali texts? Can anyone cite an > occurrence of this idea from the texts? I'm drawing a blank. The texts do say access suppresses the hindrances, but that seems more of a 'stand-off' (balanced faculties 'opposing' the hindrances) without implying any 'exhaustion' to my thinking. It also might depend on how someone takes the idea that "it is jhaana because of burning up (jhaapana) the enemies"? In any case, suppression ["according to (reciprocity, repetition & association or whatever) conditions"] is neither understanding nor 'defeat' but more a matter of the hindrances not being 'prepared' to arise just then. Actually, there's a story about a rishi, a queen & sensual delight... peace, connie #98228 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 2, 2009 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. upasaka_howard Hi, Mike (and Nina) - In a message dated 6/2/2009 2:55:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mlnease@... writes: Hi Howard (and Nina), Thanks for the citations. If you'd like to select a single passage stating explicitly that "...the hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas", I'd be glad to discuss it with you. ------------------------------------------- I'd be so pleased to discuss one with you if I had it. I do not. The citations I gave certainly fall far short of adequote. I do, nonetheless, have great confidence that repeated exposure to jhanas weakens hindrances. For that matter, consistent sila does so too. ------------------------------------------ Thanks for your time and patience. ---------------------------------------- Nice to speak with you, Mike. :-) --------------------------------------- mike ============================ With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98229 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:04 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, Is it true that there is more awareness when we do things which do not require much attention? At the Japanese school I have to be attentive to the teacher who asks me questions in Japanese which I have to answer, applying the grammar I learnt. We should not exclude beforehand the arising of awareness in such situations. If there can be awareness sometimes of different realities one can begin to develop understanding of them. Mindfulness arises when there are conditions for its arising and we cannot say beforehand, “In such circumstances it will arise, in such circumstances it will not arise”. Awareness is anattå, not self. We may think that it cannot arise in particular circumstances, but this is only our thinking. We should realize such a moment of thinking as only a kind of nåma which arises because of conditions. Sati, mindfulness, of the Eightfold Path will not arise often when it has not been accumulated enough yet. We may take for mindfulness what is actually only a sensation of quietness and “some notion of what is going on”, as you write. But this is not knowing a characteristic of a reality which appears through one of the six doors, it is merely pondering at leisure. When hardness is experienced through touch we may take for sati what is actually attachment. Do we wish to have many moments of sati? Then we are clinging and right understanding cannot develop. Our aim should be to learn more about the realities which appear one at a time. We cling to visible object, sound and all the other sense objects. We may not notice it that we cling to them, but is it not true that we are usually absorbed by these objects and think about them for a long time? We think that we see people and different things, but we can learn that what appears through eyes is only visible object. We think that we hear the voice of someone, but what appears through the ears is only sound, there is no person in the sound. We can learn to consider the phenomena of our daily life as only different realities which appear one at a time. ******* Nina. #98230 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:12 am Subject: Fwd: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] nilovg Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 3 juni 2009 4:05:47 GMT+02:00 > Aan: Nina Van Gorkom > Onderwerp: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and > jhaana.] > > > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 3 juni 2009 3:34:06 GMT+02:00 > Aan: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Onderwerp: Antw.: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. > > > Hi Howard, > > upasaka@... wrote: > >> Hi, Mike (and Nina) - >> In a message dated 6/2/2009 2:55:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> mlnease@... writes: >> Hi Howard (and Nina), >> Thanks for the citations. If you'd like to select a single passage >> stating explicitly that "...the hindrances are weakened by >> repeated entry to >> jhanas", I'd be glad to discuss it with you. >> ------------------------------------------- >> I'd be so pleased to discuss one with you if I had it. I do not. The >> citations I gave certainly fall far short of adequate. I do, >> nonetheless, >> have great confidence that repeated exposure to jhanas weakens >> hindrances. >> For that matter, consistent sila does so too. >> ------------------------------------------ > > Thanks for this. I had an idea that you saw it this way and, of > course, maybe you're right. I have no special knowledge. > > Another question, just as a matter of interest. There are a fair > few religious traditions containing concentrative (I think I might > say 'meditative') practices and of course all of them have moral > (siila) practices too. Is it your view that the concentrative and > moral practices of these religions (consider the dhyana yoga > described in the Upanishads for example) lead to the eradication of > defilements? > >> Thanks for your time and patience. >> ---------------------------------------- >> Nice to speak with you, Mike. :-) >> --------------------------------------- > > My pleasure, Howard. > > mike > > > #98232 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:12 am Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] nilovg Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 3 juni 2009 4:07:42 GMT+02:00 > Aan: nina Van Gorkom > Onderwerp: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] > > > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 2 juni 2009 21:32:51 GMT+02:00 > Aan: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Onderwerp: Antw.: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. > > > Hi Nina, > > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >> Hi Howard (and Mike), >> may I butt in? This is about someone who develops jhaana first >> and then emerges, develops vipassanaa of naama and ruupa, >> described here as the five khandhas. He reaches the deathless, >> and this is not possible without developing all stages of insight. > > Thanks, that's the way I read it too. > > mike > > > #98233 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:55 am Subject: Lukas' Letter to Lodewijk. nilovg Dear Lukas, Lodewijk appreciates your letter. We discussed together your words: Lodewijk was surprised that you understand the Dhamma so well. It is a question of accumulations. Some people understand right away the essence. Different people react differently. Nina. #98234 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:48 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] upasaka_howard Hi, Mike (and Nina, thank you for posting this) - In a message dated 6/3/2009 3:13:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 3 juni 2009 3:34:06 GMT+02:00 > Aan: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Onderwerp: Antw.: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. > > > Hi Howard, > > upasaka@... wrote: > >> Hi, Mike (and Nina) - >> In a message dated 6/2/2009 2:55:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> mlnease@... writes: >> Hi Howard (and Nina), >> Thanks for the citations. If you'd like to select a single passage >> stating explicitly that "...the hindrances are weakened by >> repeated entry to >> jhanas", I'd be glad to discuss it with you. >> ------------------------------------------- >> I'd be so pleased to discuss one with you if I had it. I do not. The >> citations I gave certainly fall far short of adequate. I do, >> nonetheless, >> have great confidence that repeated exposure to jhanas weakens >> hindrances. >> For that matter, consistent sila does so too. >> ------------------------------------------ > > Thanks for this. I had an idea that you saw it this way and, of > course, maybe you're right. I have no special knowledge. > > Another question, just as a matter of interest. There are a fair > few religious traditions containing concentrative (I think I might > say 'meditative') practices and of course all of them have moral > (siila) practices too. Is it your view that the concentrative and > moral practices of these religions (consider the dhyana yoga > described in the Upanishads for example) lead to the eradication of > defilements? ----------------------------------------------- Mike, the short answer is "no". At slightly greater length: Not all "concentrative meditation" is of equal value , and some could even be harmful especially if mixed in with counterproductive beliefs. But, for that matter, I do not believe that even Buddhist samatha cultivation techniques are enough to eradicate defilements. I consider them supportive of and requisite for such eventual uprooting but insufficient on their own. ------------------------------------------ > >> Thanks for your time and patience. >> ---------------------------------------- >> Nice to speak with you, Mike. :-) >> --------------------------------------- > > My pleasure, Howard. > > mike ================================ With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #98235 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 5:15 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Suan! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > I have little time for any discussion now as I have been undertaking > intensive meditation using Aanaapaana (inhalation and exhalation) as > meditation objects since March 2009. > > I have upgraded my formal meditation to intensive meditation. That is exciting. May your meditation practice be fruitful! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #98236 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 1:10 am Subject: Calm Kindness! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Calm Kindness Protects All Beings! The Blessed Buddha often said: With good will for the entire cosmos, Cultivate an infinite & boundless heart: Above, below, all across and all around, Beaming, without any hostility or hate! Sutta Nipāta I, 8 May all creatures, all breathing things, all beings one and all, without exception, experience joyous good fortune only. May they not fall into any harm. Anguttara Nikāya II, 72 Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Sutta Nipāta I, 8 <...> Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Calm Kindness! #98238 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 11:55 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (14) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (14) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- We read in the above quoted sutta that Saariputta explained to the monks about the internal element of heat: "... Whatever is heat, warmth, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, such as by whatever one is vitalized, by whatever one is consumed, by whatever one is burnt up, and by whatever one has munched, drunk, eaten and tasted that is properly transmuted (in digestion), or whatever other thing is heat, warmth, is internal...." The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 36) which gives an explanation of the words of this sutta states that the element of heat plays its part in the process of ageing: "... whereby this body grows old, reaches the decline of the faculties, loss of strength, wrinkles, greyness, and so on." As to the expression "burnt up", it explains that when one is excited the internal element of heat causes the body to burn. The element of heat also has a function in the digestion of food, it "cooks" what is eaten and drunk. -------------------- with metta, Han #98240 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 8:45 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98192) > ================= > Well, I think that I would very much agree that 'insusceptibility to control' is either the or a major characteristic of anatta, so I think there is no doubt there. To my reading, 'lack of control' and 'impermanence' go hand in hand and are mutually dependent, so it seems like the changing impermanent nature of dhammas would make them uncontrollable, and this impermanence and uncontrollability would make it impossible to cling to the dhamma as a 'part of self.' > ================= Yes, they do seem to be related; but are still distinct one from the other, as I understand the teachings. > ================= > In any case, as you have implied, it is one thing to talk about these things and something else to experience them. > ================= Yes, I would certainly agree with that. Jon #98241 From: sarahprocterabbott@... Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] K.Sujin in Sri Lanka 77 (4) - Meditation Centres sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Are we in a Meditation Centre now? Is there any 'intensive meditation' now as we read mail, make a cup of tea, do our laundry or feel happy or sad? "The Meditation Centre is here!" ***** Ven Dhammadharo: "The Meditation Centre is here - aayatana [sense field/meeting point] - 12 aayatanas*, internal aayatanas, external aayatanas. Not one aayatana 12 miles out of Colombo - that's just an idea in your head. At he moment that you think there is a Meditation Centre twelve miles away from here, there is a citta which thinks about that idea. That's your aayatana at that moment, that is the centre of activity. That thinking, without that idea, there's nothing else going on at all for you except that thinking about that meditation centre somewhere. If there can be awareness of that citta, you're meditating, or shall we say sati and pa~n~naa are meditating, but only for a moment. We don't know what will happen next. Perhaps there will be a mango falling on the roof and then will you be calm or will you jump? Now maybe two or three people here will be very calm but perhaps feel very pleased about it too, compare themselves with the man next to them who jumps, and think, 'well, I'm calmer than you are', and then at that moment where are your aayatanas? Well, there is conceit at that moment, if you are comparing yourself with another and thinking how much calmer you are than the next man. The citta that arises at that moment is one of our aayatanas. When we hear the sound of the mango or whatever we call it, more ayatanas, more meditation centres. Centres for meditation, objects for meditation, because the sound, you can call it anyuthing you like - a mango or a rock - but they're oinly more ideas. It's only a sound. It arises and falls away very fast, faster than we can imagine. There is hearing, another aayatana - so many different aayatanas, one after the other. Different centres - all of them here and now, one at a time. There's our Meditation Centre wherever we go - with us." ***** Metta, Sarah *S: note: Aayatanaa (meeting points, bases, sense fields) ******* a) 6 internal bases 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhuu pasada ruupa = cakkhaayatana) 2. ear-base 3. nose-base 4. tongue-base 5. body-sense base 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) (refers to all cittas) ...... b) 6 external bases 1. visible object (ruupaayatana) 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity 6. mind-object (dhammaayatana) ....... Note: Dhammaayatanaa (mind-objects) 1. All cetasikas 2. subtle ruupas (sukhuma ruupas) 3. nibbaana ....... Note: Aayatanaa refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammaa) and NOT to concepts. ***** #98242 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep (& Sukin), --- On Sun, 31/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >I am happy to hang around with the good folks here. I really am grateful for some of the folks here putting up with me. .... S: Thx to your patience and good humour too! I laughed at some of the quips in your recent exchange with Sukin such as the one about the "ego-workout", the "craving, conceit and wrong view" and having to scrub extra hard and your waiting to hear more about your concerns with fascination. Also, the taking personally because no time to do your errands. All very witty. And of course the last one leaving the space for a reply: -------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- Very funny. Sukin (& Rob), perhaps it might help the good discussion to break the replies into segments, perhaps under broad headings as Sukin's done before helpfully. That way you don't have to reply to it all 'at one go' and all the wit and important discussion will be read by more people. Just an idea! Rob Ep still holds the record for the longest marathon posts after all these years! Metta, Sarah ========= #98243 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 8:56 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98193) > ================= > This sounds to me like you are saying that pariyatti is the entire method to the path. That it develops to paripatti and beyond through consideration and reflection as the only means? I wonder if this is what you mean. > ================= To my understanding, pariyatti is a necessary prerequisite for patipatti, whether for the beginner or the person of more developed understanding. I think this is made clear by the numerous references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings and reflecting on what has been heard and understood. > ================= > > I do not understand the teachings to be telling (instructing) us to do this or that. They are instructive/informative, but not in the sense of laying out a technique to be followed. > > I wonder in this sense what it means to have a path or 'follow a path,' if there is no sense of 'laying out a technique to be followed.' Does the Buddha lay out a path to be followed? And if so, how is that path followed and accomplished if not by some form of 'practice or technique?' Does not the path require particular qualities to be developed and skillful means to be engaged? If not, what is the purpose of the Dhamma? > ================= The path taught by the Buddha is unlike any other path known. The Noble Eightfold Path is actually the 8 mental factors that arise at the moment of enlightenment. The development of that path occurs when certain of those 8 factors (5 or 6) arise together at moments of satipatthana or insight. Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my understanding. Jon #98244 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:48 am Subject: Re: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. szmicio Dear Howard You have to find out for yourself what are te conditions for sati. Does ideas of Self can help to have sati? When we learn more and more in daily life that there is no Self involved in performing kamma that can be such a great condition for sati and pa~n~na. > It seems that we have to act in such and such way to have sati, but in > reality sati is just dhatu that can only arise when there are proper > conditions. > --------------------------------------------- > H: Certainly. And what *are* those conditions, Lukas? Are they not > involved, in the sense of "underlying," certain conventional > activities of ours that cultivate the mind? L: sankhara dhammas cultivates. > > That is not Self that is aware, but only a kind of citta that arises > supported by sati and pa~n~na. > Nothing can be done to have sati. Nothing in life belong to you. So there > is really no problem. > ------------------------------------------- > H: That is a good litany, but so long as we *experience* a > problem, there IS one. > ------------------------------------------- L: So then its dukkha. > Those are just fleeting moments, that thinks, sees and have more > dosa. no Lodewijk. > --------------------------------------------- > H: True - no individual, separate thing that is Lodewijk. But the > kammically engendered mental and physical phenomena that constitute > the ever-flowing stream we call "Lodewijk," do hang together > interrelatedly, and are distinguishable from the namas and rupas of > what we call "you" and "I". > --------------------------------------------- L: Yes. But what is the characteristic of pa~n~na? > Nothing can be done with it. We dont know what will be next. > Whether it be dosa and doubts or anything else. > --------------------------------------------- > H: What we do now conditions what will be. It *matters* what we do > now. > -------------------------------------------- L: There is kamma now and it will bring its vipaka. And only pa~n~na dhatu can know what kamma really is and what vipaka really is. kamma is different than idea about kamma and the same with vipaka. > Grief and sorrow arises on their own conditions and they are all > conditioned in the same way as everything else. > ------------------------------------------ > H: And what are these conditions? Have they nothing to do with > kamma, our inheritance? > ------------------------------------------ L: Thinking about inheritence can be akusala. Only kusala thinking about inheritence is kusala. In reality there is only kamma that performs its function and then it produces vipaka as result. One of the condtions for kamma is hetupaccaya. > They are not yours so that's why you cant control them. No one > can. Dosa would be there as long as there are conditions for it. > It's not different then sati or pa~n~na. > -------------------------------------------- > H: You chose to write this post, Lukas. That is an example of > conventional control. L: Cittas experience its own objects. There is no Self that can choose. These "convetional choosing" is also conditioned and knowing it can help to condition metta. When we see no control in any reality, we can have more compasion to another people who are offending us or doing something else. We can help ourselves when there is less Self involved in daily life. When we are reminded about hiri and ottapa as just realities that performs they own function it can be condition for siila and right understanding. Then we can understand what shame and fear really is. And what Buddha really meaned. If not we can take shame as a conventional shame of "our akusala" and we can misunderstand it. >L: When I wrote to Nina for the first time, I was such deeply depressed and > confused. I grieved in such pains and Nina said somethin about vedana, that > is out of control. And hearing this Dhamma was such a big relief. > > > Lodewijk, look how natural in daily life yoniso manasikara is. You can > walk down the street or being involved in discussions with your friends and > there can be a few moments of kusala. > --------------------------------------------- > H: Or not! Is it random? No, you correctly say it is conditioned, but you > give no indication of what are the conditions. Are there conventional > actions that can be taken that can change the mind and favor the arising of > kusala over akusala and favor the cultivation of relinquishment? L: If there is idea of "convenctional action" then its moha that conditions it. Its good to know that. sati and pa~n~na knows only its object. > When you start to act in the right way, there can be metta or anything > else. That's so natural. > ------------------------------------------ > H: Ahh, here you are saying something I agree with. That acting > the right way is wholesome kamma. > ---------------------------------------------- L: Yes, but remember Howard that there are three or two kusala hetus that makes it "acting right way". > Only few moments in life of siila, only few moments of dana, only few > moments of sati. And no more. There wouldn't be more, because there is no self > that has control over realities. > Lead your daily life. > ---------------------------------------------- > H: How, if there is no leading? > --------------------------------------------- L: citta and cetasika are leading, even now no matter what we think of it. > Let you to be surprised by realities, no matter how they are. Whether they > are kusala or not. Just lead your daily life. There is this very moment. > Nothing to be done. > --------------------------------------------- > H: No leading of one's life, then. Just an automaton dominated by its > stabilizing circuitry, short-circuiting its innovation circuitry, and > repeating the same actions over and over again, without the possibility of > alteration. A sad, hopeless situation - stagnant, and mired in dukkha. > -------------------------------------------- L: Moha have been acummulated so long, so that's why this kind of doubt is still present. When there will be no longer conditions for moha it stops. My best wishes Lukas #98245 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Robert) - In a message dated 6/3/2009 7:43:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Robert E (98193) > ================= > This sounds to me like you are saying that pariyatti is the entire method to the path. That it develops to paripatti and beyond through consideration and reflection as the only means? I wonder if this is what you mean. > ================= To my understanding, pariyatti is a necessary prerequisite for patipatti, whether for the beginner or the person of more developed understanding. I think this is made clear by the numerous references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings and reflecting on what has been heard and understood. ----------------------------------------- The issue isn't necessity, which I suspect most agree to, but sufficiency. ---------------------------------------- > ================= > > I do not understand the teachings to be telling (instructing) us to do this or that. They are instructive/informative, but not in the sense of laying out a technique to be followed. > > I wonder in this sense what it means to have a path or 'follow a path,' if there is no sense of 'laying out a technique to be followed.' Does the Buddha lay out a path to be followed? And if so, how is that path followed and accomplished if not by some form of 'practice or technique?' Does not the path require particular qualities to be developed and skillful means to be engaged? If not, what is the purpose of the Dhamma? > ================= The path taught by the Buddha is unlike any other path known. The Noble Eightfold Path is actually the 8 mental factors that arise at the moment of enlightenment. The development of that path occurs when certain of those 8 factors (5 or 6) arise together at moments of satipatthana or insight. Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my understanding. ------------------------------------------ What IS it a matter of then? Unspecified "conditions"? ----------------------------------------- Jon ============================ With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98246 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 10:40 pm Subject: Calm and Content! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is the Cause of Contentment? The blessed Buddha once said: Contentment is the Highest Treasure! Dhammapada 204 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, Who understands & clearly sees the Dhamma. Udana 10 What is the proximate cause of contentment? Mutual joy with others success is the proximate cause of contentment... If one is never glad at the success of others, one will always be discontent!!! If one is always glad at the success of others, one will always be content!!! Therefore is contentment caused by an altruistic mental state & not by external richness... Example: Rich people possessing all the things they ever desired, can still be very discontent! And vice versa: Poor people not having much, can still be very content and very much smiling! Contentment even with almost nothing! <...> Have a nice content day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Calm and Content! #98247 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 6/3/2009 7:45:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Dear Howard You have to find out for yourself what are te conditions for sati. Does ideas of Self can help to have sati? --------------------------------------- Lukas, why do you drag out that irrelevancy on stage? You should know by now that I do not believe in self or Self or anything of that sort. An accusation of that sort just ends a Dhamma discussion! ----------------------------------------- When we learn more and more in daily life that there is no Self involved in performing kamma that can be such a great condition for sati and pa~n~na. ----------------------------------------- How do we learn that? By reading? That is not the learning of not-self that does the job. ------------------------------------------ > It seems that we have to act in such and such way to have sati, but in > reality sati is just dhatu that can only arise when there are proper > conditions. > --------------------------------------------- > H: Certainly. And what *are* those conditions, Lukas? Are they not > involved, in the sense of "underlying," certain conventional > activities of ours that cultivate the mind? L: sankhara dhammas cultivates. ---------------------------------------------------- Yes, kamma and associated mental activities. --------------------------------------------------- > > That is not Self that is aware, but only a kind of citta that arises > supported by sati and pa~n~na. > Nothing can be done to have sati. Nothing in life belong to you. So there > is really no problem. > ------------------------------------------- > H: That is a good litany, but so long as we *experience* a > problem, there IS one. > ------------------------------------------- L: So then its dukkha. > Those are just fleeting moments, that thinks, sees and have more > dosa. no Lodewijk. > --------------------------------------------- > H: True - no individual, separate thing that is Lodewijk. But the > kammically engendered mental and physical phenomena that constitute > the ever-flowing stream we call "Lodewijk," do hang together > interrelatedly, and are distinguishable from the namas and rupas of > what we call "you" and "I". > --------------------------------------------- L: Yes. But what is the characteristic of pa~n~na? ------------------------------------------ Huh? ------------------------------------------ > Nothing can be done with it. We dont know what will be next. > Whether it be dosa and doubts or anything else. > --------------------------------------------- > H: What we do now conditions what will be. It *matters* what we do > now. > -------------------------------------------- L: There is kamma now and it will bring its vipaka. And only pa~n~na dhatu can know what kamma really is and what vipaka really is. kamma is different than idea about kamma and the same with vipaka. ---------------------------------------- What is kamma? A theoretical abstraction never observed? ------------------------------------------- > Grief and sorrow arises on their own conditions and they are all > conditioned in the same way as everything else. > ------------------------------------------ > H: And what are these conditions? Have they nothing to do with > kamma, our inheritance? > ------------------------------------------ L: Thinking about inheritence can be akusala. Only kusala thinking about inheritence is kusala. In reality there is only kamma that performs its function and then it produces vipaka as result. One of the condtions for kamma is hetupaccaya. ------------------------------------------- Jesus! My simple point is that kamma is important - central even. -------------------------------------------- > They are not yours so that's why you cant control them. No one > can. Dosa would be there as long as there are conditions for it. > It's not different then sati or pa~n~na. > -------------------------------------------- > H: You chose to write this post, Lukas. That is an example of > conventional control. L: Cittas experience its own objects. There is no Self that can choose. ------------------------------------------ NO ONE is speaking of a self!! I leave the rest of your post, Lukas. I have a meeting to go to, and I'm tiring of this. ================================ With metta, Howard #98248 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 3, 2009 8:48 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98196) > ================= > What my question is driving at, is whether 'insusceptibility to control' is seen in its functional reality, to which I think you have suggested an answer. I would interpret this as saying that over a series of moments, panna accumulates the knowledge that the dhamma is not subject to control. This makes sense to me. And I can see that as an observable characteristic of a dhamma. > ================= Yes, I agree that the knowledge gained by individual moments of panna accumulates (but I do not see this as having to be consecutive moments in the same javana series in order to experience anatta as an observable characteristic). > ================= > > I do not understand it to be said that a dhamma "contains" insusceptibility to control. A characteristic is a manifest attribute. (I am tempted to ask whether, in suggesting that a characteristic is something contained in a dhamma, you are not reifying the characteristic ;-)) > > Exactly! I am questioning it in that way to make sure that *you* are not reifying it. I am trying to protect you! :-) > ================= I appreciate your concern for my spiritual wellbeing ;-)) > ================= > Well, I guess you could say that the "foundation of that which we call anatta" was already there in the structural reality of the dhamma, since it of course did not change when the concept of atta came along. All I am saying is that we think of "in the seen there is only the seen" as "anatta" with reference to our tendency to ascribe everything to the act of a 'self.' If we did not have this tendency, I think we would see that characteristic of the dhamma as "just what it is" rather than 'non-self.' Without a self, there is no reason to see "isness" as "non-self." It would just be tathata, things being "exactly as they are due to conditions," which I think is the same as anatta and uncontrollability. If there was no one around to control anything, why would uncontrollability be ascribed to "things arising the way they do due to conditions." It would just be the way it is. Isn't that what the arahat sees? "Just this" and nothing more? > ================= This is an interesting take on things but, as you won't be surprised to hear, I'd be more interested if I could relate it to something found in the texts. Jon #98249 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 1:15 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 2. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, [I sent one post a little while ago, but since it hasn't shown up, I'm sending this one which may then be a repeat.] I thought to wait a day or two to reply to this one, but now I can't. ========= > Sukin: Talking about `proliferation', this is exactly how I characterize your position. There is proliferation which is craving, conceit and there is wrong view. Rob: Am I guilty of all three? What is your evidence? S: At this point I was only making a general statement assuming that you were not familiar with the distinction. Of course I would never point a finger at anyone accusing them of being greedy and having conceit. Why would I, when I see such great tendency to these in myself. And it is not that I think that I have less wrong view, but it's what we are pointing out as in the other person in these discussions aren't we? I'll confess though, that I did pause when rereading what I wrote and wondered if you might take it wrongly, but I was too unbothered to change anything at the time. For this I apologize, especially since it appears that you have reacted somewhat negatively to all this. But hey, do I need to specify instances in order to prove that you surely must have all these three kinds of akusala? Just kidding, I know that your intention is mainly to point out my presumptions. ;-) ========= > While some of us who insist on Anatta and the other two marks being characteristic of realities, this is supported by the fact that in experience dhammas are seen as arising and falling away by conditions beyond control. Rob: Well, that's *my* thesis; that "beyond control" is something that is experienced in daily life and that forms the basis for anatta, not something that is a characteristic that inheres in the dhamma itself. S: Reflecting along the lines that `no control' means `anatta' happens, but sometimes at those moments, there is an understanding of this as being just `thinking'. The impression then is that such is *not* the understanding which takes a present moment reality as object. When the understanding arises in the moment, it is never the case that anatta follows from the fact of `uncontrollability', but rather there is just that particular *characteristic*. You seem to have made up your mind about `anatta' based on word-meaning. This I think is one obstacle to your accepting that it must in fact be a characteristic of a reality knowable by panna in the moment. ============= Rob: How could uncontrollability be a feature of a dhamma itself? It is a relation between that which wants to control it and itself. S: Again, this is insistence of what the `word' should mean as any normal person might understand. The fact is that the Dhamma is a teaching about "reality", and any of our previous understandings about experiences, can be traced to some dhamma performing its function. But without the Dhamma we only have wrong view, and not only we often mistake such things as unwholesome for wholesome, but we also make mistakes with regard to function, cause and manifestation of dhammas. So I think we need to be careful what we conclude with regard to what is stated in the Dhamma….. ========= Rob: The reason it is not controllable is because it is not a part of self and is constantly changing due to conditions, and because it arises due to conditions, not self. These are relations, not features. S: I agree that the fact of there being just `conditioned dhammas' arising and falling away is evidence that there is no `self' and that this is a valid conclusion reflecting the Truth. However I don't think that it can be concluded from here, that `anatta' simply means this and not a characteristic of these same `conditioned dhammas'. You seem to be assuming the existence of `self view' in order to then understand what anatta and no control means. But what if you came in from the fact of there being just these namas and rupas and then apply the teaching about anatta and no control to these? To you I think, it would be meaningless to state that `matter' in the absence of sentience, exhibited the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta, right? Or would you say that there is only `anicca'? ============ > There is no insistence therefore on following the dictates of a `self' in any of these three forms, to make sati and panna arise. Not at anytime, let alone in the idea of following some rite and ritual as in `formal meditation'. Rob: When exactly does this wonderful state take place? Are you enjoying it right now, or is it just a fantasy? S: Yes, that was a statement based on memory, but no, I wasn't enjoying it. ;-) ========== > This is in accordance with the Dhamma and is an instance of Right View, which is what the development of wisdom all about. So you don't really have to worry about us encouraging wrong view when it comes to this. We are not trying to catch the `anatta characteristic'? Rob: You don't have to catch it; you already have a fully developed concept that it is not a relation but a 'thing' and that it is part of the 'real dhamma' that no one can see. S: True, I could be under the influence of a `fully developed concept'. But the beauty is, even such instances can be known and when known, there is greater confidence in these same teachings. As to `thing', could it not be that this is something which goes on only in your mind? I have stated how difficult for me the Dhamma is and to then express anything in words. That I would be moved to try and `catch a present moment reality' this would in a way be assuming to have already some understanding of that which is to be known, which when followed would then be missing on the subtlety of dhammas. Let alone `anatta' and let alone what `khandha', `ayatana', the fact of being `conditioned', and what `nama' and what `rupa' is in terms of directly knowing them, I hardly know to distinguish realities by way of their individual characteristics. Actually, I don't really know what `dhamma' is except to acknowledge that this is different from `concept'. ;-) ============= > And this is no mysticism and our faith in the Abhidhamma is not blind. Rob: But it is a philosophy, something you believe in; not something you perceive yourself. S: I do have some understanding from time to time, of the difference between `believing' and `understanding'. And believe me :-)), I encourage only the latter. But I think that you need to acknowledge that there are indeed the three levels of understanding namely pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all referring to the same mental factor `panna'. You seem to insist on direct experience as though pariyatti had little or no role in the development of the Path. ============== > On the other hand, given your focus, I think that you are missing out on what is really important. While you state that the point is to understand namas and rupas, failing to see that this very moment is conditioned, particularly when thinking to `meditate', you invariably follow the dictates of the proliferation which is wrong view, and of craving. Rob: Really? You must be a mind reader. How do you know what I follow or whether I am subject to wrong view? I think there are some admonitions against this kind of presumption. But please, continue to fantasize about my mental state. Enjoy. S: Why suddenly "I" need to be a mind reader and you don't in order to point out mistake in thinking? Just kidding. :-) You perhaps forgot but I haven't, that we've had discussions before about meditation and study. You were at the time supporting the idea of meditation. The reason I bring this up here is to try to illustrate that anatta can be known now and seen as being in the nature of realities. And when known, the understanding conditions an attitude towards any activity, one which is in line with this fact of there being just conditioned dhammas arising and falling away beyond control. And so in pointing out your own idea about anatta and relating this to your attitude towards what `practice' is, I was trying to show how one wrong is related to another. Was I enjoying this? I'll say that I'm always seeking pleasure and since there is generally so much ignorance, I don't know what the objects were while I was typing out my posts. But do I believe in deriving pleasure from pointing out someone else's fault? The answer is no! =========== > Craving and conceit actually are not the immediate problem however, Rob: That is good to know -- given that my craving and conceit level are so high...according to your fantasy about me... S: I hope it is clear now what I meant =============== > It is the same with all dhammas, including sati and panna which we would like to have more of. Rob: Who is "we?" S: Both of us, but more you than me, ;-) in terms of wrong view that is. =========== > Therefore as far as I'm concerned, it is you who is encouraging self view and wrong practice when you think in terms of `things to do' and tie this to a projected idea about what might be the result, namely what anatta is and when it is known. Rob: "As far as I am concerned." That says it all. You have develop[ed an opinion, mistaken it for the truth, and are hanging onto your own view which is based on...the same opinion. Well, I hope you enjoy your circular reasoning which supports your judgment of me. I hope the circular movement of this thought process does not make you too dizzy! S: Am I schizophrenic or something? Come on, we all know that we are expressing only what `we' think. Why suddenly I'm the one who has to qualify everything that I state with `this is just my opinion'? And how was I expressing `wrong view' and then hanging on to it? Was I wrong about your idea of `practice'? ============== > Your insistence on getting a description of anatta which satisfies you, this too impresses upon me as being due to self view. Rob: No, not that "satisfies me," that shows that you have any idea of what anatta is supposed to be as a positive characteristic. I will accept *any* definition at all, but no one can give me one! What a surprise! S: You say Anatta *is*, I say Anatta *is*. You have given your description, I have given mine. Mine for some reason does not qualify as a description to you, even though it is based on perception of what the present moment is. When I say it is `insusceptibility to control', you say that this can't be a real feature and instead you insist on a meaning akin to how you describe anatta, namely that it is just `thinking' based on the assumption of control. So what am I to do? :-/ Based on what I've said, you conclude that I don't really know what anatta is, and I'll say that you are to a good extent right, since the `understanding' is indeed very feeble. But then the description that you've given seem to me to be based on the kind of considerations any Tom, Dick or Harry might have, which does not inspire any confidence at all. On the other hand, what I've come to understand based on study of the present moment; this seems to condition only ever greater confidence in the Teachings. And frankly, in this regard, your description of how the development of wisdom takes place and what anatta finally comes to mean impresses upon me as lowering the significance of the Buddha's enlightenment. It does not sound like it would require of someone who had the accumulations to become an Arahat in that lifetime, but instead needed to go through a process of development involving the need to meet 24 more Buddhas over a period of zillions of lifetimes. So it seems that we have come to a dead end and should perhaps consider discontinuing. What say you? ============== Rob: Because you can't 'see,' 'discern' or do anything else with a 'not-self.' It's a nonexistent object, just like uncontrollability is an adjective and not a noun! Some people are so hypnotized by their own generalized dogma, eg, "it must be a positive characteristic" without even knowing what that means or what a positive 'anatta' would look like, that they cannot make the most basic sense out of the logic of the Buddha's teaching. S: What about non-attachment, non-aversion and non-delusion then? Are these then just absence and not positive mental factors? From where I stand, the `positive' has more to do with the truth of what it *is*, having the effect of inspiring confidence and reducing doubt. I don't worry about not being able to explain to myself exactly the nature of the experience, which I know to be in part due to the as yet very weak understanding. I see the development of understanding at this stage to involve to a good extent, recognizing misconceptions which have been accumulated so much in this life alone, not to mention past lives. I'd be wary to make a positive and clear cut statement about what has been experienced, since almost invariably I'll end up proliferating (as I do so much in these exchanges). After all, what I do know is "concepts" only, knowledge about realties being so very little. Perhaps this explains why I express myself in a `general' way and not like someone who "really knows"? Although this would then not mean that I can't point out wrong view in others when I see one. ============= Rob: I believe that the Abhidhamma is not the enemy of the Buddha's teachings as expressed in the suttas, but I think that some interpreters of the Abhidhamma have obscured the meaning of the suttas in favor of a much more opaque understanding. We should not make the teachings less clear and then justify it by saying that 'we are not arahats so we have no idea what it is.' S: You are saying that the Dhamma is easier to understand than we make it sound to be? This sounds like evidence of what I said above, that yours is an evaluation of the Dhamma which lowers the significance of the Buddha's enlightenment. The Dhamma is *not* clear even with all the help we get from commentators, ancient or modern. If you really believe that it is clear to you, then we should perhaps stop this exchange, because either you are on a rung so high up which would make it difficult for me to hear you properly, or else you are on an altogether different ladder and we can't be talking about the same thing anyway. ============ Rob: Pariyatti is closer than that, it is right in the suttas! Read them and accept them, and if your concept contradicts or obscures those characteristics, throw your concepts away, not the teachings! S: :-) With all the `conditioning' I'd be reading the Suttas influenced by such conditioning, so how would I know that I am wrong? After all Suttas from all Nikayas have been discussed here and interpreted in this same way without inconsistency of meaning. The alternative is hearing from those who understand differently, no? In this regard, let alone being drawn to question my interpretation, the wrongness of what is said by all including you, has only pushed me to have greater trust in the understanding that I have. Am I caught in a trap or something? ;-) ============ > and I accept that I may be wrong. Either way please don't take any of it personally. Rob: The only thing I take personally is that the posts are so long that I don't have time to do my errands. It's not your fault, but I will blame you anyway! :-) S: :-) OK, let's make this the last one. You may respond if you like, but I'll try not to. ============= > I had no idea how long this post was getting until I just printed it out to review. I guess I was enjoying my proliferations all this while. :-) Rob: Well, there is no escape from that. I am surely guilty of the same. So let me end with one question: Can you describe anatta as a positive characteristic? Give it a shot! What does it look like? And what does uncontrollability look like without a potential controlling factor to enjoy this relation with the dhamma? S: I'll try something else. My knowledge is very little, so I would like to ask you, the definition that you've given for "anatta", has it been stated similarly anywhere in the Suttas? If so, is that all that is ever said about it? `Uncontrollability': Dhammas arise and fall away by conditions, again and again whether we know it or not. When wisdom arises to know this, it is conditioned, when ignorance arises and does not know this, it is again only conditioned dhammas. It is in the nature of dhammas not only to rise and fall, but also to be uncontrollable, not by any `self' which after all does not exist, but by any individual dhamma involved in any particular arising. A citta for example, cannot arise without at least seven cetasikas and a cetasika can't arise without the citta and those other cetasikas arising together with it. =============== Rob: I'll keep asking until someone who believes in such a thingy gives me a description. Otherwise, I'll just keep assuming that no one actually knows what it is, because it is just a vague concept. S: And what else would this prove and in which direction would that take you? Are you going to proceed with your study of the Dhamma believing that anatta means simply that there is no self? Is this then going to be a concept that you choose to carry or not to carry? Ok, since this is the last post from me in this thread, I would like to say that I really appreciate your part in all this, the contributions as well as providing an opportunity for me to reflect on the subject. I also take away from it an example of patience on your part and if you've been taken to the limits, hope that you have learnt something from the experience. Good talking to you Rob. And I'll be reading your conversations with Jon and others on this same topic. Metta, Sukin PS: I've just copy-pasted your last post written to me to word to read. I'm feeling somewhat nervous about it. If I don't respond to that one, it would probably be for the reason I've stated here. I hope you understand. #98250 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lukas' Letter to Lodewijk. hantun1 Dear Lukas, Nina, and Lodewijk, Somehow or other, my last message did not appear. So I will repeat. I appreciate reading the discussions between Lukas, Nina and Lodewijk. It also reminds me of what Nina wrote before: [However, feeling helpless means we take our ignorance for self as I just said to Lukas.] Respectfully, Han --- On Wed, 6/3/09, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Lukas, Lodewijk appreciates your letter. We discussed together your words: Lodewijk was surprised that you understand the Dhamma so well. It is a question of accumulations. Some people understand right away the essence. Different people react differently. Nina. #98251 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 1:36 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sukinderpal Hi Sarah and Rob E, > Sukin (& Rob), perhaps it might help the good discussion to break the replies into segments, perhaps under broad headings as Sukin's done before helpfully. That way you don't have to reply to it all 'at one go' and all the wit and important discussion will be read by more people. Just an idea! Too late. I just sent another marathon post as you can see. I'm like a 100 posts behind in my reading. Metta, Sukin #98252 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 1:57 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau Hi Robert Ep, -------- <. . .>| R: > I appreciate your encouragement, but may not agree on the correct way of reconciling this bifurcation between the "two worlds." I don't believe that a dualistic 'side-by-side' view of reality can be ultimately satisfying. Of course I have no problem talking about cars or driving one, and I don't try to break the steering wheel down into 'hardness' and other rupas, because I don't want to crash. But I also do not accept that conventional reality is to be accepted as it is and not looked into. ----------- I think you are saying we shouldn't separate the real world and the conventional world so much that we lose contact with reality. And I would agree with that. There are only dhammas! On another thread said to me: ------------------------ > I have also been noticing little formatting changes in yahoo which, as usual, have led to new problems. Why do they bother to make these annoying changes? It is like samsara all over again! ;-( ------------------------- Again, I agree ! :-) In fact it *is* samsara all over again! Samasara is the five khandhas - the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. And that is all there ever really is. A story similar to yours is sometimes told on DSG. It ends with K Sujin's saying "Don't be the world's manager." I tend to get the point of the story wrong, but I'd like to try again: The present arammana (object of consciousness) is beyond the control of citta. Citta, by means of its accompanying cetana cetasika, can control its own consciousness, but it can't control the arammana. That is to say cetana (volition) acts as citta's self controller or manager. It marshals the cetasikas together and urges them to perform their functions. For example (as I am sure you agree), it urges vitakka to keep striking repeatedly at the arammana. :-) However, there is no control over the arammana, and only ignorance (moha) would give the illusion of such control. (Only lobha would want such control, only mana would identify with it, and only micha-ditthi would believe in its existence.) Therefore, I think K Sujin would advise us to leave Yahoo (our conventional arammana) to get on with its business of running the internet. We should look to our own responsibilities. And that good advice would come from understanding the world as it really is. Ken H #98254 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 3:13 am Subject: Re: Nibbana/A.N. sarahprocter... Dear Ven Aggacitto, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: > I'm just wondering ... does anyone know of the spot in the A.N.where BOTH nibbana and parinnibbana are described as the different levels of Jhana? I just KNOW its there somewhere. ..... I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for as nibbana and parinibbana are not "different levels of Jhana". Perhaps the following from Nyantiloka's dictionary may be of help. If not, perhaps you would clarify what you understand the above to mean. >"Nibbaana (Sanskrit nirvaana): lit. 'extinction' (nir + Ö va, to cease blowing, to become extinguished); according to the commentaries, 'freedom from desire' (nir+ vana). Nibbaana constitutes the highest and ultimate goal of all Buddhist aspirations, i.e. absolute extinction of that life-affirming will manifested as greed, hate and delusion, and convulsively clinging to existence; and therewith also the ultimate and absolute deliverance from all future rebirth, old age, disease and death, from all suffering and misery. Cf. Parinibbaana. "Extinction of greed, extinction of hate, extinction of delusion: this is called Nibbaana" (S. XXXVIII. 1). The 2 aspects of Nibbaana are: (1) The full extinction of defilements (kilesa-parinibbaana), also called sa-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana (s. It. 41), i.e. 'Nibbaana with the groups of existence still remaining' (s. upaadi ). This takes place at the attainment of Arahatship, or perfect holiness (s. ariya-puggala ). (2) The full extinction of the groups of existence (khandha-parinibbaana), also called an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana (s. It. 41, A.IV.118), i.e. 'Nibbaana without the groups remaining', in other words, the coming to rest, or rather the 'no-more-continuing' of this physico-mental process of existence. This takes place at the death of the Arahat. - (App.: Nibbaana). Sometimes both aspects take place at one and the same moment, i.e. at the death of the Arahat; s. sama-siisîii. "This, o monks, truly is the peace, this is the highest, namely the end of all formations, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving, detachment, extinction, Nibbâna" (A. III, 32). "Enraptured with lust (raaga), enraged with anger (dosa), blinded by delusion (moha), overwhelmed, with mind ensnared, man aims at his own ruin, at the ruin of others, at the ruin of both, and he experiences mental pain and grief. But if lust, anger and delusion are given up, man aims neither at his own ruin, nor at the ruin of others, nor at the ruin of both, and he experiences no mental pain and grief. Thus is Nibbâna visible in this life, immediate, inviting, attractive, and comprehensible to the wise" (A.III.55). "Just as a rock of one solid mass remains unshaken by the wind, even so neither visible forms, nor sounds, nor odours, nor tastes, nor bodily impressions, neither the desired nor the undesired, can cause such a one to waver. Steadfast is his mind, gained is deliverance" (A.VI.55). "Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible" (Ud.VIII.3). One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nibbaana, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anattaa (q.v.), the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbaana - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges. Hence it is said: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there; Nibbâna is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." (Vis.M. XVI) Literature: * For texts on Nibbaana, see Path, 36ff. - * See Vis.M. XVI. 64ff. - * Anattaa and Nibbaana, by Nyanaponika Thera (WHEEL 11); * The Buddhist Doctrine of Nibbâna, by Ven. P. Vajiranana & F. Story (WHEEL 165/166)."< **** Metta, Sarah ===== #98255 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 3:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Howard, >Scott: You offered (I add the Paa.li): Uragasutta.m "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 â€" such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." 5. Yo naajjhagamaa bhavesu saara.m, vicina.m pupphamiva [pupphamiva (bahuusu)] udumbaresu; So bhikkhu jahaati orapaara.m, urago ji.n.namivattaca. m puraa.na.m. PTS PED: "Ajjhagaa [adhi + agaa 3rd sg. pret. of adhigacchati (q. v. for similar forms) he came to, got to, found, obtained, experience.. ." "Adhigacchati [adhi + gacchati] to get to, to come into possession of, to acquire, attain, find; fig. to understand.. ." "Bhavati...to become, to be, exist, behave etc...." "Saara...4. value..." ... Sarah: Yes, this is interesting. I just did some checking and it seems that saara in the line above means 'value', or 'worth'. So as you suggest, Scott: >Scott:A reading more in line with the meaning, I would suggest, would have the gist of inferring that the realisation of the lack of value in existence is a function of experience by the appropriate consciousness - which, in this case, given the term '~natvaa', as that relates to 'jaanaati' - is the particular purview of pa~n~naa. .... S: Understanding the worthlessness of all conditioned dhammas in the rounds of becoming, the worn-out skin is shed through the realisation of nibbana. No more flowers are "vainly sought in the fig trees that bear none". Very helpful... Metta, Sarah ========= #98257 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 5:06 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Suan (Jon & Rob Ep), I have a couple of texts which may be of use in your discussion (from our previous discussions:-)): Suan:> Jon, I briefly dropped in. When you replied to Robert E's sensible traditional Theravada questions in his excellent post on this thread, please kindly address a few issues. >Jon wrote: "On the issue of "practice", what I've said is that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice. It's a matter of having a better understanding of the way things are, gained from reflecting on how what one has heard and understood relates to the present moment." <....> >On the other hand, did you write it with the backing of Theravada Pali texts? If so, could you produce the Pali texts that support your assertion? .... Sarah: Pls use anything of relevance and ignore anything you don't find of relevance related to the meaning of vipassanaa, the factors leading to enlightenmentand vipassanaa in Abhidhamma texts as quoted before by you: 1) (as given before by Nina)> PTS Dictionary has a full article on pa~n~naa. Here are some of the meanings given in the first line: intelligence, com- prising all the higher faculties of cognition, "intellect as conversant with general truths" (Dial. ii.68), reason, wisdom, insight, knowledge, recognition. > For vipassanaa: Vipassanâ (f.) [fr. vi+passati; BSk. vipassanaa, e.g. Divy 44, 95, 264 etc.] inward vision, insight, intuition, introspection. 2) When a person realizes with wisdom (vipassanaa) that all sa"nkhaara [conditioned things] are impermanent; then he would tire of dukkha. This is the path of purity. (Dh.277) ..... 3)#98111 CSCD 311. <Both the terms "anupassanaa" and "vipassanaa" in their turn are merely the synonyms of the term "paññaa". Please view the following Pali quote from Section 357, Vibha~nga, the second Abhidhamma Pi.taka text. This quote defines the term "Anupassii" by simple asking "What is anupassanaa (katamaa anupassanaa)?" "Vibha~nge pana anupassiiti tattha "katamaa anupassanaa? Yaa paññaa pajaananaa vicayo pavicayo dhammavicayo sallakkha.naa upalakkha.naa paccupalakkha.naa pa.n.diccam kosallam nepuññam vebhabyaa cintaa upaparikkhaa bhuurii medhaa pari.naayikaa VIPASSANAA sampajaññam patodo paññaa paññindriyam paññaabalam paññaasattham paññaa paasaado paññaa-aaloko paññaa-obhaaso paññaapajjoto paññaa ratanam amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi, ayam vuccati anupassanaa." Did you see the term "vipassanaa" in capital letters? Please also check other synonyms such as Sammaadi.t.thi (the Right View) as the last one.< **** >Sarah: Translation given in PTS Book of Analysis: "357. `Contemplating [anupassiiti]' means: Therein what is contemplation [anupassanaa]? that which is wisdom [paññaa], understanding [pajaananaa], :[see par 525]: absence of dullness, truth investigation, right view. This is called contemplation. Of this contemplation he is possessed, well possessed, attained, well attained, endowed, well endowed, furnished. Therefore this is called `contemplating'." ... >Suan: The following is Pali passage from Section 525, Vibha~nga. 525. "Sampajaano"ti tattha katamam sampajaññam? Yaa paññaa pajaananaa vicayo pavicayo dhammavicayo sallakkha.naa upalakkha.naa paccupalakkha.naa pa.n.diccam kosallam nepuññam vebhabyaa cintaa upaparikkhaa bhuuriimedhaa pari.naayikaa vipassanaa sampajaññam patodo paññaa paññindriyam paññaabalam paññaasattham paññaapaasaado paññaa-aaloko paññaa-obhaaso paññaapajjoto paññaaratanam amoho dhammavicayo sammaadiµµhi– idam vuccati "sampajaññam". Iti imaaya ca satiyaa iminaa ca sampajaññena upeto hoti …pe… samannaagato. Evam bhikkhu sato sampajaano abhikkamati, sato sampajaano pa.tikkamati, sato sampajaano aaloketi, sato sampajaano viloketi, sato sampajaano samiñjeti, sato sampajaano pasaareti, sato sampajaanakaarii hoti, sa~nghaa.tipattaciivaradhaara.ne sato sampajaanakaarii hoti, asite piite khaayite saayite sato sampajaanakaarii hoti, uccaarapassaavakamme sato sampajaanakaarii hoti, gate .thite nisinne sutte jaagarite bhaasite tu.nhiibhaave sampajaanakaarii hoti.< ***** >Sarah: Translation from `Book of Analysis': "525: `Aware'[Sampajaano] means: Therein what is awareness [sampajaññam]? that which is wisdom [paññaa], understanding, investigation, research, truth investigation, discernment, discrimination, differentiation, erudition, proficiency, subtlety, analysis, consideration, breadth, sagacity, guidance, insight, awareness, goad, wisdom, controlling faculty of wisdom, power of wisdom, sword of wisdom, tower of wisdom, light of wisdom, lustre of wisdom, splendour of wisdom, jewel of wisdom, absence of dullness, truth investigation, right view. This is called awareness. Thus of this mindfulness and this awareness he is possessed, :see para 357: furnished. Thus a bhikkhu mindful and aware approaches; mindful and aware he departs; mindful and aware he looks ahead; mindful and aware he looks around; mindful and aware he bends; mindful and aware he stretches; mindful he acts with awareness; in bearing the outer robe, the alms-bowl and the under robe, mindful he acts with awareness; in eating, in drinking, in chewing, in tasting, mindful he acts with awareness; in walking, in standing, in sitting, in sleeping, in waking, in talking, in being silent, he acts with awareness." ***** ***** #31744 > The following list is also the synonyms of paññaa in Section 16, > Cittuppaada Ka.n.dam, Dhammasa~nga.nii (the First Book of > Abhidhamma). > > 16. Katamam tasmim samaye paññindriyam hoti? Yaa > tasmim samaye paññaa pajaananaa vicayo pavicayo dhammavicayo > sallakkha.naa upalakkha.naa paccupalakkha.naa > pa.n.diccam kosallam nepuññam vebhabyaa cintaa > upaparikkhaa bhuurii medhaa pari.naayikaa vipassanaa > sampajaññam patodo paññaa paññindriyam paññaabalam > paññaasattham paññaapaasaado paññaa-aaloko paññaa-obhaaso > paññaapajjoto paññaaratanam amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi– > idam tasmim samaye paññindriyam hoti. > > Although the list does not contain "Anupassanaa" as in the list in > Vibha~nga, it does contain the terms of Satipa.t.thaana Suttam, > namely, pajaananaa (from pajaanaati), and sampajaññam. > > You could perhaps check the PTS translation of Dhammasanga.nii at > Section 16, Cittuppaada Ka.n.dam. See what happens in terms of > adequacy and clarity! ... Yes, this is given in full - OK very briefly, it's a transl by Mrs Rhys Davids (your favourite, Suan;-)). "The insight which there is on that occasion is understanding, search, research, searching the Doctrine, discernment, discrimination, differentiation, erudition, proficiency, subtlety, criticism, reflection, analysis, breadth, sagacity, a `guide', intuition, intelligence, a `goad'; wisdom as faculty, wisdom as power, wisdom as a sword, wisdom as a height [in the sense of sth lofty], wisdom as light, wisdom as glory, wisdom as splendour, wisdom as a precious stone; the absence of dullness, searching the Truth, right views - this is the wisdom that there then is." **** Metta, Sarah ======= #98258 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 6:01 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: to Lukas, Lodewijk's misgivings. nilovg Hi Howard (and Lukas), Op 4-jun-2009, om 1:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You have to find out for yourself what are te conditions for sati. > Does > ideas of Self can help to have sati? > --------------------------------------- > Lukas, why do you drag out that irrelevancy on stage? You should know > by now that I do not believe in self or Self or anything of that > sort. An > accusation of that sort just ends a Dhamma discussion! -------- N: Certainly, when we have studied the Dhamma we agree that there is no self, that it is unreasonable to believe in a self. Another thing, as you know also, is that we have deeply accumulated the clinging to a self. We are not sotaapannas, and thus, we have not eradicated the belief in a self. Therefore, subtle clinging to "I" is bound to arise all the time, also when we think of wanting to have more moments of sati. You misunderstood Lukas' reminders. I myself find that I need such reminders. Kh Sujin often reminds us: Is that not an idea of self who wants sati? We have to be very honest to admit this. I quote: H: You chose to write this post, Lukas. That is an example of > conventional control. L: Cittas experience its own objects. There is no Self that can choose. ------ N: Is it not true that in the practice we forget? At least I do. I heard this morning a recording: visible object could not appear without conditions, without eyesense and seeing which experiences it. It all sounds so simple. But we forget while seeing, it is still self who is seeing. We do not yet deeply understand conditions, I find. Listening, being reminded of the truth, it all helps. We do not mind who speaks about the Dhamma, we can learn from anybody who speaks about the Dhamma. ****** Nina. #98259 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 6:19 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard (and Jon), Op 4-jun-2009, om 1:48 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Jon: Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain > technique, to my > understanding. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard:What IS it a matter of then? Unspecified "conditions"? ---------- N: Developing understanding of what appears right now. We are thinking, hoping to know realities that have not appeared yet. But now a reality is appearing, why is understanding of that reality not being developed? Nina. #98260 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 6:29 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, There can be “study” of visible object, sound, hearing and other realities when they appear one at a time. The word “study” is appropriate, because it is a learning process. It is not theoretical study but study of nåma and rúpa in daily life. We should not have expectations about the arising of clear, direct understanding of nåma and rúpa. When there are expectations there is attachment to an idea of self who is successful, whereas mindfulness and right understanding should lead to detachment from the idea of self. We should remember that mindfulness of nåma and rúpa accompanies kusala citta and that kusala citta does not arise as often as akusala citta. There are countless more moments of akusala citta than kusala citta. If we remember this we will be less inclined to false expectations. When we have understood that there should be study of the characteristics of nåma and rúpa in order to have more understanding of them, we will stop wondering what mindfulness is or doubting about it. There is usually forgetfulness of nåma and rúpa, but sometimes there can be kusala citta accompanied by mindfulness of the reality which appears at the present moment, a nåma or a rúpa. We cannot do anything special to cause the arising of sati because sati is anattå. It arises because of its appropriate conditions. The right conditions for sati are: listening to the Dhamma, theoretical understanding of nåma and rúpa and deeply considering the Dhamma in our life. One may be discouraged about it that, although one has listened for many years, there is hardly any awareness in daily life. When one merely listens but does not deeply consider what one heard and does not test the meaning of it, there are no conditions for awareness. Through considering the Dhamma one builds up one’s own understanding, one is not dependent on other people. Everybody should consider nåma and rúpa in his own situation. ****** Nina. #98261 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 8:12 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/4/2009 2:20:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard (and Jon), Op 4-jun-2009, om 1:48 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Jon: Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain > technique, to my > understanding. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard:What IS it a matter of then? Unspecified "conditions"? ---------- N: Developing understanding of what appears right now. We are thinking, hoping to know realities that have not appeared yet. But now a reality is appearing, why is understanding of that reality not being developed? --------------------------------------- Okay, Nina, I give up - why isn't it? ;-)) Nina, a question isn't an explanation. Did the Buddha not prescribe training? Do you say "no"? (I say "yes".) --------------------------------------- Nina. ======================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98262 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 1:02 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 4-jun-2009, om 14:12 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Okay, Nina, I give up - why isn't it? ;-)) Nina, a question isn't an > explanation. Did the Buddha not prescribe training? Do you say > "no"? (I say > "yes".) -------- N: Yes, trainining, sikkhaa. Training in higher siila, higher concentration, higher pa~n~naa. These three are being accomplished when they are accompanied by right understanding of nama and rupa. At the moment of right awareness and right understanding there are these three higher trainings. As you know, some factors of the eightfold Path are the siila of the eightfold Path, some are the concentration of the eightfold Path (effort, sati and samaadhi) some are the wisdom of the eightfold Path (right thinking which touches the nama or rupa that appears) and right view. But, each factor has to be accompanied by right view or right understanding, otherwise it is not a Path factor. Thus, there is no person, no one who trains, only citta and cetasikas, as Lukas reminded us. Remember the words: there is a Path but no goer on it. Nina. #98263 From: Harry Liew Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 6. harryliew66 Dear Nina, Thank you for your regular teaching. Personal mantra/mental device: [information] = - [entropy]. Found it very useful in studying nÃ¥ma and rúpa, and Prajnaparamita literature. Metta, Harry --- On Thu, 4/6/09, Nina van Gorkom wrote: From: Nina van Gorkom Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 6. To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, 4 June, 2009, 6:29 PM Dear friends, There can be “study” of visible object, sound, hearing and other realities when they appear one at a time. The word “study” is appropriate, because it is a learning process. It is not theoretical study but study of nÃ¥ma and rúpa in daily life. ............ ........ not dependent on other people. Everybody should consider nÃ¥ma and rúpa in his own situation. ****** Nina. #98264 From: "m_nease" Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 11:41 pm Subject: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] m_nease Hi Howard (and All), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Mike (and Nina, thank you for posting this) - > > In a message dated 6/3/2009 3:13:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > > Van: Mike Nease > > Datum: 3 juni 2009 3:34:06 GMT+02:00 > > Aan: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Onderwerp: Antw.: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana. > > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > upasaka@... wrote: > > > >> Hi, Mike (and Nina) - > >> In a message dated 6/2/2009 2:55:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > >> mlnease@... writes: > >> Hi Howard (and Nina), > >> Thanks for the citations. If you'd like to select a single passage > >> stating explicitly that "...the hindrances are weakened by > >> repeated entry to > >> jhanas", I'd be glad to discuss it with you. > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> I'd be so pleased to discuss one with you if I had it. I do not. The > >> citations I gave certainly fall far short of adequate. I do, > >> nonetheless, > >> have great confidence that repeated exposure to jhanas weakens > >> hindrances. > >> For that matter, consistent sila does so too. > >> ------------------------------------------ > > > > Thanks for this. I had an idea that you saw it this way and, of > > course, maybe you're right. I have no special knowledge. > > > > Another question, just as a matter of interest. There are a fair > > few religious traditions containing concentrative (I think I might > > say 'meditative') practices and of course all of them have moral > > (siila) practices too. Is it your view that the concentrative and > > moral practices of these religions (consider the dhyana yoga > > described in the Upanishads for example) lead to the eradication of > > defilements? > ----------------------------------------------- > Mike, the short answer is "no". At slightly greater length: Not all > "concentrative meditation" is of equal value , and some could even be harmful > especially if mixed in with counterproductive beliefs. But, for that > matter, I do not believe that even Buddhist samatha cultivation techniques are > enough to eradicate defilements. I consider them supportive of and requisite > for such eventual uprooting but insufficient on their own. I appreciate the clarification, Howard, that's the way I thought you saw it. Thanks again for your time and patience. Nice chatting with you, too. mike p.s. Sorry for the slow response. More computer problems...all my downloaded emails for the last week or so are no more. If anyone is awaiting a reply, please let me know (I think the confuser is more or less stable now--of course, I always think that...) #98265 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 1:09 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (15) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (15) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- We may notice changes in body-temperature because of different conditions, for instance through the digestion of our food, or when we are excited, angry or afraid. So long as we are still alive the internal element of heat arises and falls away all the time. When heat presents itself and when there is awareness of it, it can be known as only a ruupa element, not "my body-heat". When we are absorbed in excitement, anger or fear we forget that there are in reality only different kinds of naama and ruupa that arise and fall away. The element of heat can be internal or external. Saariputta explained that the liability to change of the external heat element and its impermanence can be seen when it becomes agitated and burns up villages, towns, districts and regions, and is then extinguished through lack of fuel. Both the internal and the external element of heat are impermanent and not self. -------------------- with metta, Han #98266 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 1:57 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (13), (14), (15) hantun1 Dear All, In MN 28 Mahaahatthipadopama Sutta, Ven Saariputta described the internal heat element as follows: [Whatever is heat, warmth, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, such as by whatever one is vitalized, by whatever one is consumed, by whatever one is burnt up, and by whatever one has munched, drunk, eaten and tasted that is properly transmuted (in digestion), or whatever other thing is heat, warmth, is internal....] [Ya.m ajjhatta.m paccatta.m tejo tejogata.m upaadinna.m, seyyathida.m yena ca santappati, yena ca jiiriiyati, yena ca pari.dayhati, yena ca asitapiitakhaayitasaayita.m sammaa pari.naama.m gacchati, ya.m vaa pana~n~na.mpi ki~nci ajjhatta.m paccatta.m tejo tejogata.m upaadinna.m.] Based on the above and also referring to a Burmese book by Ven Ashin Janakaabhiva.msa, and for my own understanding, I list the following internal tejo dhaatu. 1. Santappana tejo: The normal body temperature is called Usumaa tejo. When Usumaa tejo is disturbed and when there is a rise in body temperature, like in fever, it is called Santappana tejo. 2. Dahana tejo: When the body temperature is further increased, and when one is burnt up, it is called Dahana tejo. 3. Jiira.na tejo: When the heat in the body causes hairs to turn white, teeth to fall off, blurred vision, wrinkled skin, and other aging process, it is called Jiira.na tejo. 4. Paacaka tejo: The heat that helps in the digestion of food. If my above listing is incorrect, I will be happy to be corrected. Respectfully, Han #98267 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:39 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (and Howard), Regarding: Sarah: Yes, this is interesting. I just did some checking and it seems that saara in the line above means 'value', or 'worth'...Understanding the worthlessness of all conditioned dhammas in the rounds of becoming, the worn-out skin is shed through the realisation of nibbana. No more flowers are 'vainly sought in the fig trees that bear none'." Scott: Yes, that's how I read it as well. I'm of the opinion that English phrases such as 'core or substance' seem, at times, to take on a particularly seductive, mystical, and numinous quality for those enamoured of them. I imagine that it is very emotionally satisfying to feel one's self to have 'deep knowledge' - a belief engendered by the 'magical' conceptual quality of these words and the inevitable misunderstanding resulting thereby. I see this as another aspect of the corruption of the Dhamma. Just an opinion... Sincerely, Scott. #98268 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Dear Rob Ep, Jon, Suan, (Nina & all), --- On Wed, 3/6/09, jonoabb wrote: >To my understanding, pariyatti is a necessary prerequisite for patipatti, whether for the beginner or the person of more developed understanding. I think this is made clear by the numerous references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings and reflecting on what has been heard and understood. <...> >The path taught by the Buddha is unlike any other path known. The Noble Eightfold Path is actually the 8 mental factors that arise at the moment of enlightenment. The development of that path occurs when certain of those 8 factors (5 or 6) arise together at moments of satipatthana or insight. Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my understanding. .... S: I think we can also find good support for these comments as found in the recent quotes and commentary notes which Nina added on the Sangiiti Sutta, #98174: >sutta 13 >Walshe DN 33.1.11(13) 'Four factors of Stream-Attainment (sotaapattiyangaani): association with good people (sappurisa- sa'mseva), hearing the true Dhamma, thorough attention (yoniso manasikaara), practice of the Dhamma in its entirety (dhammaanudhamma- pa.tipatti). (Cattaari sotaapattiya'ngaani - sappurisasa.msevo, saddhammassavana.m, yonisomanasikaaro, dhammaanudhammappa.tipatti. --------- >N: The co. states that the four factors are the causes leading to the Path of the sotaapanna. Sota means stream, and the subco glosses: the ariyan stream. It states that these factors are means to reach this state. As to association with good people, sappurisa, the co. explains that after having met the Buddha and ‘good people’, he follows them. The subco. states as to sappurisa, this is santo purisa, a peaceful person, endowed with peaceful dhammas. As to hearing the true Dhamma, saddhamma, this is derived from santo, peaceful, or sato, true. The co. explains that he listens to the Dhamma of the tipi.taka which is a support. The subco: listening to the true Dhamma is conducive to the penetration of the four Truths. He practises as he is admonished, not falling down into the dukkha of an unhappy rebirth and the dukkha of the cycle. As to wise attention, the co explains that this is attention to impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. As to the practice of dhamma in conformity with dhamma, the co states that in conformity with dhamma relates to lokuttara dhamma, and that previous practice is necessary, which is, according to the subco, vipassanaa. This phrase is also explained in the co. to the Mahaaparinibbaanasutta (The Buddha’s Last Days, Yang-Gyu An, p. 93): A footnote: < ---------- Metta, Sarah ======= #98269 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (14) sarahprocter... Dear Han (& James), --- On Wed, 3/6/09, Dr. Han Tun wrote: >The element of heat also has a function in the digestion of food, it "cooks" what is eaten and drunk. ... S: This is what I was suggesting before as being a crucial difference between plants and sentient beings. In the case of beings, the nutriment has been digested or 'cooked' by the element of heat, so that the nutritive essence has its conditioning force as aahaara-paccaya (nutriment condition). Metta, Sarah ====== #98270 From: "m_nease" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:51 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) m_nease Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > I'm of the opinion that English phrases such as 'core or substance' seem, at times, to take on a particularly seductive, mystical, and numinous quality for those enamoured of them. I imagine that it is very emotionally satisfying to feel one's self to have 'deep knowledge' - a belief engendered by the 'magical' conceptual quality of these words and the inevitable misunderstanding resulting thereby. No kiddin'. By the way, I think the modern expression "magical thinking" comes very close to the meaning of 'siilabbata-paraamaaso', that is, the idea that, by having practiced certain abstinences-rituals, 'I' have acquired (or can acquire) 'deep knowledge'. mike #98271 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:57 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Mike & all), I'm glad to read the discussion between you and Mike again after a long break! >>M: Another question, just as a matter of interest. There are a fair > few religious traditions containing concentrative (I think I might > say 'meditative' ) practices and of course all of them have moral > (siila) practices too. Is it your view that the concentrative and > moral practices of these religions (consider the dhyana yoga > described in the Upanishads for example) lead to the eradication of > defilements? ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- H:> Mike, the short answer is "no". At slightly greater length: Not all "concentrative meditation" is of equal value , and some could even be harmful especially if mixed in with counterproductive beliefs. But, for that matter, I do not believe that even Buddhist samatha cultivation techniques are enough to eradicate defilements. I consider them supportive of and requisite for such eventual uprooting but insufficient on their own. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --- S: A minor further question following this discussion - Do you consider there to be any difference betweens moments of samatha cultivation (samatha bhavana) as pursued by 'Buddhists' vs by, say, 'Hindus'? Do you consider there to be any difference between moments of (genuine) jhana/dhyana as attained by those of different religions? I ask because it seems to be quite a common view that Buddhist samatha cultivation or jhana attainment is somehow different from that which was developed and attained before the Buddha's enlightenment. Thanks in advance for your comments and hope you can encourage Mike to hang around longer. Now that Rob Ep's back, it's almost like old times:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #98272 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, --- On Mon, 1/6/09, sprlrt wrote: >>S: I'm not quite sure what you mean aboe when you refer to "apart from nibbana, also includes other dhammas accompanied by plesaurable feeling". Nibbana and other desirable objects cannot be said to be "accompanied by pleasurable feeling" surely? A:> Can there be an arammana without a vedana feeling it? .... S: Whenever a citta experiences an arammana, vedana has to accompany the citta. I think I misunderstood what you wrote above which I (mistakenly) read to be suggesting it was the objects rather than the cittas accompanied by vedana. .... >In the case of an arammana adhipati, vedana experiencing it can also be upekkha as well .... S: Yes, occasionally, as in the example below. Thanks for clarifying, Alberto. Metta, Sarah >>S: Also, although the cittas experiencing such objects will nearly always be with pleasant feeling, this isn't always so. For example, nibbana is usually experienced with pleasant feeling, but not always (such as when the highest jhanas are the basis). ============= #98273 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:14 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: "...By the way, I think the modern expression 'magical thinking' comes very close to the meaning of 'siilabbata-paraamaaso', that is, the idea that, by having practiced certain abstinences-rituals, 'I' have acquired (or can acquire) 'deep knowledge'." Scott: I appreciate this, Mike. Magical thinking represents a self-centeredness and a concreteness, being a quality of a style of thinking associated with that of young children; in particular, I think, with the sort of narcissism natural to them. A certain egocentricity is exhibited such that everything seems experienced as being because of the child - things both good and ill. One can observe this quality in the various wrong views as expressed conceptually on the list. 'I' meditate, 'I' weaken the hindrances, 'I' get angry or lustful and 'I' must stop myself from being angry or lustful. I believe it might be a function of that self-same style of thinking. Sincerely, Scott. #98274 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Sarah) - In a message dated 6/4/2009 10:39:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Sarah (and Howard), Regarding: Sarah: Yes, this is interesting. I just did some checking and it seems that saara in the line above means 'value', or 'worth'...Understanding the worthlessness of all conditioned dhammas in the rounds of becoming, the worn-out skin is shed through the realisation of nibbana. No more flowers are 'vainly sought in the fig trees that bear none'." Scott: Yes, that's how I read it as well. I'm of the opinion that English phrases such as 'core or substance' seem, at times, to take on a particularly seductive, mystical, and numinous quality for those enamoured of them. I imagine that it is very emotionally satisfying to feel one's self to have 'deep knowledge' - a belief engendered by the 'magical' conceptual quality of these words and the inevitable misunderstanding resulting thereby. ----------------------------------------------- It's interesting that you imagine that. You must have a fine imagination. ---------------------------------------------- I see this as another aspect of the corruption of the Dhamma. Just an opinion... -------------------------------------------- Uh, huh. I wonder why Ven Nyanaponika was so confused in making his Pali translation of the Uraga Sutta. ------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ========================== 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) #98275 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, (Phil & all), Like others, I also appreciated your discussion with Lodewijk. I hope you may continue. Back to our chat: --- On Mon, 1/6/09, szmicio wrote: >Does samvara siila is the same as adhisiila? I would appreciate if you say more on this. .... S: As I understand, there are different degrees of samvara siila (restraint or guarding of the senses as siila). At any moment of kusala, there is restraint or guarding, there is such siila according to the degree/kind of kusala. Often in the texts samvara siila is particularly referring to the highest kind of siila, that of satipa.thaana, however. At such moments of satipa.t.thaana, there is adhisiila (higher siila), which can only be developed at such moments. This is perfected at the stage of sotapanna. So when we read about adhisiila, it's always referring to the development of satipa.t.thaana, whereas samvara siila may be referring to Paat.imokkha siila, for example, as here: >>S: "As a person develops pa~n~naa, he acquires more understanding of the > excellent qualities of the Buddha and of the Dhamma he taught in all > details. One can appreciate the teachings from the beginning level, > the level of restraint, or "guarding", of the senses (samvara siila) > with regard to the Paa.timokkha, the Disciplinary code for the monks. > This is the conduct through body and speech befitting the "samana", > the person who is a monk, who leads a peaceful life. We read in the > "Visuddhimagga" (I, 50) about the restraint of the monk with regard > to seeing: ... S: You ask: >L: What is proper resort as guarding? Here "A bhikkhu, having entered > inside a house, having gone into a street, goes with downcast eyes, > seeing the length of a plough yoke, restrained, not looking at an > elephant, not looking at a horse, a carriage, a pedestrian, a woman, > a man, not looking up, not looking down, not staring this way and > that." This is called proper resort as guarding. .... S: "Proper resort as guarding" refers to the object of attention. This it the rule for the bhikkhu, not to be 'involved' in lay sensuous objects and stories. ... >L: Yes but that's not samvara siila. That's ignorance. ... S: It depends on the citta. All the Paa.timokkha refers to the development of siila with satipa.t.thaana. Without the development of satipa.t.thaana, the Paa.timokkha will never be kept perfectly. When it's samvara siila, it is kusala. If it's not kusala restraint, then it's not any 'guarding'. .... >Even when we try to restraint by not looking for this or that, it's not samvara siila. How can there be samvara siila if there is no understanding of nama and ruupa?? .... S: Again, different degrees of samvara siila. I agree that without any understanding of naama and ruupa, it's very difficult to know when it's kusala siila and when it's akusala siila. The behaviour or outer appearance may be exactly the same. In the example, it's referring to behaviour conditioned by kusala cittas. .... >samvara siila is that kind of restraint which is so nautural, no one can induce it. But reading about discipline or studing vinyana can be such a good condition for samvara siila to arise. .... S: Yes, I agree. It can be a reminder of the attachment even at this moment as we glance out of the window, listen to the sounds, absorbed in the details immediately. ... >If we are not reminded about nama and ruupa more and more we can start to think that samvara siila is when we try to cut our sense experiences, but that is not so. ... S: No, that's not the way. Bhikkhus have to follow the rules, but even so, if anyone thinks that trying to cut sense experiences is the way to develop satipa.t.thaana, it's wrong. Satipa.t.thaana leads to the restraint. .... >those are diffrent concepts that we have about samvara. We belive that it is possible to refrain from not doing evil deeds that is proper effort. But this is another idea. Reading about discipline and seeing our friends which restraint from doing bad deeds is such a good reminder to have more siila in our life. ... S: Of course, there are different degrees of restraint from doing evil deeds (as Phil is always reminding us - hi Phil!). There can be such restraint which is wholesome, even though there is no understanding of nama and rupa. Those who have never heard the Buddha's teachings, such as our parents, show many such moments of restraint. However, it's not the fine understanding which realises such moments as dhammas, not atta. And I agree with your last comment - there cannot always be right understanding of nama and rupa in a day, so we should appreciate the opportunities for any level of restraint and siila in a day. As you say, the reminders are all around us! An interesting chat - let me know your further reflections and good reminders for samvara siila of any degree! Metta, Sarah ===== #98276 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 4, 2009 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/4/2009 10:58:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (Mike & all), I'm glad to read the discussion between you and Mike again after a long break! >>M: Another question, just as a matter of interest. There are a fair > few religious traditions containing concentrative (I think I might > say 'meditative' ) practices and of course all of them have moral > (siila) practices too. Is it your view that the concentrative and > moral practices of these religions (consider the dhyana yoga > described in the Upanishads for example) lead to the eradication of > defilements? ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- H:> Mike, the short answer is "no". At slightly greater length: Not all "concentrative meditation" is of equal value , and some could even be harmful especially if mixed in with counterproductive beliefs. But, for that matter, I do not believe that even Buddhist samatha cultivation techniques are enough to eradicate defilements. I consider them supportive of and requisite for such eventual uprooting but insufficient on their own. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --- S: A minor further question following this discussion - Do you consider there to be any difference betweens moments of samatha cultivation (samatha bhavana) as pursued by 'Buddhists' vs by, say, 'Hindus'? Do you consider there to be any difference between moments of (genuine) jhana/dhyana as attained by those of different religions? I ask because it seems to be quite a common view that Buddhist samatha cultivation or jhana attainment is somehow different from that which was developed and attained before the Buddha's enlightenment. --------------------------------------------- How about your telling me what YOU think, Sarah, and I'll let you know whether I agree or not. I'm not in such a fine mood after having just read Scott's "put down" post, and I think I'd best not engage in communication here at this very moment. ------------------------------------------- Thanks in advance for your comments and hope you can encourage Mike to hang around longer. Now that Rob Ep's back, it's almost like old times:-). -------------------------------------------- Mmm, yes, my dear friend. But that has its good aspects and its not so good. ------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ============================= With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98277 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:40 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (14) hantun1 Dear Sarah (and James), > Sarah: This is what I was suggesting before as being a crucial difference between plants and sentient beings. In the case of beings, the nutriment has been digested or 'cooked' by the element of heat, so that the nutritive essence has its conditioning force as aahaara-paccaya (nutriment condition). ----------------- Han: How do you know the plants also do not *digest* in their own way? What happens in human digestion? Proteins are broken down to amino acids; carbohydrates to glucose; and fats to fatty acids and glycerol. They are just chemical changes. How do you know the plants also do not have such chemical changes? Photosynthesis by plants is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. Cellular respiration: Nutrients commonly used by animal and plant cells in respiration include glucose, amino acids and fatty acids, and a common oxidizing agent (electron acceptor) is molecular oxygen (O2). [Kindly note the words plant cells.] A Botanist will be able to tell us the chemical changes that take place in the roots of the plants before the sap is transmitted up to the trunk of the plants by capillary action. These chemical changes, I will say, are the plants way of digestion. You can tell me that all the above are only just my *thinking* :>)) Dear Sarah, I will not say that what you have written is wrong. But I have my own understanding which may not be in agreement with you. Respectfully, Han #98278 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:42 am Subject: Yahoo Techno Help (was:Physical Phenomena (11)) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep & Ken H, Actually, you both helped me: --- On Mon, 1/6/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >b/ If I hit the "back arrow" to go back to a message to resend it, it now disappears completely and the backup 'drafts' they create are never even close to the state of the finished message. .... S: I wrote you a longer message on the kava ceremony, lost it by accidentally hitting the 'back arrow' and re-wrote a much shorter post. After seeing your note, I was reminded that for those who use yahoo mail, this is a good new feature - if posts are 'lost' for any reason (such as lost connection here in Fiji), as often as not they can later be retrieved from 'drafts'. Sure enough, after reading your note, I checked, and there was almost the entire original kava ceremony post. Just mentioning it for others who don't know about this feature. (Jon also mentioned in 'word' that there is some regular back up setting which can be used, I believe). [I also liked Ken H's tip before to 'copy' from time to time whilst typing. OK, will do it now.] The other thing that Ken H's assistance to Han with apostrophes helped me with was in relation to using the Beta rich text. I experimented with it whilst sending an extract from Nyantiloka's dict. yesterday and later a Pali slab to Suan from old messages. Usually, I have to convert all the Paali diacritics into velthius form, changing every a with a bar over it to aa, for example. Using the beta rich text format, this doesn't seem to be necessary. Again, just mentioning it for others to try out too. Perhaps you can assist Ken H (perhaps, behind the scenes) when anyone else has difficulties too. Metta, Sarah p.s I do know that yahoo have been doing some major works recently - as usual, with lots of promises about improved searches, memory and so on. Patience! ========== #98279 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah (and Lukas), sarah abbott wrote: "...when we read about adhisiila, it's always referring to the development of satipa.t.thaana, whereas samvara siila may be referring to Paat.imokkha siila..." Do you think tha this has to do with the difference between the two right views expressed in the Great Forty? mike #98280 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 4:07 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Fri, 5/6/09, upasaka@... wrote: S:>> Do you consider there to be any difference between moments of (genuine) jhana/dhyana as attained by those of different religions? I ask because it seems to be quite a common view that Buddhist samatha cultivation or jhana attainment is somehow different from that which was developed and attained before the Buddha's enlightenment. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ H:>How about your telling me what YOU think, Sarah, and I'll let you know whether I agree or not. ... S: What I think is that daana, an act of generosity is daana, an act of generosity, regardless of who is performing it, regrdless of whether someone is a so-called Hindu or Buddhist, for example. I think exactly the same applies to moments of samatha bhavana. At moments of wise reflection on death, for example, the understanding and calm involved does not depend on 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist', but on the particular kinds of cittas arising. [Of course, if someone has never heard the Buddha's teachings, certain kinds of samatha cannot be developed, such as reflections on the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha]. And so with jhana cittas too, (mundane) jhana cittas which arose before the Buddha's time were the same (mundane)jhana cittas which arose in those who had heard the Buddha. Jhana cittas are jhana cittas. Dana cittas are dana cittas. In other words, jhana cittas can only be 'genuine' jhana cittas, otherwise they're something else. Only the development of satipatthana (and the preliminary pariyatti) cannot occur without hearing the Buddha's teachings. Only this leads to the eradication of defilements. But, I know you agree on this. ... >I'm not in such a fine mood after having just read Scott's "put down" post, and I think I'd best not engage in communication here at this very moment. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- S: I haven't read it yet (your one addressed to me just caught my eye as I was posting). In any case, I'm always glad to communicate with you, so perhaps you might just consider ignoring any seemingly 'put down' posts. We know everyone has their own style. I heard something on a tape which rang a bell for me (but may not for you, of course). K.Sujin was talking about how when someone gets annoyed or gives a 'put down',for example, we often don't mind when we're not the target. But don't we mind a lot when we're the target and isn't that because of the self-importance and conceit concerning ourselves. 'How dare he/she speak to me like that!' 'Why should I have to put up with it?'. Poor "ME"! Opportunities for sati all the time, of course! Metta, Sarah ========== #98281 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Mike, S:>>"...when we read about adhisiila, it's always referring to the development of satipa.t.thaana, whereas samvara siila may be referring to Paat.imokkha siila..." M:>Do you think tha this has to do with the difference between the two right views expressed in the Great Forty? ... S: Surely the two right views in the Great Forty both refer to the development of insight: 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. 9. ... "Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right view, that is, right view, right effort, and right mindfulness. ------------------------------- According to the footnotes, the commentary explains as follows: In par. 4, there are two kinds of right view that are forerunners: the right view of insight, which investigates formations as impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the path, which arises as a consequence of insight and effects the radical destruction of defilements. .... S: In the development of insight, the samvara sila, the guarding is adhi sila, because it is accompanied by right view. At the moment of the path, adhi sila is perfected when the tendencies to gross deeds, such as breaking of precepts, is eradicated. Did you mean something further? Please elaborate if so. This is a bit rushed now. We're leaving Fiji in the morning for Syd, so I'll be shortly closing down until settled there. I hope others will join in in the meantime. Metta, Sarah ======== #98282 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (14) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- On Fri, 5/6/09, han tun wrote: >> Sarah: This is what I was suggesting before as being a crucial difference between plants and sentient beings. In the case of beings, the nutriment has been digested or 'cooked' by the element of heat, so that the nutritive essence has its conditioning force as aahaara-paccaya (nutriment condition). ------------ ----- >Han: How do you know the plants also do not *digest* in their own way? ... S: "In their own way", but not the way of living beings..... ... >What happens in human digestion? Proteins are broken down to amino acids; carbohydrates to glucose; and fats to fatty acids and glycerol. They are just chemical changes. How do you know the plants also do not have such chemical changes? Photosynthesis by plants is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. ... S: "Using the energy from sunlight". It is not using the internal temperature which 'cooks' or 'digests' the food. The nutritive essence only occurs as paccaya after it has been so digested, even if it's cream on the skin. So, I think it's just a technical matter in that what is referred to as 'nutritive essence' as condition in the Abhidhamma is not the same as what is referred to as nutrients in science. ... >Cellular respiration: Nutrients commonly used by animal and plant cells in respiration include glucose, amino acids and fatty acids, and a common oxidizing agent (electron acceptor) is molecular oxygen (O2). [Kindly note the words plant cells.] A Botanist will be able to tell us the chemical changes that take place in the roots of the plants before the sap is transmitted up to the trunk of the plants by capillary action. .... S: Surely and by external temperature.... ... >These chemical changes, I will say, are the plants way of digestion. >You can tell me that all the above are only just my *thinking* :>)) .... S: And this is all my *thinking* too! I think the main point is that it is a different kind of 'digestion', one dependent on external temperature, bring about such reactions and one dependent on internal temperature assisting internal digestion which conditions rupas. But again, we're talking about aahaara as essence as a rupa in kalapas. .... >Dear Sarah, I will not say that what you have written is wrong. But I have my own understanding which may not be in agreement with you. ... S: I think that all you say is correct, but I think that scientific use of terms and the rupas we read about in the texts are very different. Perhaps others may help further as I need to sign off now for a couple of days. Metta, Sarah ======= #98283 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:07 am Subject: Pakatupanissaya, kusala -> akusala; akusala -> kusala sprlrt Hi, Conditioned dhammas arise, just to fall away immediately, because of conditions, paccayas, which in their turn are conditioned dhammas themselves - a bit like a dog chasing its tail. To be a kusala or akusala conditioning dhamma strongly dependent on habits/pakatupanissaya pacccaya, or to be its result, a kusala or akusala conditioned dhamma strongly dependent on habits/pakatupanissaya paccayuppanna, both the conditioning and the conditioned dhammas, the cause (which was a result as well) and the result (which is a cause as well), must be bàlava, strong, i.e. accumulated in samsàra. Alberto --- Patthàna 2. Paccayaniddeso … Upanissayapaccaya … a) Previous kusala dhammas are related to later kusala dhammas by strong dependence condition. b) Previous kusala dhammas are related to some later akusala dhammas by strong dependence condition. c) Previous kusala dhammas are related to later abyakata dhammas by strong dependence condition. d) Previous akusala dhammas are related to later akusala dhammas by strong dependence condition. e) Previous akusala dhammas are related to some later kusala dhammas by strong dependence condition. f) Previous akusala dhammas are related to later abyakata dhammas by strong dependence condition. ... 7. Pañàvaro - 1. Paccayànulomam - 1. Vibhangavàro .... Upanissayapaccaya ... b) Akusala dhammas are related to kusala dhammas by strong dependence condition Pakatupanissaya - strong dependence on habits Strongly dependent on saddha, confidence in kusala, / on sìla, / on suta, hearing-studying, / on càga, detachment, / on pañña, one recites [the Dhamma] with conceit, and adheres to wrong views. Confidence in kusala / sìla / hearing-studying & considering the Dhamma / generosity / pañña is related to lust, / to aversion, / to moha, / to conceit, / to wrong views, / to attachment by strong dependence condition. c) ... ... e) Akusala dhammas are related to kusala dhammas by strong dependence condition Pakatupanissaya - strong dependence on habits Strongly dependent on raga, lust / on dosa / on moha / on mano, conceit / on ditthi, wrong views, one offers dana, complies to sila, observes the precepts, attains jhana, attains vipassana, attains the path, attains abhiñña, and attains samapatti. Raga / dosa / moha / mano / ditthi / attachment is related to confidence in kusala / to sìla / to hearing-studying / to detachment / to pañña by strong dependence condition. Having injured or killed a living being, / taken what wasn't given, / slandered, / insulted, / talked vainly, / broken into another's house, /stolen, / gotten drunk or intoxicated, /seduced another's wife or husband, / plundered a village or a town, and rejecting that, one offers dana, complies to sila, observes the precepts, attains jhana, attains vipassana, attains the path, attains abhinna, and attains samapatti. Having taken the life of one's own mother / of one's own father / of an arahant, and rejecting that, one offers dana, complies to sila, and observes the precepts. Having injured a tathagata with a corrupted mind, / divided the sangha, and rejecting that, one offers dana, complies to sila, an observes the precepts. --- Patthaana CSCD 2. paccayaniddeso … upanissayapaccayo purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m kesa~nci upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m abyaakataana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m kesa~nci upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m abyaakataana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. ... 7. pa~nhaavaaro 1. paccayaanuloma.m 1. vibha"ngavaaro kusalo dhammo akusalassa dhammassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo -- aaramma.nuupanissayo, pakatuupanissayo. ... pakatuupanissayo -- saddha.m upanissaaya maana.m jappeti, di.t.thi.m ga.nhaati. siila.m...pe0... suta.m...pe0... caaga.m...pe0... pa~n~na.m upanissaaya maana.m jappeti, di.t.thi.m ga.nhaati. saddhaa... siila.m... suta.m... caago... pa~n~naa raagassa... dosassa... mohassa... maanassa... di.t.thiyaa... patthanaaya upanissayapaccayena paccayo. .... akusalo dhammo kusalassa dhammassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo -- pakatuupanissayo. pakatuupanissayo -- raaga.m upanissaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti, jhaana.m uppaadeti, vipassana.m uppaadeti, magga.m uppaadeti, abhi~n~na.m uppaadeti, samaapatti.m uppaadeti. dosa.m...pe0... moha.m...pe0... maana.m...pe0... di.t.thi.m...pe0... patthana.m upanissaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti, jhaana.m uppaadeti, vipassana.m uppaadeti, magga.m uppaadeti, abhi~n~na.m uppaadeti, samaapatti.m uppaadeti. raago... doso... moho... maano... di.t.thi... patthanaa saddhaaya... siilassa... sutassa... caagassa... pa~n~naaya upanissayapaccayena paccayo. paa.na.m hantvaa tassa pa.tighaatatthaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti, jhaana.m uppaadeti, vipassana.m uppaadeti, magga.m uppaadeti, abhi~n~na.m uppaadeti, samaapatti.m uppaadeti. adinna.m aadiyitvaa...pe0... musaa bha.nitvaa...pe0... pisu.na.m bha.nitvaa...pe0... pharusa.m bha.nitvaa...pe0... sampha.m palapitvaa...pe0... sandhi.m chinditvaa...pe0... nillopa.m haritvaa...pe0... ekaagaarika.m karitvaa...pe0... paripanthe .thatvaa...pe0... paradaara.m gantvaa...pe0... gaamaghaata.m karitvaa...pe0... nigamaghaata.m karitvaa tassa pa.tighaatatthaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti, jhaana.m uppaadeti, vipassana.m uppaadeti, magga.m uppaadeti, abhi~n~na.m uppaadeti, samaapatti.m uppaadeti. maatara.m jiivitaa voropetvaa tassa pa.tighaatatthaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti. pitara.m jiivitaa voropetvaa...pe0... arahanta.m jiivitaa voropetvaa...pe0... du.t.thena cittena tathaagatassa lohita.m uppaadetvaa...pe0... sa"ngha.m bhinditvaa tassa pa.tighaatatthaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti. #98284 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:10 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Sarah How are you? You wrote: "Sarah: Pls use anything of relevance and ignore anything you don't find of relevance related to the meaning of vipassanaa, the factors leading to enlightenment and vipassanaa in Abhidhamma texts as quoted before by you:" Thank you for retrieving those quotes. But, I do not think that they could improve Jon's plight. No doubt Robert Epstein will further interrogate Jon using the points I highlighted in my post. Jon's assertion that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice was fatally wrong in the context of traditional Theravada teachings preserved in Pali Tipitaka. Jon still needs to address the issues I raised in my post when he replies to Robert Epstein. By the way, Sarah, do you realize that the quotes you retrieved can be used to show K Sujin's wrong view (and your own wrong view) regarding the phenomenon of sati? But, I won't be showing you where to look and discussing the issue at this stage. So, you can enjoy a long breather for now. I will be keeping you in the dark as ignorance can be bliss!:-) As I mentioned in my post, I have little time for discussion as I have upgraded my formal meditation practice to intensive meditation practice using Aanaapaana method. Cheers! Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98285 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:42 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, You asked in your letter what the difference is between sati and thinking. There can be thinking with kusala citta and with akusala citta. Most of the time there is thinking with clinging or with aversion. When there is thinking in the right way about nåma and rúpa it can condition right awareness later on, but we do not know when. When we think about sati we will not know its characteristic, but when right mindfulness of nåma and rúpa arises we will know what sati is. We can notice that there are countless moments of thinking in a day, and when there is thinking it is time to study the characteristic of thinking. Then we can come to know it as a nåma which arises because of its own conditions, not self. It is the thinking which thinks. “Sometimes sati seems to be contemporaneous with its object, sometimes later”, you write. We should be careful and not mistake thinking for sati. When there is study with awareness of one reality at a time, the reality which appears, one does not think about sati as being contemporaneous with its object or not. There is at that moment only the characteristic of the nåma or rúpa which appears. You want to know when in the process of cittas sati arises. Sati has to accompany kusala citta, but it can be mindful also of akusala citta. When for example aversion, dosa, arises, it can be object of mindfulness. Cittas succeed one another very rapidly and after the dosa has fallen away there can be in another process kusala cittas with sati. Sati can then be mindful of the dosa which has fallen away. If there is unpleasant feeling now can there not be study of its characteristic, in order to know it as not self, not my unpleasant feeling? We are inclined to take feeling for self, but when we understand that feelings arise because of conditions we will be less inclined to take them for mine or self. Sometimes I take things to heart and I have unpleasant feeling, sometimes not. This is because of different conditions. We should learn that there is no self who can control feelings. We do not have to think of processes when there is the study of different characteristics. All that matters is to know the world in the ariyan sense. This world is a new world to us since we used to know only the world of conventional truth, the world of self, people and possessions. ******* Nina. #98286 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 8:08 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] nilovg Hi Howard and friends, I will be away from tomorrow, Saturday, until Wednesday. Op 5-jun-2009, om 5:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I'm not in such a fine mood after having just read Scott's > "put down" post, and I think I'd best not engage in communication > here at > this very moment. ------- N: Just laugh, Howard. I had to laugh. Your discussions are interesting. I do not object to core if it is properly understood. It depends on the context. And you rightly quote a translation where it is used. The twenty sakkaaya di.t.thi, personality belief, can help us here. One of these is: seeing a self contained in each of the five khandhas. Ven. Bodhi (Root of Existence) uses the expression inner nucleus. A commentary uses a simile of the 'soul' of a wine bottle. Jhaana in the Buddha's time: I think there is a difference. When the Buddha speaks about jhaana, he implied: develop also satipa.t.thaana lest jhaanacitta is taken for self. When we remember this it will help us to have right understanding of all trhese texts on jhaana we meet in the suttas. Nina. #98287 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 8:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (13), (14), (15) nilovg Dear Han, thank you, interesting. Op 5-jun-2009, om 3:57 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > 3. Jiira.na tejo: When the heat in the body causes hairs to turn > white, teeth to fall off, blurred vision, wrinkled skin, and other > aging process, it is called Jiira.na tejo. ------- N: Yes, I remember a Dhamma discussion between Kh Sujin and the audience in Cambodia when this was discussed. Ageing is caused by the element of heat. Nina. #98288 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 8:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 6. nilovg Dear Harry, Thank you. Questions and remarks are always welcome, these will also help others. Nina. Op 5-jun-2009, om 0:47 heeft Harry Liew het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for your regular teaching. > Personal mantra/mental device: [information] = - [entropy]. > Found it very useful in studying nåma and rúpa, and Prajnaparamita > literature. #98289 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:00 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (14) hantun1 Dear Sarah, You can read this when you come back. No hurry! > > Han: Photosynthesis by plants is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. --- > Sarah: "Using the energy from sunlight". It is not using the internal temperature which 'cooks' or 'digests' the food. The nutritive essence only occurs as paccaya after it has been so digested, even if it's cream on the skin. So, I think it's just a technical matter in that what is referred to as 'nutritive essence' as condition in the Abhidhamma is not the same as what is referred to as nutrients in science. Han: Now, you are bringing in the *paccaya* which is not applicable to plants. The 24 paccayas are the relation between cittas, cetasikas and ruupas of beings. Even for ruupas, if the plants are produced by utu only, there would be a maximum of 13 utuja ruupas only in the plants. So aahaara paccaya should not be brought into this discussion. -------------------- > > Han: A Botanist will be able to tell us the chemical changes that take place in the roots of the plants before the sap is transmitted up to the trunk of the plants by capillary action. --- > Sarah: Surely and by external temperature. ... Han: But how do you know there is no *internal temperature* *inside* the roots of the plants? -------------------- > > Han: Dear Sarah, I will not say that what you have written is wrong. But I have my own understanding which may not be in agreement with you. --- > Sarah: I think that all you say is correct, but I think that scientific use of terms and the rupas we read about in the texts are very different. Perhaps others may help further as I need to sign off now for a couple of days. Han: I am glad you said that scientific use of terms and the ruupas we read about in the texts are very different. Yes, that must be the case, and in that case, we will be going on two parallel straight lines which will never meet. So I promise you that I will never ever again use scientific terms so as to spare you from arguing back to me with the Abhidhamma terms. Finally, I wish to reiterate what I had written to you before: [As you know, in Burma, we are traditionally used to listen to the talk by the Elders, and accept their talk with no questions asked. You said if you put food in the mouth of a corpse, it doesn't produce rupas. We know that, and even one step further. When we invite people to the funeral we invite them to come and reflect on the utuja-ruupa of the diseased. We know that once a person dies his remains are maintained by utu only, until it is reduced to dust. Our Elders also believe that the external inanimate things are produced by utu only. Because they believe that I also want to believe it. Our tradition is deep in my veins. But on the other hand, I also know the modern science that sometimes is in contradiction to our traditional belief. So I ask those questions to persuade myself to believe our Elders, despite my rebellious nature.] Now, the discussions that I had so far did not help me to get near to my above aim. Instead, it tends to drive me further away from my aim. Therefore, I will better give up the discussions on such topics, and I will believe our Elders with no questions asked! Yours truly, Han #98290 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 12:44 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (14) nilovg Dear Han, Op 5-jun-2009, om 6:33 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > S: I think that all you say is correct, but I think that scientific > use of terms and the rupas we read about in the texts are very > different. -------- Han later on: Our Elders also believe that the external inanimate things are produced by utu only. Because they believe that I also want to believe it. Our tradition is deep in my veins. But on the other hand, I also know the modern science that sometimes is in contradiction to our traditional belief. So I ask those questions to persuade myself to believe our Elders, despite my rebellious nature.] Now, the discussions that I had so far did not help me to get near to my above aim. Instead, it tends to drive me further away from my aim. Therefore, I will better give up the discussions on such topics, and I will believe our Elders with no questions asked! -------- N: Even you say this, such questions may come up again and again. And also just believing the teachers may not be satisfactory to your inquiring mind. I understand this. But, as I wrote before, we should take into consideration the aim of science and the aim of the Buddha Dhamma. Sometimes the terms used are similar, but we have to carefully consider the context. As you well know, the aim of the Dhamma is detachment, detachment form the idea of my mind, my body. If we understand this, we read the texts of the Tipi.taka differently. So it is in the case of nutrition, aaharaa, or of heat, which is the Element of Fire. In the commentary often explanations are given in conventional language, but this is done to help the reader better to understand ultimate realities. Science does not have detachment as its aim. It is concerned with worldly matters. That is all right, so long as we see the difference with the Dhamma. Contradictions, I do not believe there necessarily are. We cannot compare them, that is all. So, I do not think that there have to be dilemmas here. Nina. #98291 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 9:34 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/5/2009 12:08:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Fri, 5/6/09, upasaka@... wrote: S:>> Do you consider there to be any difference between moments of (genu ine) jhana/dhyana as attained by those of different religions? I ask because it seems to be quite a common view that Buddhist samatha cultivation or jhana attainment is somehow different from that which was developed and attained before the Buddha's enlightenment. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ H:>How about your telling me what YOU think, Sarah, and I'll let you know whether I agree or not. ... S: What I think is that daana, an act of generosity is daana, an act of generosity, regardless of who is performing it, regrdless of whether someone is a so-called Hindu or Buddhist, for example. ----------------------------------------- I *certainly* agree. ------------------------------------------ I think exactly the same applies to moments of samatha bhavana. At moments of wise reflection on death, for example, the understanding and calm involved does not depend on 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist', but on the particular kinds of cittas arising. [Of course, if someone has never heard the Buddha's teachings, certain kinds of samatha cannot be developed, such as reflections on the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha]. -------------------------------------------- I agree with that as well. -------------------------------------------- And so with jhana cittas too, (mundane) jhana cittas which arose before the Buddha's time were the same (mundane)jhana cittas which arose in those who had heard the Buddha. Jhana cittas are jhana cittas. -------------------------------------------- Jhana , what the Buddha meant by 'jhana', is what it is wherever (i.e., in "whomever") it arises, and it makes no difference how one interprets it based on religious belief or cultural view. So there is agreement on that as well. -------------------------------------------- Dana cittas are dana cittas. In other words, jhana cittas can only be 'genuine' jhana cittas, otherwise they're something else. ------------------------------------------- Yes. A related but different issue [that you raised in your prior post] is that of whether the absorptions of the Buddha's teachers and other predecessors that they called "jhanas" were the same as the jhanas taught by the Buddha. Of that I'm not certain, and I doubt it. As I read various suttas taught by the Buddha, I see nothing suggesting that investigation of phenomena and insight into the tilakkana and paticcasamuppada is impossible within the jhanas. In fact, a careful reading of them, most especially the Anupada Sutta which distinguishes the 8th & 9th jhana in that respect, seems to indicate quite the opposite. ------------------------------------------ Only the development of satipatthana (and the preliminary pariyatti) cannot occur without hearing the Buddha's teachings. Only this leads to the eradication of defilements. But, I know you agree on this. ------------------------------------------ Yes. One cannot pilot a plane without knowing what a plane is and without knowing a great deal about its behavior and controls. Moreover, even if one knows what a plane is and has thoroughly studied the instruments, without study and direct application of the flight manual, an attempt to fly a plane will just lead one to crash and burn. More directly addressing the issue of progress towards awahening, in the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha describes his having discovered and traveled an ancient path, the path to awakening. When one needs directions to somewhere and advice and cautionings for making the trip, one goes to the traveler who has previously made that trip. ------------------------------------------- ... >I'm not in such a fine mood after having just read Scott's "put down" post, and I think I'd best not engage in communication here at this very moment. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- S: I haven't read it yet (your one addressed to me just caught my eye as I was posting). In any case, I'm always glad to communicate with you, so perhaps you might just consider ignoring any seemingly 'put down' posts. We know everyone has their own style. --------------------------------------------- In any case, I didn't want my displeasure to affect my interaction with you. ------------------------------------------- I heard something on a tape which rang a bell for me (but may not for you, of course). K.Sujin was talking about how when someone gets annoyed or gives a 'put down',for example, we often don't mind when we're not the target. But don't we mind a lot when we're the target and isn't that because of the self-importance and conceit concerning ourselves. 'How dare he/she speak to me like that!' 'Why should I have to put up with it?'. Poor "ME"! -------------------------------------------- She's quite right. That is the norm, true for most of us, including me (as to the anger - though without the "poor me" sense). I also get annoyed, though, when others are, IMO (of course), badly treated. So, in my case I can spread my anger around! LOL! -------------------------------------------- Opportunities for sati all the time, of course! ------------------------------------------- Yes. Quite so. Anger, in particular, is never good, and if one hasn't avoided it in one case, at least one should be aware of it, not feed it, but let it wither and die. ------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ========================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98292 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:51 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/5/2009 4:09:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and friends, I will be away from tomorrow, Saturday, until Wednesday. Op 5-jun-2009, om 5:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I'm not in such a fine mood after having just read Scott's > "put down" post, and I think I'd best not engage in communication > here at > this very moment. ------- N: Just laugh, Howard. I had to laugh. ------------------------------------------ :-) An old saying is "Laughter is the best medicine." Whether or not it really is *best*, I do agree that it is good medicine. ---------------------------------------- Your discussions are interesting. I do not object to core if it is properly understood. It depends on the context. And you rightly quote a translation where it is used. ---------------------------------------- Thank you for noting that, Nina. ---------------------------------------- The twenty sakkaaya di.t.thi, personality belief, can help us here. One of these is: seeing a self contained in each of the five khandhas. Ven. Bodhi (Root of Existence) uses the expression inner nucleus. A commentary uses a simile of the 'soul' of a wine bottle. -------------------------------------------- Yes. ------------------------------------------- Jhaana in the Buddha's time: I think there is a difference. When the Buddha speaks about jhaana, he implied: develop also satipa.t.thaana lest jhaanacitta is taken for self. -------------------------------------------- I AGREE with you, Nina!! ------------------------------------------- When we remember this it will help us to have right understanding of all trhese texts on jhaana we meet in the suttas. ---------------------------------------- Thank you. :-) -------------------------------------- Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98293 From: "m_nease" Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:42 pm Subject: Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > M:>Do you think tha this has to do with the difference between the two > right views expressed in the Great Forty? > ... > S: Surely the two right views in the Great Forty both refer to the > development of insight: > > 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is > twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking > of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right view > that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. > 9. ... "Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon > and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus > these three states run and circle around right view, that is, right > view, right effort, and right mindfulness. > > ------------------------------- > According to the footnotes, the commentary explains as follows: > > In par. 4, there are two kinds of right view that are forerunners: > the right view of insight, which investigates formations as > impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the path, > which arises as a consequence of insight and effects the radical > destruction of defilements. Well, this certainly seems to support your argument. > S: In the development of insight, the samvara sila, the guarding is adhi > sila, because it is accompanied by right view. At the moment of the > path, adhi sila is perfected when the tendencies to gross deeds, such as > breaking of precepts, is eradicated. OK, got all that, no problem. Let me just back up a little to explain what I had in mind. "And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."* This list seems to me to contain both concepts (mother & father, beings etc.) and dhammas (fruits & results of good & bad actions etc.). Since I know you'd agree that concepts can't be the bases of insight, must not this be referring to a kind of conceptual right view? And if it does refer to mundane insight (rather than to 'conceptual right view), what is its relationship to those concepts? To refer to TB's translation again, "...There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]..." Does insight lead to 'acquisitions [of becoming]', which I take to mean adding to sa.msaara? I thought that insight was unique in NOT doing this. Finally, referring back to TB's translation again, "..."And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions?..."And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path?..." If, as you suggest, 'both refer to the development of insight', then why "..Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts..."? Sorry if this is all a bit muddled. It could be just that I've got a wrong idea about mundane insight--i.e. that it's simple kusala kamma resulting in kusala vipakka and that it CAN have concept as a base. Doesn't sound right to me, though. mike #98294 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 5, 2009 10:10 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (14) hantun1 Dear Nina, > Nina: Even you say this, such questions may come up again and again. And also just believing the teachers may not be satisfactory to your inquiring mind. I understand this. But, as I wrote before, we should take into consideration the aim of science and the aim of the Buddha Dhamma. Sometimes the terms used are similar, but we have to carefully consider the context. As you well know, the aim of the Dhamma is detachment, detachment form the idea of my mind, my body. If we understand this, we read the texts of the Tipi.taka differently. So it is in the case of nutrition, aaharaa, or of heat, which is the Element of Fire. In the commentary often explanations are given in conventional language, but this is done to help the reader better to understand ultimate realities. Science does not have detachment as its aim. It is concerned with worldly matters. That is all right, so long as we see the difference with the Dhamma. Contradictions, I do not believe there necessarily are. We cannot compare them, that is all. So, I do not think that there have to be dilemmas here. ---------- Han: I thank you very much for your kind advice. No, I do not have any dilemma. I can adapt myself to any situation. But I will not engage in controversial topics in the future. It does not do me any good. As regards the detachment, as you used to say, it will come when there are conditions for its arising. Respectfully, Han #98295 From: "m_nease" Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 12:38 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) m_nease Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > Regarding: > > "...By the way, I think the modern expression 'magical thinking' comes very close to the meaning of 'siilabbata-paraamaaso', that is, the idea that, by having practiced certain abstinences-rituals, 'I' have acquired (or can acquire) 'deep knowledge'." > > Scott: I appreciate this, Mike. > > Magical thinking represents a self-centeredness and a concreteness, being a quality of a style of thinking associated with that of young children; in particular, I think, with the sort of narcissism natural to them. A certain egocentricity is exhibited such that everything seems experienced as being because of the child - things both good and ill. > > One can observe this quality in the various wrong views as expressed conceptually on the list. 'I' meditate, 'I' weaken the hindrances, 'I' get angry or lustful and 'I' must stop myself from being angry or lustful. I believe it might be a function of that self-same style of thinking. Yes, just micchaasankappa, I think--nothing personal. Or is is micchadi.t.thi? Either way, no atta sa~n~naa (or is it attadi.t.thi?), no foul. mike #98296 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 3:48 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, When there is no development of understanding of nåma and rúpa, akusala cittas will arise very often: we are infatuated with the objects we experience, we have aversion towards them or there is ignorance about realities. When we, for example, see a teapot, we may be ignorant of the six worlds in the ariyan sense. When we are confused as to the different doorways, we think that what presents itself through the eye-door is a teapot and we take it for something which stays. However, through the eye-door it is only visible object that presents itself, just for a moment. When we touch the teapot, the rúpas which are hardness, softness, heat or cold may present themselves. In order to know realities as they are we should be aware of them as they present themselves through the different doorways, one at a time. Like and dislike are again different phenomena and we should not confuse them with seeing or visible object. Thinking of the concept “teapot” is again another reality, a type of nåma. Whatever nåma or rúpa appears can be object of mindfulness and thus right understanding can develop. If there is preference for particular types of nåma or rúpa which seem to be so clear, there is clinging. We should learn different characteristics of nåma and rúpa as we go along in daily life; when walking, standing, getting up, taking a bath, eating, listening or talking. Only thus will there be the disintegration of the “self ”. We will know the world in the ariyan sense. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Salåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Third Fifty, Chapter IV, § 136) that the Buddha said to the monks: Devas and mankind, monks, delight in objects, they are excited by objects. It is owing to the instability, the coming to an end, the ceasing of objects, monks, that devas and mankind live woefully. They delight in sounds, scents, savours, in touch, they delight in mind- states, and are excited by them. It is owing to the instability, the coming to an end, the ceasing of mind-states, monks, that devas and mankind live woefully. But the Tathågata, monks, who is arahat, a Fully-enlightened One, seeing, as they really are, both the arising and the destruction, the satisfaction, the misery and the way of escape from objects,—he delights not in objects, takes not pleasure in them, is not excited by them. It is owing to the instability, the coming to an end, the ceasing of objects that the Tathågata dwells at ease. Is this real life or not? When we do not see things as they are we are enslaved. How did the Buddha become free? By fully knowing realities, by knowing their characteristics as they appear through the six doors. ****** Nina. #98297 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 6:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 christine_fo... Hello all, Interesting that this unanswered question on DSG from 7 years ago still echoed in my mind. Today at Dhammagiri Forest Monastery near Brisbane, I once again asked this question i.e. "How do we know what Nibbana is ... even though there is no self in actuality, how can we know that Nibbana isn't just extinction, the fire gone out? Ven. Dhammasiha, the Abbot, answered simply - that, until we reach that point ourselves, we can know because those who experienced it returned to tell us so. Even though the Nibbana cannot be explained using our conceptual language, we know enough from the synonyms used by the Buddha and the Arahants that it is not mere extinction, and that it is happiness and peace. Thirty-three synonyms for Nibbana: 1. The Unconditioned 2. The destruction of lust, hate, delusion 3. The Uninclined 4. The taintless 5. The truth 6. The other shore 7. The subtle 8. The very difficult to see 9. The unaging 10. The stable 11. The undisintegrating 12. The unmanifest 13. The unproliferated 14. The peaceful 15. The deathless 16. The sublime 17. The auspicious 18. The secure 19. The destruction of craving 20. The wonderful 21. The amazing 22. The unailing 23. The unailing state 24. The unafflicted 25. Dispassion 26. Purity 27. Freedom 28. Non attachment 29. The island 30. The shelter 31. The asylum 32. The refuge 33. The destination and the path leading to the destination (from Samyutta Nikaya 43) Anyway ... just thought I'd tidy up this loose end ... :-) metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Robert, and All, > > It is so important, in one way, to have an accurate idea - even if > vague - of what Nibanna is and is not. From the beginning of my > learning about Buddhism, I have felt an uneasiness which could best > be described by the question "Where/what is all this leading to ?" > Sometimes I read posts from people discussing the finer details of > what they are currently doing, and they seem like a horse > wearing 'blinkers' to prevent distraction from anything except the > task right in front of their noses - mostly formal practice of some > kind. > We are told that The eightfold Path (if followed) leads to the end of > suffering and dissatisfaction. But it is natural, having come from a > theistic religion that is quite definite and graphically descriptive > about it's Ulimate Goal, that many would wonder about the state, > condition, experience of the Ultimate Goal in Buddhism. > One has to know a little of the Ultimate Goal - else how would one > know that it is 'safe' to aim for? One wonders about Lemmings ... > what are they thinking as they rush towards the edge of the cliff? > Is the one out in front shouting: > "Don't ask questions, chaps, there are no words to describe what's > going to happen to us, only put all your energy into getting there. > We're never going to agree, so cut the chatter. Just keep > running." :) > > metta, > Christine #98298 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 7:35 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau Hi Mike (and Sarah), --------- <. . .> M: > This list seems to me to contain both concepts (mother & father, beings etc.) and dhammas (fruits & results of good & bad actions etc.). Since I know you'd agree that concepts can't be the bases of insight, must not this be referring to a kind of conceptual right view? And if it does refer to mundane insight (rather than to 'conceptual right view), what is its relationship to those concepts? ------------- As we all agree, concepts can't be bases of insight. Therefore, I think the terms mother, father, beings, etc., must refer to dhammas and this is just another example of conventional language in suttas. ------------------- M: > To refer to TB's translation again, "...There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]..." Does insight lead to 'acquisitions [of becoming]', which I take to mean adding to sa.msaara? I thought that insight was unique in NOT doing this. ------------------- Could the sutta be comparing the right view of the arahant with the right view of the non-arahant? (Rather than comparing supramundane right view with mundane right view?) Certainly the arahant's kamma is neither kusala nor akusala. And so his right view could be described as 'without blemishes.' Non-arahants (including lesser ariyans) still have kusala and akusala kamma. I suppose, therefore, that their right view (even their supramundane right view) could be regarded as kusala kamma. Logically, I can't see why it couldn't condition fortunate rebirth, can you? As for satipatthana (mundane path consciousness) I feel pretty confident it is kusala kamma. No references as usual! :-) Ken H #98299 From: "m_nease" Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 9:04 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) m_nease Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Mike (and Sarah), > --------- > <. . .> > M: > This list seems to me to contain both concepts (mother & father, > beings etc.) and dhammas (fruits & results of good & bad actions etc.). > > Since I know you'd agree that concepts can't be the bases of insight, > must not this be referring to a kind of conceptual right view? And if it > does refer to mundane insight (rather than to 'conceptual right view), > what is its relationship to those concepts? > ------------- > > As we all agree, concepts can't be bases of insight. Therefore, I think > the terms mother, father, beings, etc., must refer to dhammas and this > is just another example of conventional language in suttas. It seems to me to be a mixture of conventional and ultimate expression. > ------------------- > M: > To refer to TB's translation again, "...There is right view with > effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of > becoming]..." > > Does insight lead to 'acquisitions [of becoming]', which I take to mean > adding to sa.msaara? I thought that insight was unique in NOT doing > this. > ------------------- > > Could the sutta be comparing the right view of the arahant with the > right view of the non-arahant? (Rather than comparing supramundane right > view with mundane right view?) I suppose it's possible. I'm personally inclined to think not, but I haven't consulted the commentaries or taken a hard look at the translation. If I manage either of these I'll get back to you. > Certainly the arahant's kamma is neither kusala nor akusala. And so his > right view could be described as 'without blemishes.' Non-arahants > (including lesser ariyans) still have kusala and akusala kamma. I > suppose, therefore, that their right view (even their supramundane right > view) could be regarded as kusala kamma. With what vipaaka? > Logically, I can't see why it couldn't condition fortunate rebirth, can > you? Well, I may be wrong--I'm just not comfortable with the idea of insight producing vipaaka. (Of course there are results other than rebirth). I suppose it's a fairly elementary question but I'm not sure where to look for the answer. > As for satipatthana (mundane path consciousness) I feel pretty confident > it is kusala kamma. No references as usual! :-) If I don't find a source I'm sure someone will 'enlighten' us. mike #98300 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 12:29 pm Subject: Representations... bhikkhu.sama... Friends: A quite good Dhamma Friend once asked: Question: What is a phenomenon? Answer: A phenomenon is an experienced state! An appearance, an observed event, a conscious occasion! Whether experienced as a mental object: Ex: An experienced thought, idea, feeling, mood etc. or experienced as a physical object: Ex: An experienced sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; the experience is just a mental ‘state’, which is what in Buddhism is called a ‘Dhammā’ , which is a passing moment of conscious time
 As such: Everything in any world is just a mental state! No thing exists as an independent physical object, until it is observed by a mental experience
 Before and after this direct observation, this ‘thing’ remains just an ‘idea’ or ‘’imagination’ 
 A mere potential possibility! Not quite as real anymore
 They once asked the Buddha: What is the Cause of a Phenomenon? He replied: Attention (manasikāra ) is the cause of any phenomenon! Why so? When Attention is present, the Phenomenon appears... When Attention is absent, the Phenomenon disappears! and further later added: This World both Begins and Ends within this 2 fathom frame of bones... SN I 62 The ALL is thereby actually just a sensed & experienced representation... SN IV 15 Insisting on Real Direct Experience: This ultra-realistic emphasis on direct experience is today called Radical Empiricism , a pragmatic concept, which in our time philosophically was coined by William James. For further on Phenomena as mere mental states: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Phenomena_is_Mental_States.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Causes_of_Emergence.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/dhamma.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_ALL.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Out_in.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Empiricism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon The Phenomenon ‘Match’ Occurring only momentarily by experienced observation! Not ‘out there’ as a ‘substance’, but 'in here' in mind, as just a passing mental state
 Have a really nice real day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Real are only Momentary Mental States
 #98301 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 5:41 am Subject: Re: Yahoo Techno Help (was:Physical Phenomena (11)) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: ...Sure enough, after reading your note, I checked, and there was almost the entire original kava ceremony post. Just mentioning it for others who don't know about this feature. ... That's great! I'm glad the drafts folder backed you up! > The other thing that Ken H's assistance to Han with apostrophes helped me with was in relation to using the Beta rich text. I experimented with it whilst sending an extract from Nyantiloka's dict. yesterday and later a Pali slab to Suan from old messages. Usually, I have to convert all the Paali diacritics into velthius form, changing every a with a bar over it to aa, for example. Using the beta rich text format, this doesn't seem to be necessary. Again, just mentioning it for others to try out too. That is also good to hear. Do you know how to find the rich text format to turn it on...? That sounds like it has good possibilities. > Perhaps you can assist Ken H (perhaps, behind the scenes) when anyone else has difficulties too. I'd be happy to try, although I am less knowledgeable than might seem from my necessity-generated gyrations at times... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98302 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 5:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 epsteinrob Hi, Christine. Thanks for this post! While one might wish for the extinction of the kandhas, the idea that it is not total extinction but a state of 'happiness and peace' is both inspiring and also takes the Buddhist path away from mere annihilationism. I appreciate your collection of synonyms. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Interesting that this unanswered question on DSG from 7 years ago still echoed in my mind. > > Today at Dhammagiri Forest Monastery near Brisbane, I once again asked this question i.e. "How do we know what Nibbana is ... even though there is no self in actuality, how can we know that Nibbana isn't just extinction, the fire gone out? > Ven. Dhammasiha, the Abbot, answered simply - that, until we reach that point ourselves, we can know because those who experienced it returned to tell us so. Even though the Nibbana cannot be explained using our conceptual language, we know enough from the synonyms used by the Buddha and the Arahants that it is not mere extinction, and that it is happiness and peace. ... #98303 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 5:52 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > > In a message dated 6/3/2009 7:43:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Hi Robert E > > (98193) > > ================= > > This sounds to me like you are saying that pariyatti is the entire > method to the path. That it develops to paripatti and beyond through > consideration and reflection as the only means? I wonder if this is what you mean. > > ================= > > To my understanding, pariyatti is a necessary prerequisite for patipatti, > whether for the beginner or the person of more developed understanding. I > think this is made clear by the numerous references in the suttas to the > importance of hearing the teachings and reflecting on what has been heard and > understood. > ----------------------------------------- > The issue isn't necessity, which I suspect most agree to, but > sufficiency. > ---------------------------------------- Absolutely, Howard. You have got the right distinction. The important part of the question, which Jon did not answer, was whether pariyatti was, in his opinion, the "*entire* method to the path," and whether higher stages of understanding developed from "consideration and reflection as the *only* means." I would still like to know if that is meant to be the *sole* method of progress in understanding leading to enlightenment. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98304 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 5:55 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep (& Sukin), > > --- On Sun, 31/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > > >I am happy to hang around with the good folks here. I really am grateful for some of the folks here putting up with me. > .... > S: Thx to your patience and good humour too! I laughed at some of the quips in your recent exchange with Sukin such as the one about the "ego-workout", the "craving, conceit and wrong view" and having to scrub extra hard and your waiting to hear more about your concerns with fascination. Also, the taking personally because no time to do your errands. All very witty. And of course the last one leaving the space for a reply: > > -------------------- > -------------------- > ------------------------- > > Very funny. Thanks for the appreciation. I think humor is a helpful lubricant at times to the minute discussions that are sometimes necessary. And I am glad you also find it enjoyable, as do I. > Sukin (& Rob), perhaps it might help the good discussion to break the replies into segments, perhaps under broad headings as Sukin's done before helpfully. That way you don't have to reply to it all 'at one go' and all the wit and important discussion will be read by more people. Just an idea! I think that is probably a really good idea. I will try to break things down when they are that long. > Rob Ep still holds the record for the longest marathon posts after all these years! Well, I'm not sure if that is a real achievement or not, or just causing more suffering, but it is good to know. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98305 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 5:58 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (98193) > > ================= > > This sounds to me like you are saying that pariyatti is the entire method to the path. That it develops to paripatti and beyond through consideration and reflection as the only means? I wonder if this is what you mean. > > ================= > > To my understanding, pariyatti is a necessary prerequisite for patipatti, whether for the beginner or the person of more developed understanding. I think this is made clear by the numerous references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings and reflecting on what has been heard and understood. > > > ================= > > > I do not understand the teachings to be telling (instructing) us to do this or that. They are instructive/informative, but not in the sense of laying out a technique to be followed. > > > > I wonder in this sense what it means to have a path or 'follow a path,' if there is no sense of 'laying out a technique to be followed.' Does the Buddha lay out a path to be followed? And if so, how is that path followed and accomplished if not by some form of 'practice or technique?' Does not the path require particular qualities to be developed and skillful means to be engaged? If not, what is the purpose of the Dhamma? > > ================= > > The path taught by the Buddha is unlike any other path known. The Noble Eightfold Path is actually the 8 mental factors that arise at the moment of enlightenment. The development of that path occurs when certain of those 8 factors (5 or 6) arise together at moments of satipatthana or insight. Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my understanding. So from what you have said, it appears to me that only reading the dhamma, discussing it, having it properly explained and contemplating the teachings to get right intellectual understanding is the *only* approach to the path that you would advocate, and if this is done consistently, then the other aspects of the path, such as development of right understanding, panna and the arising of the path-factors, will just happen by themselves when conditions are right? I would really appreciate it if you would answer this question directly so I can have an idea of what the correct approach is in your view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #98306 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 6:16 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: If we did not have this tendency, I think we would see that characteristic of the dhamma as "just what it is" rather than 'non-self.' Without a self, there is no reason to see "isness" as "non-self." It would just be tathata, things being "exactly as they are due to conditions," which I think is the same as anatta and uncontrollability. If there was no one around to control anything, why would uncontrollability be ascribed to "things arising the way they do due to conditions." It would just be the way it is. Isn't that what the arahat sees? "Just this" and nothing more? > > ================= > > This is an interesting take on things but, as you won't be surprised to hear, I'd be more interested if I could relate it to something found in the texts. Jon, it's totally related to the texts. Buddha doesn't ever say that uncontrollability and non-self are inherent characteristics. He talks about what makes them so, that dhammas cannot be controlled because they are constantly changing and subject to dissolution, that this causes pain and because of these factors, they are shown not to be one's self. Anatta-lakkhana: "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'" He also says that the arahat sees "only the seen in the seen" and does not add anything, such as a conceptualization or an ego-concept. I am not making this stuff up, it is from the suttas. In the Bahiya Sutta, Buddha explicitly says that seeing things exactly as they are gets rid of the notion of self and leads to full liberation from stress: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." Buddha does not say, you should train yourself to see anatta as an inherent characteristic. He says that when you see things as they are, the "with reference to the seen, only the seen," then anatta will manifest, the self will disappear. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = == #98307 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 6:30 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 2. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > `Uncontrollability': Dhammas arise and fall away by conditions, again and again whether we know it or not. When wisdom arises to know this, it is conditioned, when ignorance arises and does not know this, it is again only conditioned dhammas. It is in the nature of dhammas not only to rise and fall, but also to be uncontrollable, not by any `self' which after all does not exist, but by any individual dhamma involved in any particular arising. I agree with this. I just think that uncontrollable is a perception of a characteristic, not the characteristic itself. If a citta with aid of panna perceives 'this dhamma is uncontrollable,' it is seeing that its selfless arising due to conditions could not be subject to control. What is actually perceived is that it arises and behaves only due to conditions. That is what is actually there. Uncontrollability is a correct view of this reality from the standpoint of a nama. > =============== > Rob: I'll keep asking until someone who believes in such a thingy gives me a description. Otherwise, I'll just keep assuming that no one actually knows what it is, because it is just a vague concept. > > > S: And what else would this prove and in which direction would that take you? Are you going to proceed with your study of the Dhamma believing that anatta means simply that there is no self? Is this then going to be a concept that you choose to carry or not to carry? My only point is that no one can answer the question! Yes, you have said that anatta comes down to uncontrollability. Well I would agree that they go together, but perceiving either the lack of a self, or an inability to be controlled is a perception from the view of a citta, not an inherent part of the dhamma. Of course the dhamma has no self, but that is not the problem. The problem of self is that we think it is a part of a self. Anatta is the correct perception that it is not a part of self. I said if it is something else, describe or define it. Uncontrollability is a good answer. At least that is a concrete sort of thing that can be described. I just wonder then why it is called 'not-self' rather than 'not-controllability.' I would say that non-controllability is a factor or attribute of anatta, rather than its sole definition. when it comes down to it, no-self is no-self, and that has implications and components such as uncontrollability, dissatisfaction, temporariness, and destructability, etc. But they are all observed in relation to their positives, not in their own right. We cling to eternal existence, so panna sees anicca in relation to this clinging; we cling to self-concept, so panna sees anatta in relation to this clinging; etc. Since Buddhism is about the release of clinging and craving and the end of suffering and stress, all the marks and right knowledge are about those factors that allow us to stop clinging and craving and enter nibbana. That is why each of the teachings is not just a dry rundown of a reality, but a solution to this problem of clinging to self and substance. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98308 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 6:33 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Therefore, I think K Sujin would advise us to leave Yahoo (our > conventional arammana) to get on with its business of running the > internet. We should look to our own responsibilities. And that good > advice would come from understanding the world as it really is. Well I certainly have no illusion of being able to control yahoo. God knows I've tried! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98309 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 11:35 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (16) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (16) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- As to the element of wind (in Paali: vaayo dhaatu) or motion, the "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 93) defines it as follows [Note 1] "... The air element (wind) has the characteristic of distending. Its function is to cause motion. It is manifested as conveying. [Note 2]" We may believe that we can see motion of objects but the ruupa which is motion cannot be seen. What we mean by motion as we express it in conventional language is not the same as the element of wind or motion. We notice that something has moved because of remembrance of different moments of seeing and thinking of what was perceived, but that is not the experience of the ruupa which is motion. This ruupa can be directly experienced through the bodysense. When we touch a body or an object with a certain resilience, the characteristic of motion or pressure may present itself. These are characteristics of the element of wind. It can also be described as vibration or oscillation. As we read in the definition, the function of the element of wind is to cause motion. It is, for example, a condition for the movement of the limbs of the body. However, we should not confuse pictorial ideas with the direct experience of this ruupa through the bodysense. [Note 1] See also Dhammasanganii #648 and Atthasaalinii II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 332. [Note 2] Taking from one point to another, Visuddhimagga XI,93. The commentary explains: "Conveying is acting as cause for the successive arising at adjacent locations of the conglomeration of elements." -------------------- with metta, Han #98310 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jun 7, 2009 11:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi, Christine. > Thanks for this post! While one might wish for the extinction of the kandhas, the idea that it is not total extinction but a state of 'happiness and peace' is both inspiring and also takes the Buddhist path away from mere annihilationism. > ---- I am reluctant to criticise these sentiments, but I must ask the cautionary question, "Happiness and peace for whom?" Ken H #98311 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 2:58 am Subject: The Rewarding Fruit! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is the Resulting Reward Fruit? The Blessed Buddha once said: The rewarding fruition of morality is freedom from regrets! The rewarding fruition of freedom from regret is gladness! The rewarding fruition of gladness is rapturous joy! The rewarding fruition of joy is serene tranquillity! The rewarding fruition of tranquillity is Happiness! The rewarding fruition of happiness is concentration! The rewarding fruition of concentration is knowing & seeing! The rewarding fruition of knowing & seeing is realism! The rewarding fruition of realism is disillusion! The rewarding fruition of disillusion is release! Step by step does morality thus lead to the highest! Source: AN 10:1 <...> Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Rewarding Fruit! #98312 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 7:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > Hi, Christine. > > Thanks for this post! While one might wish for the extinction of the > kandhas, the idea that it is not total extinction but a state of > 'happiness and peace' is both inspiring and also takes the Buddhist path > away from mere annihilationism. > > > ---- > > I am reluctant to criticise these sentiments, but I must ask the > cautionary question, "Happiness and peace for whom?" > > Ken H Hello Ken H., Why predicate a 'whom"? The Buddha taught anatta. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #98313 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 7:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Mike (& Scott), --- On Sat, 6/6/09, m_nease wrote: >>Scott: ... 'I' meditate, 'I' weaken the hindrances, 'I' get angry or lustful and 'I' must stop myself from being angry or lustful. I believe it might be a function of that self-same style of thinking. M:> Yes, just micchaasankappa, I think--nothing personal. Or is is micchadi.t.thi? Either way, no atta sa~n~naa (or is it attadi.t.thi? ), no foul. ... Sarah: Micchadi.t.thi is accompanied by micchasankappa. I'm curious as to why you would suggest no atta sa~n~naa (or attadi.t.thi) be involved? And what do you mean by "no foul."? Metta, Sarah ======== #98314 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 sarahprocter... Hi Chris & all, Thx for sharing your comments, Chris. --- On Sat, 6/6/09, Christine Forsyth wrote: >"How do we know what Nibbana is ... even though there is no self in actuality, how can we know that Nibbana isn't just extinction, the fire gone out? Ven. Dhammasiha, the Abbot, answered simply - that, until we reach that point ourselves, we can know because those who experienced it returned to tell us so. Even though the Nibbana cannot be explained using our conceptual language, we know enough from the synonyms used by the Buddha and the Arahants that it is not mere extinction, and that it is happiness and peace. .... S: The extinction refers to the extinction of the defilements (and then the extinction of the khandhas at parinibbana), as I understand. As ignorant worldlings, we're always looking for objects of desire and attachment from when we wake up until we sleep. We can have an idea of nibbana and this is likely to be another object of desire. However, nibbana is not the desirable object, it's the object of complete detachment, the object of wisdom which has fully penetratd the arising and destruction of desirable objects, the unsatisfactoriness and lack of any control over them. So 'the peaceful' refers to the experience of the object that cannot be desired in any way. I don't see 'happiness' as a synonym for nibbana, but the pleasant feeling accompanying the lokuttara cittas is not the happiness we're so used to, i.e. the happiness accompanying our clinging to what we wish for. If we really understood what nibbana was, would any of us really wish for it now? Do we really see the value in the giving up of all sensuous attachments? Do we really see the harm in what is conditioned at this moment? As Nina quoted from SN, Salaayatana-vagga, Third Fifty, Ch IV, $136 (PTS), the Buddha said: "Devas and mankind, monks, delight in objects, they are excited by objects. It is owing to the instability, the coming to an end, the ceasing of objects, monks, that devas and mankind live woefully. They delight in sounds, scents, savours, in touch, they delight in mind- states, and are excited by them. It is owing to the instability, the coming to an end, the ceasing of mind-states, monks, that devas and mankind live woefully. "But the TathÃ¥gata, monks, who is arahat, a Fully-enlightened One, seeing, as they really are, both the arising and the destruction, the satisfaction, the misery and the way of escape from objects,—he delights not in objects, takes not pleasure in them, is not excited by them. It is owing to the instability, the coming to an end, the ceasing of objects that the TathÃ¥gata dwells at ease." Metta, Sarah ======= #98315 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 6. sarahprocter... Dear Harry, >Dear Nina, Thank you for your regular teaching. Personal mantra/mental device: [information] = - [entropy]. Found it very useful in studying nåma and rúpa, and Prajnaparamita literature. ... S: Nice to see your name appear again after several years, I think! If you have time, please introduce yourself a little, Harry. Also, perhaps you could elaborate a little on your comments above. Welcome back! Metta, Sarah ======== #98316 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 8:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > ... > > I am reluctant to criticise these sentiments, but I must ask the > > cautionary question, "Happiness and peace for whom?" > > > > Ken H > Hello Ken H., > > Why predicate a 'whom"? The Buddha taught anatta. > ------------ Hi Christine, I agree the Buddha taught anatta; that's why I called my question a cautionary one. We can all understand to some degree how the final cessation of khandhas could be seen as the ultimate goal. We can see how it (as the extinction of dukkha) could be called the ultimate peace and happiness. However, I am not so sure about any understanding of ultimate peace and happiness that goes beyond that. I think it would have to involve an idea of self. And so my cautionary question was meant to ask if there was any straying beyond that understanding. Ken H #98317 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 8:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Mike (Ken H, Scott & all), > S: Surely the two right views in the Great Forty both refer to the > development of insight: > > 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is > twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking > of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right view > that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. > 9. ... "Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon > and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus > these three states run and circle around right view, that is, right > view, right effort, and right mindfulness. > > ------------ --------- --------- - > According to the footnotes, the commentary explains as follows: > > In par. 4, there are two kinds of right view that are forerunners: > the right view of insight, which investigates formations as > impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the path, > which arises as a consequence of insight and effects the radical > destruction of defilements. ..... M:> OK, got all that, no problem. Let me just back up a little to explain what I had in mind. >"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "* >This list seems to me to contain both concepts (mother & father, beings etc.) and dhammas (fruits & results of good & bad actions etc.). .... S: As Ken H said, I think that (as usual in the suttas) concepts are used which point to realities. Mother, father etc are used here to counteract the wrong views mentioned (as taken from an earlier message): < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, < nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no > this > world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn > spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have > realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and > the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> ------ S: The wrong view is that it's not necessary to do good deeds or be respectful to parents,there is the wrong idea that kamma does not produce results. Parents and beings are just used in ordinary language, but it is only with the development of insight that such wrong views are eradicated, along with all doubts about kamma and the path. ... Mike> Since I know you'd agree that concepts can't be the bases of insight, must not this be referring to a kind of conceptual right view? And if it does refer to mundane insight (rather than to 'conceptual right view), what is its relationship to those concepts? ... S: It's pointing to the development of insight, the right understanding of realities, of conditions, kamma and so on. ... M:> To refer to TB's translation again, "...There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]... " Does insight lead to 'acquisitions [of becoming]', which I take to mean adding to sa.msaara? I thought that insight was unique in NOT doing this. .... S: Pu~n~na, merit is used for wholesome kammic action, including satipatthana and insight. For arahants, of course there’s no more kammic action. Rightview with lokuttara cittas (magga cittas) brings immediate result by way of phala cittas, so no ripening in future rebirths. "6. And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions (sammaadi.t.thi saasavaa pu~n~naabhaagiyaa upadhivepakkaa); and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path (sammaadi.t.thi ariyaa anaasavaa lokuttaraa magga"ngaa)."* S: From the Atthasaalinii, (PTS transl), Bk 1, ch 1, p57: "In the triplet of 'leading to accumulation','accumulation' means 'that which is accumulated by kamma and corruptions. It is a name for the processes or rebirth and decease. 'Leading to accumulations' are 'those causes which by being accomplished go to, or lead a man, in whom they arise, to that round of rebirth.' It is a name for co-intoxicant [aasava] moral or immoral states. Nibbaana being free from 'cumulation.' which is another word for 'accumulation.' is called 'dispersion' (namely of the cumulative round of rebirth). 'Leading to dispersion' is 'going towards that dispersion which he has made his object.' It is a name for the Ariyan Paths. Or, 'leading to accumulation' are 'those states which go about severally arranging (births and deaths in) a round of destiny like a bricklayer who arranges bricks, layer by layer, in a wall.' 'Leading to dispersion' are those states which go about destroying that very round, like a man who continually removes the bricks as they are laid by the mason....." ..... M:> Finally, referring back to TB's translation again, "..."And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? ..."And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path?..." If, as you suggest, 'both refer to the development of insight', then why "..Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts..."? .... S: Mundane right view, with aasavas not yet eradicated and supramundane right view (of the various levels), with the aasavas eradicated according to the degree of supramundane path level. ... M:> Sorry if this is all a bit muddled. It could be just that I've got a wrong idea about mundane insight--i.e. that it's simple kusala kamma resulting in kusala vipakka and that it CAN have concept as a base. Doesn't sound right to me, though. ... S: No. Mundane insight refers to vipassana ~naanas - insight into realities, leading to the supramundane paths. Let me know how this sounds. Great to have your comments and reflections, Mike. Metta, Sarah *As quoted by Scott with the Paali terms inserted: MN117: "6. And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions (sammaadi.t.thi saasavaa pu~n~naabhaagiyaa upadhivepakkaa); and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path (sammaadi.t.thi ariyaa anaasavaa lokuttaraa magga"ngaa). "7. And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? 'There is what is given (atthi dinna.m) and what is offered (atthi yi.t.tha.m) and what is sacrificed (atthi huta.m); there is fruit and the result of good and bad actions (atthi suka.tadukka.taana.m kammaana.m phala.m vipaako); there is this world (atthi aya.m loko) and the other world (atthi paro loko); there is mother and father (atthi maataa, atthi pitaa); there are beings who are reborn spontaneously (atthi sattaa opapaatikaa); there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world (atthi loke sama.nabraahma.naa sammaggataa sammaapa.tipannaa).' This is right view affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions. "8. And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom (pa~n~naa), the faculty of wisdom (pa~n~nindriya.m) , the power of wisdom (pa~n~naabala.m) , the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor (dhammavicayasambojjha"ngo), the path factor or right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path; this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path (sammaadi.t.thi magga"nga.m aya.m vuccati bhikkhave, sammaadi.t.thi ariyaa anaasavaa lokuttaraa magga"ngaa)." ============= #98318 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 9:06 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Mike (& Scott), > > --- On Sat, 6/6/09, m_nease mlnease@... wrote: > >>Scott: ... 'I' meditate, 'I' weaken the hindrances, 'I' get angry or lustful and 'I' must stop myself from being angry or lustful. I believe it might be a function of that self-same style of thinking. > > M:> Yes, just micchaasankappa, I think--nothing personal. Or is is micchadi.t.thi? Either way, no atta sa~n~naa (or is it attadi.t.thi? ), no foul. > ... > Sarah: Micchadi.t.thi is accompanied by micchasankappa. I'm curious as to why you would suggest no atta sa~n~naa (or attadi.t.thi) be involved? And what do you mean by "no foul."? > > Hi Sarah,  Re "no foul": Allow me to translate the North American lingo. :-) Mike was agreeing with Scott that certain concepts were just micchaasankappa. But then he wondered if micchaditthi might not be a more correct term. There was no need at the time to get into a discussion about it because in either case there was an accompanying attasanna, and that was enough to know that there was miccha of one kind or the other. If there was attasana there was miccha (foul). No attasanna, no foul. :-) Ken H #98319 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 11:32 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (15-17) scottduncan2 Dear Friends, Continuing from #98111 Fours (13-14) (cy: #98174, #98199): CSCD < Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Pakatupanissaya, kusala -> akusala; akusala -> kusala szmicio Dear Alberto, Thank you for your good reminder. I was wondering if you could continue this series? It would be great to hear more on pakatupanissayapaccaya and other conditions. Best wishes Lukas #98321 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 2:43 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (16) szmicio Dear Han Thank you very much for your kind and very helpful reminders. I look forward to more. best wishes Lukas #98322 From: "m_nease" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) m_nease Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > M:> Yes, just micchaasankappa, I think--nothing personal. Or is is micchadi.t.thi? Either way, no atta sa~n~naa (or is it attadi.t.thi? ), no foul. > ... > Sarah: Micchadi.t.thi is accompanied by micchasankappa. I'm curious > as to why you would suggest no atta sa~n~naa (or attadi.t.thi) be > involved? No no, I just wasn't sure whether micchaasankappa, micchadi.t.thi atta sa~n~naa or attadi.t.thi--or what combination of them all--would be involved. > And what do you mean by "no foul."? Just that, as long as there's no attasa~n~naa (or whatever), there's no offense given or taken. mike #98323 From: "m_nease" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:37 pm Subject: Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Mike (Ken H, Scott & all), > > > S: Surely the two right views in the Great Forty both refer to the > > development of insight: > > > > 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is > > twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking > > of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right view > > that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. > > 9. ... "Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon > > and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus > > these three states run and circle around right view, that is, right > > view, right effort, and right mindfulness. > > > > ------------ --------- --------- - > > According to the footnotes, the commentary explains as follows: > > > > In par. 4, there are two kinds of right view that are forerunners: > > the right view of insight, which investigates formations as > > impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the path, > > which arises as a consequence of insight and effects the radical > > destruction of defilements. > ..... > M:> OK, got all that, no problem. Let me just back up a little to > explain what I had in mind. > > >"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & > results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what > is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There > is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are > spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, > faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next > after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the > right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in > acquisitions. "* > > >This list seems to me to contain both concepts (mother & father, > beings etc.) and dhammas (fruits & results of good & bad actions etc.). > .... > S: As Ken H said, I think that (as usual in the suttas) concepts are > used which point to realities. Mother, father etc are used here to > counteract the wrong views mentioned (as taken from an earlier message): > > < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, > < nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no > > this > > world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn > > spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have > > realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and > > the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> Yes, I've read all that, many times actually. This is one of my favorites. Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves..." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. Thanks, mike #98324 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 9:26 pm Subject: Re: Pakatupanissaya, kusala -> akusala; akusala -> kusala hantun1 Dear Alberto and Lukas, I thank Alberto very much for these series, and Lukas for following up. I am interested in pakatupanissaya-paccaya, particularly in: ---------- purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m kesa~nci upanissayapaccayena paccayo. Previous kusala dhammas are related to some later akusala dhammas by strong dependence condition. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m kesa~nci upanissayapaccayena paccayo. Previous akusala dhammas are related to later kusala dhammas by strong dependence condition. And the three kinds of relations by abyaakataa dhamma. ---------- These were explained with day-to-day examples in the Conditions by Nina. But I thought it will be helpful if Alberto can come up with some more day-to-day examples of the conditional relations between kusala and akusala, akusala and kusala, and between abyaakataa and other three dhammas. Thank you very much. Yours truly, Han #98325 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 10:17 pm Subject: Re: characteristic of thinking gazita2002 hello Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m_nease" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, ...........snip..... > > Yes, I've read all that, many times actually. This is one of my favorites. > > Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves..." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. Thanks, mike azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. 'proclaim this world and the next.....for themselves' - highly developed panna which knows what this world etc really is - impermanent, not-self and therefore dukkha. possibly I have completely oversimplyfied this passage, however its the way I understand it. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #98326 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 10:38 pm Subject: Re: Pakatupanissaya, kusala -> akusala; akusala -> kusala gazita2002 hallo Han, Alberto and Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > I thank Alberto very much for these series, and Lukas for following up. > I am interested in pakatupanissaya-paccaya, particularly in: > > ....... > These were explained with day-to-day examples in the Conditions by Nina. > But I thought it will be helpful if Alberto can come up with some more day-to-day examples of the conditional relations between kusala and akusala, akusala and kusala, and between abyaakataa and other three dhammas. > > Thank you very much. > Yours truly, > Han > azita: many thanks to Alberto, I also would like to read more of this. I find understanding conditions quite difficult, so have put it aside, with the thought that all things are conditioned but not really knowing how. patience, courage and good cheer, azita #98327 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Azita (and Sarah and All), Nice to hear from you-- gazita2002 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , "m_nease" wrote: > > Yes, I've read all that, many times actually. This is one of my > favorites. > > > > Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > themselves..." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. > Thanks, > mike > > azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? Well, that's clearly what Sarah thinks-- > For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. > 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right > understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. > 'proclaim this world and the next.....for themselves' - highly developed > panna which knows what this world etc really is - impermanent, not-self > and therefore dukkha. OK. Of course I do understand that it refers to beings who have achieved not only the beautiful factors you mention, but I think nibbaana too. Still, it refers to 'beings' who have achieved--and aren't beings pa.n.natti?. Sorry if I'm being obtuse. I think that the single greatest challenge to those trying to discuss the Buddhadhamma is the correct understanding of the language (or 'method') of the suttanta/vinaya texts and its relation to that of the abhidhamma texts. Complicating that challenge is the fact that the suttapi.taka (much more than the vinayapi.taka, I think) includes and often interweaves both methods, (referring to uninstructed people vs arahats (pa.n.natti) experiencing dhammas, for example). Does this interpretation mean to you that, when the Buddha talks about a tooth stick, he is speaking a kind of code for abhidhamma--the elements, let's say, that are usually taken for a tooth stick? In conventional language, for all of his life after nibbaana, the Buddha laid out an incredibly complete and detailed picture of conventional life, of what was good and bad in it, and how the people in it, lay and ordained, should behave for their own well-being and that of others--all the way from a peaceful abiding here and now to favorable rebirths to the stages of awakening--often in entirely conventional terms. Is it your view that this entire stratum of his teachings was and is nothing more than a sort of coded (esoteric?) reference to naama and ruupa? Or do you think it's possible that this facet of the teachings had some other purpose? > possibly I have completely oversimplyfied this passage, however its the > way I understand it. And of course you may be right, how would I know? It just seems to me that, if we simply reduce all the conventional language in the texts to naamas and ruupas, then why have the conventional language at all? Is the idea that the conventional language was meant to make the underlying 'realities' approachable by those who couldn't understand the abhidhamma directly? And if so, doesn't that suggest a kind of 'conceptual right view' that doesn't refer directly to insight at all? I'll stick my neck out and say, "It does to me". > Patience, courage and good cheer, Uh--thanks--and back at ye. mike #98328 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 12:27 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (17) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (17) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- The element of wind or motion arises with all kinds of materiality, both of the body and outside the body. There is also motion with dead matter, such as a pot. It performs its function so that the pot holds its shape and does not collapse. Saariputta explained about the internal element of motion: "... And what, your reverences, is the internal element of motion? Whatever is motion, wind, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, such as winds going upwards, winds going downwards, winds in the abdomen, winds in the belly, winds that shoot across the several limbs, in-breathing, out-breathing, or whatever other thing is motion, wind, is internal...." We may notice pressure inside the body. When its characteristic appears it can be known as only a rúpa that is conditioned. As to the words of the sutta, "winds that shoot across the several limbs", the "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 37) explains that these are: "winds (forces) that produce flexing, extending, etc., and are distributed over the limbs and the whole body by means of the network of veins (nerves)". The element of wind plays its specific role in the strengthening of the body so that it does not collapse, and assumes different postures; it is a condition for the stretching and bending of the limbs. While we are bending or stretching our arms and legs the element of wind may appear as motion or pressure. -------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (to be continued) with metta, Han #98329 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 1:03 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (17) hantun1 Dear All, Text: Saariputta explained about the internal element of motion: [... And what, your reverences, is the internal element of motion? Whatever is motion, wind, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, such as winds going upwards, winds going downwards, winds in the abdomen, winds in the belly, winds that shoot across the several limbs, in-breathing, out-breathing, or whatever other thing is motion, wind, is internal....] Han: For Pali lovers, I write below the Pali names of the internal element of motion. 1. uddha.m-gama vaayo = winds going upwards, 2. adho-gama vaayo = winds going downwards, 3. kucchi-.t.tha vaayo = winds in the abdomen, 4. ko.t.thaasa vaayo = winds in the belly (intestines?), 5. anga-manga-anusaarii vaayo = winds that shoot across the several limbs, 6. assaasa-passaasa vaayo = in-breathing, out-breathing. Yours truly, Han #98330 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 1:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking philofillet Hi Mike and all > And of course you may be right, how would I know? It just seems to me that, if we simply reduce all the conventional language in the texts to > naamas and ruupas, then why have the conventional language at all? Is the idea that the conventional language was meant to make the underlying > 'realities' approachable by those who couldn't understand the abhidhamma directly? And if so, doesn't that suggest a kind of 'conceptual right > view' that doesn't refer directly to insight at all? I'll stick my neck out and say, "It does to me". This is a hugely important point, I think. I'm popping in on it (without having read the whole thread, as usual) because I came across two sutta passages this morning that made me reflect on it. Both from SN 35. One asks "how is a man corrupted?" and answers "forms (etc) overwhelm him, he does not overwhelm forms." (SN 35: 243) The other asks what reflection should be made if "desire or lust or hatred or delusion or aversion should arise in regard to forms cognizable by the eye." (Sorry, don't have the exact referenece on hand. Since it comes just after the above in my notebook, it is certainlyb from SN 35 and perhaps it's also SN 35:243) And this is the sutta in which the bhikkhu is told to reflect "this path is fearful, dangerous, strewn with thorns, covered by jungle, a deviant path, a path followed by inferior people not superior people, this is not for you." (slight paraphrase in that quotation, I think.) It's pretty clear to me that the Buddha wants people to reflect in conventional terms in the latter, in a way that would involve self-image, in order to condition abstention from harmful behaviour. It is also clear that underneath this conditioning there would (of course) be nothing but nama and rupa at work. But the conditioning starts with conceptual objects. It is also pretty clear to me that the previous passage "objects overwhelm him, he does not overwhelm objects" does not have a meaningful conceptual directive, one cannot be told to overwhelm objects, this is purely a shorthand for dhammas at work, a good example of such a sutta. So I think that being able to understand which suttas are shorthands for paramattha processes and which ones offer conceptual teachings to people who need them for moral guidance is very important. As it is important to remember that even in the latter case there is at the root of it all only paramattha dhammas at work. But to deny the powerful benefits of the conceptual teachings in and of themselves or to insist that all suttas are merely shorthands for paramattha processes is to deny oneself the full breadth and depth of the Dhamma in my opinion. Thanks, I just wanted to share that for what it's worth. Metta, Phil #98331 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 1:36 am Subject: [dsg] Conceptual Right View? was Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Phil, Phil wrote: > ...to deny the powerful benefits of > the conceptual teachings in and of themselves or to insist that all > suttas are merely shorthands for paramattha processes is to deny oneself > the full breadth and depth of the Dhamma in my opinion. Maybe. Or maybe I'm a troll. mike #98332 From: "colette" Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:23 pm Subject: TRANSIENCE? ksheri3 Hi Group, A friend of mine named TG had the nerve to play a card on me that I pondered after I had returned my reply. Now watch, I actually want to try to do something. I actually want to try to take a hallucination and re-configure that substance which I have grasped, into something "other", than what it was before I begon to have fun it's configuration. toodles, colette #98333 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Suan, --- On Fri, 5/6/09, abhidhammika wrote: >Jon's assertion that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice was fatally wrong in the context of traditional Theravada teachings preserved in Pali Tipitaka. .... Sarah: I've given you a number of quotes (as requested, in Paali too) with regard to what vipassanaa is. Practice of the teachings and insight (vipassanaa) has to be consistent with the teachings of the noble (ariyadhammassa). The teaching of the noble is the path (magga) leading to enlightenment. Do you have a quote which suggest that the path *is a matter of doing specified things* as opposed to development of right understanding and associated factors at this very moment? What would those specificed things be and who would be doing them? ... >Jon still needs to address the issues I raised in my post when he replies to Robert Epstein. .... Sarah: Well that's up to Jon (& Rob Ep), or rather to conditions:). .... >By the way, Sarah, do you realize that the quotes you retrieved can be used to show K Sujin's wrong view (and your own wrong view) regarding the phenomenon of sati? ... S: As we've seen over the years here, almost any quote can be used for aarahlmost any purpose according to the views of those writing. What do you understand sati to be Suan? ... >But, I won't be showing you where to look and discussing the issue at this stage. So, you can enjoy a long breather for now. I will be keeping you in the dark as ignorance can be bliss!:-) ... Sarah: Ignorance is never bliss:-). You never know, Suan, defining more precisely what sati is might even be helpful for you! There was nothing in what I've quoted that seems at variance with my understanding of sati, but I'll be glad to discuss the particular quote you have in mind. ... >As I mentioned in my post, I have little time for discussion as I have upgraded my formal meditation practice to intensive meditation practice using Aanaapaana method. ... Sarah: May I ask what the purpose of this is? Do you have confidence that right understanding and the path factors can develop now? Metta, Sarah ======= #98334 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:52 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Suan (98224) > ================= > When you (Jon) said that the development of insight is not a matter to > doing specified things as a form of practice, what did you mean by > "doing specified things"? > > Did they mean wholesome mental associates (kusala cetasikas) other than > insight (vipassanaa, or paññaa)? > > In the context of following the Path as Robert E mentioned, did you mean > that development of insight does not need to based on the practice of > undertaking precepts (Siila) and the practice of concentration > (Samaadhi)? > ================= To take an example we are all familiar with, the descriptions given in the Satipatthana Sutta are not, to my understanding, exercises to be followed or techniques to be practised, but describe the arising of consciousness accompanied by sati-sampajanna in different circumstances. Hoping this gives a clear answer to the matter that interests you. Happy to discuss further. Jon #98335 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:53 am Subject: [dsg] Conceptual Right View? was Re: characteristic of thinking philofillet Hi Mike No, you're not a troll Mike. That's me, though I don't intend to be. BTW, thought of another helpful metaphor that the Buddha uses that might help here. The heartwood and the leaves/bark etc that one must get through to get at the heartwood. The heartwood is obviously paramattha, but can we get at it properly without removing the leaves? There are a lot of conceptual objects involved in removing the leaves, I think. Dealing wisely with conventional teachings in which the Buddha guides us toward consideration of conceptual objects for our wellbeing (and tha of other) is related to removing those leaves/bark to patiently get just a little closer to the heartwood. OK, I had better get out of here before I get in trouble again, Trollesquely. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > Phil wrote: > > > ...to deny the powerful benefits of > > the conceptual teachings in and of themselves or to insist that all > > suttas are merely shorthands for paramattha processes is to deny oneself > > the full breadth and depth of the Dhamma in my opinion. > > Maybe. Or maybe I'm a troll. > > mike > #98336 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:53 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98245) > ================= > To my understanding, pariyatti is a necessary prerequisite for patipatti, > whether for the beginner or the person of more developed understanding. I > think this is made clear by the numerous references in the suttas to the > importance of hearing the teachings and reflecting on what has been heard and > understood. > ----------------------------------------- > The issue isn't necessity, which I suspect most agree to, but > sufficiency. > ---------------------------------------- Thanks for this comment. I was trying to indicate that it is not a matter of a particular *method*, but of repeated arising of pariyatti. Pariyatti and patipatti are both moments of panna, but they differ in that patipatti connotes the direct experience of dhammas. > > ================= > > The path taught by the Buddha is unlike any other path known. The Noble > Eightfold Path is actually the 8 mental factors that arise at the moment of > enlightenment. The development of that path occurs when certain of those 8 > factors (5 or 6) arise together at moments of satipatthana or insight. > Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my > understanding. > ------------------------------------------ > What IS it a matter of then? Unspecified "conditions"? > ----------------------------------------- Insight knowledge is a matter of specified (rather than unspecified) conditions. As Nina pointed out in her answer to your post, those conditions are neatly summarised in the Sangiiti Sutta. Jon #98337 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:54 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98305) > ================= > So from what you have said, it appears to me that only reading the dhamma, discussing it, having it properly explained and contemplating the teachings to get right intellectual understanding is the *only* approach to the path that you would advocate, and if this is done consistently, then the other aspects of the path, such as development of right understanding, panna and the arising of the path-factors, will just happen by themselves when conditions are right? > > I would really appreciate it if you would answer this question directly so I can have an idea of what the correct approach is in your view. Well in a sense, all things "just happen by themselves when conditions are right", including the intention to undertake specific activities. It is my understanding that sati and panna cannot be made to arise by the undertaking of specific activities. Like all other kusala and akusala factors, there are accumulated tendencies for these qualities and they arise as and when there are conditions for them to do so. Hearing the dhamma appropriately explained is one such condition, as is wholesome reflection on what has been heard, which I understand to include the manner in which what has been heard relates to the present moment. One of the things of which we need to be reminded often is that panna is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma, such as the seeing or visible object that arises now as we speak, and not of something that can be experienced only at certain times or in certain circumstances. I do not regard what I have just mentioned as an "approach" to the path, but as a description of conditions that need to be fulfilled. There are no specific "approaches". The path can be developed regardless of one's activity or conduct. Jon #98338 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:55 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98306) > ================= > Jon, it's totally related to the texts. Buddha doesn't ever say that uncontrollability and non-self are inherent characteristics. He talks about what makes them so, that dhammas cannot be controlled because they are constantly changing and subject to dissolution, that this causes pain and because of these factors, they are shown not to be one's self. > > Anatta-lakkhana: > "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'" > ================= I'm interested in your take on what is being said in this passage namely that, because of the factors of uncontrollability, constant change and being subject to dissolution, dhammas are shown not to be one's self. To my reading, the reckoning goes the other way: Because dhammas are not-self they are subject to disease and they cannot be made to be how we would like them to be. > ================= > He also says that the arahat sees "only the seen in the seen" and does not add anything, such as a conceptualization or an ego-concept. I am not making this stuff up, it is from the suttas. > > In the Bahiya Sutta, Buddha explicitly says that seeing things exactly as they are gets rid of the notion of self and leads to full liberation from stress: > > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." > > Buddha does not say, you should train yourself to see anatta as an inherent characteristic. He says that when you see things as they are, the "with reference to the seen, only the seen," then anatta will manifest, the self will disappear. > ================= I take this passage to be referring to the mental factor of "wrong view", rather than to anatta as a characteristic. It would be useful to look at the Pali, or perhaps another translation. Can you give a reference for the sutta? Jon #98339 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 4:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (14) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- On Fri, 5/6/09, han tun wrote: >You can read this when you come back. No hurry! .... S: Thanks for your consideration.....I'll be living out of a suitcase for the whole summer, but reading and writing as best I can... .... >Han: Now, you are bringing in the *paccaya* which is not applicable to plants. The 24 paccayas are the relation between cittas, cetasikas and ruupas of beings. Even for ruupas, if the plants are produced by utu only, there would be a maximum of 13 utuja ruupas only in the plants. So aahaara paccaya should not be brought into this discussion. .... S: All true! No aahaara paccaya applicable. ... >Han: But how do you know there is no *internal temperature* *inside* the roots of the plants? .... S: Quite possible, still no aahaara paccaya involved - no internal 'digestion'. I just have confidence in what I read in the texts, no reason to disbelieve for me. ... >Han: I am glad you said that scientific use of terms and the ruupas we read about in the texts are very different. Yes, that must be the case, and in that case, we will be going on two parallel straight lines which will never meet. So I promise you that I will never ever again use scientific terms so as to spare you from arguing back to me with the Abhidhamma terms. ... S: :-) Yes, two different tracks. No need for any such promises! When I first started studying the Abhidhamma, I was fresh from scientific psychology studies. I just put the studies aside whilst considering the Abhidhamma and when considering the psychology studies, would consider them within their own narrow focus. ... >...So I ask those questions to persuade myself to believe our Elders, despite my rebellious nature.] ... S: I don't think that trying to persuade ourselves to believe anything is the path. I also think that what you call your 'rebellious nature' is a healthy questioning of what we read and hear. The deep considering and questioning (as opposed to a blind belief) is critically important in the study of dhammas. I've questioned just the same aspects of the teachings as you until I've been satisfied with the answers. So, I think you can consider your questions and misgivings as being a helpful reflection on what you study, rather than being rebellious! ... Now, the discussions that I had so far did not help me to get near to my above aim. Instead, it tends to drive me further away from my aim. Therefore, I will better give up the discussions on such topics, and I will believe our Elders with no questions asked! ... S: :-) Sometimes I let a point rest and later I hear or consider something and it makes more sense. You can't make yourself believe the Elders however much you'd like to! Anatta! Thanks anyway for the good discussion which I've found helpful. Metta, Sarah ======== #98340 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 5:04 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] sarahprocter... Hi Howard, [#98291] I'm glad to see that we agreed on almost all the points. I'll skip to those where there's any difference - --- On Fri, 5/6/09, upasaka@... wrote: S:>>And so with jhana cittas too, (mundane) jhana cittas which arose before the Buddha's time were the same (mundane)jhana cittas which arose in those who had heard the Buddha. Jhana cittas are jhana cittas. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- H:>Jhana , what the Buddha meant by 'jhana', is what it is wherever (i.e., in "whomever") it arises, and it makes no difference how one interprets it based on religious belief or cultural view. So there is agreement on that as well. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- S: So far, so good... .... S:>>Dana cittas are dana cittas. In other words, jhana cittas can only be 'genuine' jhana cittas, otherwise they're something else. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- H:> Yes. A related but different issue [that you raised in your prior post] is that of whether the absorptions of the Buddha's teachers and other predecessors that they called "jhanas" were the same as the jhanas taught by the Buddha. Of that I'm not certain, and I doubt it. ... S: This last comment of yours seems at variance with the ones of mine that you agreed with above. Surely, if it is jhana citta, then that's what it is and if it's something else - say wrong concentration called jhana- then it's another kind of citta. .... >As I read various suttas taught by the Buddha, I see nothing suggesting that investigation of phenomena and insight into the tilakkana and paticcasamuppada is impossible within the jhanas. In fact, a careful reading of them, most especially the Anupada Sutta which distinguishes the 8th & 9th jhana in that respect, seems to indicate quite the opposite. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --- S: What do you understand, according to the Buddha's Teachings, to be the object of the different jhana cittas, especially the 8th & 9th ones? This question is a lot easier to answer of course if one looks in the Abhidhamma or commentaries such as the Visuddhimagga. If we just look at the Anupada Sutta on its own, I agree it can be interpreted in different ways. For me, this is an example of how indispensable the Abhidhamma is when reading such suttas, but we'll have to just disagree here, on what I consider to be a very important point. .... .... S:>>I heard something on a tape which rang a bell for me (but may not for you, of course). K.Sujin was talking about how when someone gets annoyed or gives a 'put down',for example, we often don't mind when we're not the target. But don't we mind a lot when we're the target and isn't that because of the self-importance and conceit concerning ourselves. 'How dare he/she speak to me like that!' 'Why should I have to put up with it?'. Poor "ME"! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- H:>She's quite right. That is the norm, true for most of us, including me (as to the anger - though without the "poor me" sense). I also get annoyed, though, when others are, IMO (of course), badly treated. So, in my case I can spread my anger around! LOL! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- S: LOL! That can mean quite a lot of annoyance when walking down the street or along the beach! We're just so used to thinking of the other person (the 'annoyer') as the problem, aren't we? As Rob Ep and I were discussing, the 'blame game' is quite a tricky one... ... >>S: Opportunities for sati all the time, of course! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- H:>Yes. Quite so. Anger, in particular, is never good, and if one hasn't avoided it in one case, at least one should be aware of it, not feed it, but let it wither and die. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- S: Thanks for your good humour and wise reflection and advice. Sometimes we just 'carry on the story', long after the provocation was made, just creating more and more unhappiness. Always good chatting. Good to know where the differences of understanding lie as well. Metta, Sarah ====== #98341 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 6:38 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (14) hantun1 Dear Sarah, S: :-) Yes, two different tracks. No need for any such promises! When I first started studying the Abhidhamma, I was fresh from scientific psychology studies. I just put the studies aside whilst considering the Abhidhamma and when considering the psychology studies, would consider them within their own narrow focus. S: I don't think that trying to persuade ourselves to believe anything is the path. I also think that what you call your 'rebellious nature' is a healthy questioning of what we read and hear. The deep considering and questioning (as opposed to a blind belief) is critically important in the study of dhammas. I've questioned just the same aspects of the teachings as you until I've been satisfied with the answers. So, I think you can consider your questions and misgivings as being a helpful reflection on what you study, rather than being rebellious! S: :-) Sometimes I let a point rest and later I hear or consider something and it makes more sense. You can't make yourself believe the Elders however much you'd like to! Anatta! Thanks anyway for the good discussion which I've found helpful. ------------------------------ Han: As usual, I always enjoy reading your messages. Whether I agree with you or not, I am always comfortable with you. You are after all my dhamma partner! And your messages are always full of wise considerations. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #98342 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 6:58 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: "Thus a bhikkhu mindful and aware > approaches; mindful and aware he departs; mindful and aware he looks > ahead; mindful and aware he looks around; mindful and aware he bends; > mindful and aware he stretches; mindful he acts with awareness; in > bearing the outer robe, the alms-bowl and the under robe, mindful he > acts > with awareness; in eating, in drinking, in chewing, in tasting, mindful > he > acts with awareness; in walking, in standing, in sitting, in sleeping, > in > waking, in talking, in being silent, he acts with awareness." > ***** > ***** > #31744 Enjoyed the quotes, this one in particular. Thanks! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98343 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 7:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > Hi, Christine. > > Thanks for this post! While one might wish for the extinction of the > kandhas, the idea that it is not total extinction but a state of > 'happiness and peace' is both inspiring and also takes the Buddhist path > away from mere annihilationism. > > > ---- > > I am reluctant to criticise these sentiments, but I must ask the > cautionary question, "Happiness and peace for whom?" > > Ken H Well, please note that in my statement I did not mention a "whom" at all. I would ask you a counter-question which will have the same answer as the one you asked me: "For whom does nibbana occur?" Obviously in both cases there is no 'whom,' and yet the state in question does occur. As always it is experienced by citta. Even nibbana is experienced by a citta, is it not so? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98344 From: "jessicamui" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 7:37 am Subject: Questions while studying MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear all, First, I'd like to thank Nina and Alberto on answering my earlier questions regarding manasikara. It helps my understanding of the terms and meanings. I really appreciate your help. Now while I'm studying MN117, I have a few questions as follows: 1. at the end of the sutta, it is said that there are 20 "factors" on the wholesome side, and 20 on the unwholesome side. Together, they make up this great Forty dhamma. But I cannot see where the 20 of each come from. I can only see the 10 path factors that a taintless person has. And the counter side of the 10 unwholesome factors. 2. In the sutta, the 8 super-mundane(10 in case of a Arahat)path factors will arise at(or before ?) the moment of super-mundane knowledge arise, ie. the lokuttara cittas taking the Nibanna as object. So are these path factors arise at those moments not the same type as the right view(wisdom) cetasika arising at the mundane level ? If they are, then how can they perceive the super-mundane objects ? If they are not, why the sutta makes the distinction between the mundane and super-mundane levels of the path factors ? 3. Does the mind of an Arahat always possess the Noble path factors throughout the day, or it is only when the lokuttara citta arises ? Thanks in advance for your answers !! WIth Much Metta, Jessica. #98345 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 9:34 am Subject: Re: Pakatupanissaya, kusala -> akusala; akusala -> kusala sprlrt Hi Lukas, Han and Azita, I'll post some more on this, Nina also posted some good points on this and other paccayas commenting Vism. XVII and Tìka. Practical examples can help understanding, but I think that one of their drawbacks is that by thinking in terms of beings doing this or that thing, i.e. pannatti, those elusive conditioned dhammas, anatta and anicca, arising very briefly right now, not earlier and not later, tend to go out of the picture and be forgotten. Alberto #98346 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 9:59 am Subject: Re: Pakatupanissaya, kusala -> akusala; akusala -> kusala hantun1 Dear Alberto (Lukas, Azita), > Alberto: I'll post some more on this, Nina also posted some good points on this and other paccayas commenting Vism. XVII and Tìka. Practical examples can help understanding, but I think that one of their drawbacks is that by thinking in terms of beings doing this or that thing, i.e. pannatti, those elusive conditioned dhammas, anatta and anicca, arising very briefly right now, not earlier and not later, tend to go out of the picture and be forgotten. Han: You are right that by thinking in terms of beings doing this or that thing, i.e. pannatti, those elusive conditioned dhammas, anatta and anicca, arising very briefly right now, not earlier and not later, tend to go out of the picture and be forgotten. So, kindly consider my request as withdrawn. Thank you very much. Yours truly, Han #98347 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 11:45 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) scottduncan2 Dear Jon and Robert E, R: "...In the Bahiya Sutta..." J: "I take this passage to be referring to the mental factor of 'wrong view', rather than to anatta as a characteristic. It would be useful to look at the Pali, or perhaps another translation. Can you give a reference for the sutta?" Scott: This is Udana 1, 10. Here's John Ireland's translation (ATI - the one given was Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation): "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." And the Paa.li: Tasmaatiha te, baahiya, eva.m sikkhitabba.m â€" 'di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissatii 'ti. Eva~nhi te, baahiya, sikkhitabba.m. Yato kho te, baahiya, di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati, tato tva.m, baahiya, na tena; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tena tato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha, tato tva.m, baahiya, nevidha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassaa' 'ti. Sincerely, Scott. #98348 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 8:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/8/2009 11:54:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > > The path taught by the Buddha is unlike any other path known. The Noble > Eightfold Path is actually the 8 mental factors that arise at the moment of > enlightenment. The development of that path occurs when certain of those 8 > factors (5 or 6) arise together at moments of satipatthana or insight. > Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my > understanding. > ------------------------------------------ > What IS it a matter of then? Unspecified "conditions"? > ----------------------------------------- Insight knowledge is a matter of specified (rather than unspecified) conditions. As Nina pointed out in her answer to your post, those conditions are neatly summarised in the Sangiiti Sutta. Jon =============================== In looking through that sutta, I see many very long lists - lists of single things, double, triple, quadruple, ..., up to ten things "perfectly proclaimed by the Buddha," but nowhere do I see a list of conditions specified as those leading to liberating wisdom. Can you provide a clear and unambiguous citation of that? On the other hand, in the Ahara Sutta, Sn 46.51, what is given as conditions is "fostering of appropriate attention" to a variety of useful qualities, as follows: _________________________________________________________ Feeding the Factors for Awakening "Now, what is the food for the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that act as a foothold for mindfulness as a factor for Awakening [well-purified virtue & views made straight]. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen. "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of analysis of qualities... once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that are skillful & unskillful, blameworthy & blameless, gross & refined, siding with darkness & with light. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of analysis of qualities... once it has arisen. "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen persistence as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of persistence... once it has arisen? There is the potential for effort, the potential for exertion, the potential for striving. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen persistence as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of persistence... once it has arisen. "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen rapture as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of rapture... once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that act as a foothold for rapture as a factor for Awakening. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen rapture as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of rapture... once it has arisen. "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen serenity as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of serenity... once it has arisen? There is physical serenity & there is mental serenity. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen serenity as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of serenity... once it has arisen. "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen concentration as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of concentration... once it has arisen? There are themes for calm, themes for non-distraction [these are the four frames of reference]. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen concentration as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of concentration... once it has arisen. "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen equanimity as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of equanimity... once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that act as a foothold for equanimity as a factor for Awakening. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen equanimity as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of equanimity as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen. Starving the Hindrances "Now, what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen? There is the theme of unattractiveness. To foster appropriate attention to it: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen. And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen? There is awareness-release._1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.051.than.html#n-1) To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen. "And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen sloth & drowsiness, or for the growth & increase of sloth & drowsiness once it has arisen? There is the potential for effort, the potential for exertion, the potential for striving. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen sloth & drowsiness, or for the growth & increase of sloth & drowsiness once it has arisen. "And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is the stilling of awareness. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen. "And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen uncertainty, or for the growth & increase of uncertainty once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that are skillful & unskillful, blameworthy & blameless, gross & refined, siding with darkness & with light. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen uncertainty, or for the growth & increase of uncertainty once it has arisen. ______________________________________ With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98349 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 8:41 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/9/2009 1:16:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, [#98291] I'm glad to see that we agreed on almost all the points. I'll skip to those where there's any difference - --- On Fri, 5/6/09, upasaka@... wrote: S:>>And so with jhana cittas too, (mundane) jhana cittas which arose before the Buddha's time were the same (mundane)jhana cittas which arose in those who had heard the Buddha. Jhana cittas are jhana cittas. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- H:>Jhana , what the Buddha meant by 'jhana', is what it is wherever (i.e., in "whomever") it arises, and it makes no difference how one interprets it based on religious belief or cultural view. So there is agreement on that as well. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- S: So far, so good... .... S:>>Dana cittas are dana cittas. In other words, jhana cittas can only be 'genuine' jhana cittas, otherwise they're something else. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- H:> Yes. A related but different issue [that you raised in your prior post] is that of whether the absorptions of the Buddha's teachers and other predecessors that they called "jhanas" were the same as the jhanas taught by the Buddha. Of that I'm not certain, and I doubt it. ... S: This last comment of yours seems at variance with the ones of mine that you agreed with above. Surely, if it is jhana citta, then that's what it is and if it's something else - say wrong concentration called jhana- then it's another kind of citta. ------------------------------------------------ My point is that actual jhana cittas, those described and endorsed by the Buddha, are what they are whenever and in "whomever" they arise, but the so-called "jhanas" of his teachers may well be something else. ------------------------------------------------ .... >As I read various suttas taught by the Buddha, I see nothing suggesting that investigation of phenomena and insight into the tilakkana and paticcasamuppada is impossible within the jhanas. In fact, a careful reading of them, most especially the Anupada Sutta which distinguishes the 8th & 9th jhana in that respect, seems to indicate quite the opposite. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --- S: What do you understand, according to the Buddha's Teachings, to be the object of the different jhana cittas, especially the 8th & 9th ones? ------------------------------------------------ I haven't much of a clue about the 8th & 9th except that 1) investigation of dhammas, excpetionally according to the Anupada sutta) isn't possible in them, and 2) they may be portals to path consciousnesses. ------------------------------------------------ This question is a lot easier to answer of course if one looks in the Abhidhamma or commentaries such as the Visuddhimagga. If we just look at the Anupada Sutta on its own, I agree it can be interpreted in different ways. For me, this is an example of how indispensable the Abhidhamma is when reading such suttas, but we'll have to just disagree here, on what I consider to be a very important point. .... .... S:>>I heard something on a tape which rang a bell for me (but may not for you, of course). K.Sujin was talking about how when someone gets annoyed or gives a 'put down',for example, we often don't mind when we're not the target. But don't we mind a lot when we're the target and isn't that because of the self-importance and conceit concerning ourselves. 'How dare he/she speak to me like that!' 'Why should I have to put up with it?'. Poor "ME"! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- H:>She's quite right. That is the norm, true for most of us, including me (as to the anger - though without the "poor me" sense). I also get annoyed, though, when others are, IMO (of course), badly treated. So, in my case I can spread my anger around! LOL! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- S: LOL! That can mean quite a lot of annoyance when walking down the street or along the beach! We're just so used to thinking of the other person (the 'annoyer') as the problem, aren't we? As Rob Ep and I were discussing, the 'blame game' is quite a tricky one... ... >>S: Opportunities for sati all the time, of course! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- H:>Yes. Quite so. Anger, in particular, is never good, and if one hasn't avoided it in one case, at least one should be aware of it, not feed it, but let it wither and die. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- S: Thanks for your good humour and wise reflection and advice. Sometimes we just 'carry on the story', long after the provocation was made, just creating more and more unhappiness. Always good chatting. -------------------------------------- Yes, it is, Sarah! :-) -------------------------------- Good to know where the differences of understanding lie as well. Metta, Sarah ========================= With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98350 From: "m_nease" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Conceptual Right View? was Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Phil, Phil wrote: > Hi Mike > > No, you're not a troll Mike. That's me, though I don't intend to be. > > BTW, thought of another helpful metaphor that the Buddha uses that might > help here. The heartwood and the leaves/bark etc that one must get > through to get at the heartwood. The heartwood is obviously paramattha, > but can we get at it properly without removing the leaves? There are a > lot of conceptual objects involved in removing the leaves, I think. > Dealing wisely with conventional teachings in which the Buddha guides us > toward consideration of conceptual objects for our wellbeing (and tha of > other) is related to removing those leaves/bark to patiently get just a > little closer to the heartwood. Well, here we differ. By my reading of the translation of the Majjhima Nikàya I, 3. 9. Mahaasaaropamasutta.m, (29) The Major Discourse on Heartwood at http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/029-mahasa\ ropama-sutta-e1.html, branches, leaves and shoots refer to gain, honour and fame [of going forth], the bark refers to siila and samadhi [developed after going forth], sapwood refers to 'the endowment of concentration' [I think this refers to supernatural powers] and heartwood refers to nibbaana. So generally I think the sutta deals with going forth and being satisfied with the wrong fruits of going forth rather than with proper goal of nibbaana. So this isn't to dispute your metaphors above (though to be honest I probably would), just to say that it's very different from the one in that sutta. Nice trolling with you. mike #98351 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:43 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Jon, Sarah, (Robert E, Howard, Phil) How are you? Jon wrote: "To take an example we are all familiar with, the descriptions given in the Satipatthana Sutta are not, to my understanding, exercises to be followed or techniques to be practised, but describe the arising of consciousness accompanied by sati-sampajanna in different circumstances." Thank you for having declared how you understood Satipatthana Sutta. I am afraid, though, that your understanding was not how Aanada, who heard and transmitted this sutta to us, understood it and how Buddhaghosa understood it. Therefore, I have no choice but to declare that your understanding was your personal opinion, and deviated from traditional Theravada teachings. Jon also wrote: "Hoping this gives a clear answer to the matter that interests you. Happy to discuss further." Sorry, Jon, as I wrote in my previous message, I have upgraded my formal Aanaapaanassati meditation to an intensive satipatthaana practice with inhalation and exhalation as the meditation objects. So, I have little time for participating in this discussion. What I meant by my having little time for the discussion is that I have little time for providing Pali texual citations and for translating them for you. Please keep in mind that I am a traditional Theravada teacher. As such, I do not have personal opinions to offer in my discussions. I merely introduce Pali texts and translate them. I have both adavanced Pali textual knowledge (pariyatti) and practice-based knowledge (pa.tipatti, bhaavanaamayanaññaa.na). So, if I declared that you misunderstood Satipa.t.thaana Sutta, my declaration was based on advanced levels of pariyatti and pa.tipatti. I read Pali like my native language. I seldom need a dictionary. If I found new terms and expressions in a sutta, I consult its commentary as though it was a dictionary. If necessary, I further consult its subcommentary. As I read Pali texts every time I switch on my laptop, I have been being consistently inspired by the compassionate voices of Gotama the Buddha many times every day. When I have spare time in future, I may reopen the thread "Are KS Folk Less Intelligent Than Monkeys?" and show you how you misunderstood Satipa.t.thaana Suttam. Simliarly, for Sarah, I may reopen the thread regarding K Sujin's misunderstanding of sati where Sarah's answers to my questions were inadequate or wrong. So, Jon and Sarah, you both need exercise patience till I come to have spare time to provide you with Pali textual citations and their translations how you have the wrong views and the wrong speech. Exercising patience is the practice of khamaa and khanti. The purpose of this practice is to reduce your anger and frustration for having to wait for my availability of spare time to reopen the threads that would remove your wrong views. For now, though, please enjoy a long breather with your wrong views unresolved! :-) Cheers! Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98352 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 11:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to appreciate Buddhist goal of parinibbana1 kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Christine), ----- <. . .> R: > > > While one might wish for the extinction of the > > kandhas, the idea that it is not total extinction but a state of > > 'happiness and peace' is both inspiring and also takes the Buddhist path > > away from mere annihilationism. > > > KH: > > I am reluctant to criticise these sentiments, but I must ask the cautionary question, "Happiness and peace for whom?" > > R: >> Well, please note that in my statement I did not mention a "whom" at all. ----- Yes, I realised at the time that you hadn't mentioned a whom. That's why I was reluctant to criticise. From my own experience, however, I find that the idea of self tends to reappear even after it has been officially discounted. :-) And so I am sceptical of any description of nibbana that tries to go beyond "the extinction of dukkha (the cessation of conditioned dhammas)." Isn't that the only way of understanding nibbana that the Buddha taught? ---------------------------------- R: > I would ask you a counter-question which will have the same answer as the one you asked me: "For whom does nibbana occur?" Obviously in both cases there is no 'whom,' and yet the state in question does occur. As always it is experienced by citta. Even nibbana is experienced by a citta, is it not so? ---------------------------------- Yes, nibbana can be experienced momentarily by citta (magga-citta), and citta has the anatta characteristic. Therefore, even on those rare occasions when nibbana is experienced there is no self that experiences it. There is never any self! That is what we have to understand, isn't it? Ken H #98353 From: Harry Liew Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 6. harryliew66 Dear Sarah, Thank you for your 'stubbornly' enthusiasm and patience in [dsg], bearing continuous wholesome nectar which contributors and lurkers enjoy. (A lurker by definition can't be a lurker if concealment is broken.) This simplified mental device came from Claude Shannon's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy Information - e.g. DNA (http://www.generalcomics.com/funny-computer-jokes-cartoons-cartoon-pics/27.php) Entropy - e.g. ...01010101....... (no discriminatory dimension) The map came from a remark on T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" "A penny for the Old Guy". A paraphrase of The Heart Sutra. Metta, :-) --- On Mon, 8/6/09, sarah abbott wrote: >S: Nice to see your name appear again after several years, I think! If you have time, please introduce yourself a little, Harry. Also, perhaps you could elaborate a little on your comments above. Welcome back! .... #98354 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 11:57 pm Subject: The 7 Fruits! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What are the 7 Fruits of the Abilities? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these 5 abilities . What five? 1: The Ability of Faith . 2: The Ability of Energy . 3: The Ability of Awareness . 4: The Ability of Concentration . 5: The Ability of Understanding . When these 5 abilities have been developed & cultivated, then seven supreme fruits and excellent benefits may be expected! What are these seven fruits and advantageous benefits? 1: One attains final knowledge early in this very life. If not then; 2: One attains final knowledge at the time of death. If not then; 3: One having cut the 5 lower chains attains Nibbāna in between; 4: One attains Nibbāna upon landing in the pure abodes . If not then; 5: One attains Nibbāna in the pure abodes without effort. If not then; 6: One attains Nibbāna in the pure abodes with some effort. If not then; 7: One is bound Upstream , heading towards the Akanittha realm. When, Bhikkhus, these five mental abilities have been developed and cultivated, these seven sublime fruits and benefits may be expected. On the 5 Mental Abilities and the pure abodes : http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Five_Abilities.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/s/suddhaavaasaa.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book [V:237] section 48: The Abilities: 66. Have a nice & fruitful day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The 7 Fruits! #98355 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:19 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (18) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- We read in the "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 92): "The air element that courses through all the limbs and has the characteristic of moving and distending, being founded upon earth, held together by water, and maintained by fire, distends this body. And this body, being distended by the latter kind of air, does not collapse, but stands erect, and being propelled by the other (moving) air, it shows intimation, and it flexes and extends and it wriggles the hands and feet, doing so in the postures comprising walking, standing, sitting and lying down. So this mechanism of elements carries on like a magic trick, deceiving foolish people with the male and female sex and so on." We are deceived and infatuated by the outward appearance of a man or a woman and we forget that this body is a "mechanism of elements" and that it flexes and wriggles hands and feet, showing intimation by gestures or speech, because of conditions. The above quoted sutta mentions, in connection with the element of wind, in-breathing and out-breathing. The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 37) explains: "In-breath: wind in the nostrils entering in. Out-breath: wind in the nostrils issuing out." We are breathing throughout life, but most of the time we are forgetful of realities, we cling to an idea of "my breath". Breath is ruupa conditioned by citta and it presents itself where it touches the nosetip or upperlip. If there can be awareness of it, the characteristics of hardness, softness, heat or motion can be experienced one at a time. However, breath is very subtle and it is most difficult to be aware of its characteristic. We read in the above quoted sutta that Saariputta explained that the external element of motion can become agitated and carry away villages. Its liability to change and its impermanence can be seen. Both the external and the internal element of motion are impermanent. --------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (to be continued) with metta, Han #98356 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:50 am Subject: What the Bleep Do We Know!? bhikkhu.sama... Friends: A highly recommended quantum documentary: What the BLEEP Do We Know!? extended as: Down the Rabbit Hole (How far do you dare go?) from http://www.whatthebleep.com What The Bleep Do We Know ?! Intro trailer compilation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7dhztBnpxg Down the rabbit hole. part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU Have a nice potential smeared-out quantum day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #98357 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking gazita2002 hallo Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > Hi Azita (and Sarah and All), > > Nice to hear from you > > > > Yes, I've read all that, many times actually. This is one of my > > favorites. > > > > > > Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & > > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > > themselves..." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. > > Thanks, > > mike > > > > azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? > > Well, that's clearly what Sarah thinks-- > > > For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. > > 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right > > understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. > .......snip... > OK. Of course I do understand that it refers to beings who have achieved not only the beautiful factors you mention, but I think nibbaana too. > Still, it refers to 'beings' who have achieved--and aren't beings pa.n.natti?. > > Sorry if I'm being obtuse. I think that the single greatest challenge to those trying to discuss the Buddhadhamma is the correct understanding > of the language (or 'method') of the suttanta/vinaya texts and its relation to that of the abhidhamma texts. Complicating that challenge is the > fact that the suttapi.taka (much more than the vinayapi.taka, I think) includes and often interweaves both methods, (referring to uninstructed > people vs arahats (pa.n.natti) experiencing dhammas, for example). > > Does this interpretation mean to you that, when the Buddha talks about a tooth stick, he is speaking a kind of code for abhidhamma--the > elements, let's say, that are usually taken for a tooth stick? azita: gosh, how would I know what the Buddha's intention was when he spoke about a tooth stick:-) seriously, I do think that when the Buddha say, requested a tooth stick, he knew that in reality there was no t/stick only elements that arise and fall away. > > In conventional language, for all of his life after nibbaana, the Buddha laid out an incredibly complete and detailed picture of conventional > life, of what was good and bad in it, and how the people in it, lay and ordained, should behave for their own well-being and that of others--all > the way from a peaceful abiding here and now to favorable rebirths to the stages of awakening--often in entirely conventional terms. Is it your > view that this entire stratum of his teachings was and is nothing more than a sort of coded (esoteric?) reference to naama and ruupa? Or do you > think it's possible that this facet of the teachings had some other purpose? azita: I dont think that it was a 'coded/esoteric' reference to naama and ruupa, bec he spke Pali/Maghadi and would have used just those very words. He spoke to many, many people with varying degrees of understanding - just like today - and some would have understood on a deeper level than others. Some would have interperated his words on a conventional level, eg beings doing good or evil etc. Some, in fact lots, were enlightened after listening to him. So why was that, why them and not others - bec the conditions were right, wisdom and understanding were developed to that degree to know the unconditioned. "they" had gone beyond the pannatti to know paramattha. It just seems to me that, if we simply reduce all the conventional language in the texts to > naamas and ruupas, then why have the conventional language at all? azita: if no understanding developed then it wouldnt matter what language was used, some people wouldnt get it. Is the idea that the conventional language was meant to make the underlying > 'realities' approachable by those who couldn't understand the abhidhamma directly? And if so, doesn't that suggest a kind of 'conceptual right > view' that doesn't refer directly to insight at all? I'll stick my neck out and say, "It does to me". azita: conceptual right view, isnt that pariyatti? in the buddhist dictionary, pariyatti is described as learning the doctrine, the wording of the doctrine, Wisdom has to begin somewhere, it doesnt just 'happen'. so 'conceptual right view' sounds fine to me :-) patience, courage and good cheer, azita #98358 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:10 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) scottduncan2 Dear Jon and Robert E, Regarding: Udana 1, 10. "...When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." Tasmaatiha te, baahiya, eva.m sikkhitabba.m" 'di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissatii 'ti. Eva~nhi te, baahiya, sikkhitabba.m. Yato kho te, baahiya, di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati, tato tva.m, baahiya, na tena; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tena tato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha, tato tva.m, baahiya, nevidha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassaa' 'ti. Scott: I'm curious, since I can't see any reason for it in the Paa.li, as to why the English is punctuated: "...you are not 'with that'...'you are not 'in that'." Why not: "...'you' are not with that... and 'you' are not in that'"? Sincerely, Scott. #98360 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Azita, gazita2002 wrote: > azita: gosh, how would I know what the Buddha's intention was when he > spoke about a tooth stick:-) I think it's pretty clear if you read the vinaya text: 31. i. Now at that time the Bhikkhus did not use tooth-sticks 5 , and their mouths got a bad odour. They told this matter to the Blessed One. ' There are these five disadvantages, O Bhikkhus, in not using tooth-sticks it is bad for the eyes l the mouth becomes bad-smelling the passages by which the flavours of the food pass are not pure- bile and phlegm get into the food and the food does not taste well to him (who does not use them). These are the five disadvantages, O Bhik- khus, in not using tooth-sticks.' 1 There are five advantages, O Bhikkhus, (&c., the converse of the last).' ' I allow you, O Bhikkhus, tooth-sticks.' http://www.archive.org/stream/sacredbookseast20mulluoft/sacredbookseast20mulluof\ t_djvu.txt All sounds pretty conceptual to me. > seriously, I do think that when the Buddha say, requested a tooth stick, > he knew that in reality there was no t/stick only elements that arise > and fall away. Obviously. > > In conventional language, for all of his life after nibbaana, the > Buddha laid out an incredibly complete and detailed picture of conventional > > life, of what was good and bad in it, and how the people in it, lay > and ordained, should behave for their own well-being and that of > others--all > > the way from a peaceful abiding here and now to favorable rebirths to > the stages of awakening--often in entirely conventional terms. Is it your > > view that this entire stratum of his teachings was and is nothing > more than a sort of coded (esoteric?) reference to naama and ruupa? Or > do you > > think it's possible that this facet of the teachings had some other > purpose? > > azita: I dont think that it was a 'coded/esoteric' reference to naama > and ruupa, bec he spke Pali/Maghadi and would have used just those very > words. I was referring to the occasions on which he spoke of pa.n.natti, not of dhammas. > He spoke to many, many people with varying degrees of understanding - > just like today - and some would have understood on a deeper level than > others. Some would have interperated his words on a conventional level, > eg beings doing good or evil etc. Of course. > Some, in fact lots, were enlightened after listening to him. Clearly. > So why was > that, why them and not others - bec the conditions were right, wisdom > and understanding were developed to that degree to know the > unconditioned. "they" had gone beyond the pannatti to know paramattha. > > It just seems to me that, if we simply reduce all the conventional > language in the texts to > > naamas and ruupas, then why have the conventional language at all? > > azita: if no understanding developed then it wouldnt matter what > language was used, some people wouldnt get it. Again, obviously--but it doesn't address the question, I don't think. > Is the idea that the conventional language was meant to make the underlying > > 'realities' approachable by those who couldn't understand the > abhidhamma directly? And if so, doesn't that suggest a kind of > 'conceptual right > > view' that doesn't refer directly to insight at all? I'll stick my > neck out and say, "It does to me". > > azita: conceptual right view, isnt that pariyatti? Pariyatti, as I see it, includes both paramattha dsana and sammuti desana. > in the buddhist dictionary, pariyatti is described as learning the > doctrine, the wording of the doctrine, > Wisdom has to begin somewhere, it doesnt just 'happen'. Obviously. > so 'conceptual > right view' sounds fine to me :-) It does to me, too (well, obviously). That is, a right view apart from mudane and supramundane insight. Without it there could be no Buddha-, Dhamma-, or Sangha-nusati, or reflections on the five subjects for frequent recollections* etc., as I see it. mike *Abhi.nhapaccavekkhitabba.thaanasutta.m, http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancak\ anipata/006-nivaranavaggo-e.html #98361 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:25 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 2. Tokyo, 15 February, 1971. Dear Mr. G., First I will quote your question about personality-belief: “I wish you could tell me more about personality-belief, sakkåya-ditthi. Is sakkåya-ditthi wrong view? But, if I have wrong view, it is only a kind of nåma, to be recognized as such.” Sakkåya is a name for the five khandhas which are objects of clinging. Sakkåya-ditthi is wrong view about the five khandhas. We have accumulated wrong view about them during many lives. There is wrong view about the khandhas when we really believe that they are permanent and self. All conditioned realities in ourselves and around ourselves can be classified as five khandhas and these are the following: rúpa-kkhandha---physical phenomena vedanå-kkhandha…feelings saññå-kkhandha…remembrance sankhåra-kkhandha…cetasikas (mental factors), except feeling and saññå viññåùa-kkhandha…all cittas This classification may seem rather theoretical, but it is a classification of realities which arise now. There are the five khandhas now while you are seeing. There is the eyesense which is rúpa-kkhandha, there is visible object which is also rúpa-kkhandha, there is seeing which is viññåna-kkhandha. Seeing is accompanied by feeling, vedanå-kkhandha, by remembrance, saññå-kkhandha, and by other cetasikas which are sankhåra-kkhandha. The khandhas arise and fall away, they do not stay and none of the khandhas is self. Do you have an idea of a self who is seeing? It is only viññåna-kkhandha which arises for an extremely short moment, performs the function of seeing and then falls away. Seeing arises because of its own conditions. Eyesense and visible object are conditions for seeing. Without these conditions you could not see. Can you create your own eye-sense? It arises because of its appropriate conditions. Seeing, eyesense and visible object do not belong to you. Do you think that you see people? It is only visible object, rúpa-kkhandha, which is seen just for a moment and then falls away. ****** Nina. #98362 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking nilovg Dear Mike and Azita, I just want to add something to your discussion. Op 10-jun-2009, om 17:12 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > > Is the idea that the conventional language was meant to make the > underlying > > > 'realities' approachable by those who couldn't understand the > > abhidhamma directly? And if so, doesn't that suggest a kind of > > 'conceptual right > > > view' that doesn't refer directly to insight at all? I'll stick my > > neck out and say, "It does to me". > > > > azita: conceptual right view, isnt that pariyatti? > > Mike: Pariyatti, as I see it, includes both paramattha desana and > sammuti desana. > > > in the buddhist dictionary, pariyatti is described as learning the > > doctrine, the wording of the doctrine, > > Wisdom has to begin somewhere, it doesnt just 'happen'. ------- N: I heard something on a recording something that may be of interest: < All the teachings are pariyatti, they are not just theory. If one does not understand reality right now one does not know what pariyatti is. It has to be the reality appearing now. The book just helps one to consider more. When understanding of pariyatti is fully developed it is sacca ~naa.na. There is then no doubt about the reality appearing right now.> > As you remember, sacca ~naa.na is the first round of understanding > the four Truths: one clearly understands what the reality now is > and what the path is. Thus, it is more than just theoretical understanding. It refers to the reality appearing now and it leads to pa.tipatti: direct understanding of whatever reality appears. --------- > > Azita:> so 'conceptual > > right view' sounds fine to me :-) > > Mike:It does to me, too (well, obviously). That is, a right view > apart from mudane and supramundane insight. Without it there could > be no Buddha-, > Dhamma-, or Sangha-nusati, or reflections on the five subjects for > frequent recollections* etc., as I see it. ------- N: why not leave out conceptual? Just right view of different levels. Your discussions started about the rules of the monks that refer to situations of daily life, like using tooth sticks. The monks did not need to be reminded that life is naama and ruupa, it was understood. At the same time they led their daily lives, like we now. Both monks and laypeople have to be careful in matters of health lest they become sick. Thinking 'there is no tooth, no toothstick' does not have to occur all the time. It does not mean that they have to throw away all tooth sticks or not take care of their teeth. From examples like this we can see that satipa.t.thaana should be very natural. Your discussions are very relevant, because misunderstandings often arise. ***** Nina. #98363 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. szmicio Dear Nina Can you say more on nimmita of realities? best wishes Lukas >N: Sakkåya is a name for the five khandhas which are objects of > clinging. Sakkåya-ditthi is wrong view about the five khandhas. We > have accumulated wrong view about them during many lives. There is > wrong view about the khandhas when we really believe that they are > permanent and self. > All conditioned realities in ourselves and around ourselves can be > classified as five khandhas and these are the following: > > rúpa-kkhandha---physical phenomena > vedanå-kkhandha…feelings > saññå-kkhandha…remembrance > sankhåra-kkhandha…cetasikas (mental factors), except > feeling and saññå > viññåùa-kkhandha…all cittas > #98364 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:59 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (15-17) and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Walshe DN 33.1.11(15) 'Four fruits of the ascetic life: the fruits of Stream- Entry, of the Once-Returner, of the Non-Returner, of Arahantship. [iii 228] (Cattaari saama~n~naphalaani : sotaapattiphala.m, sakadaagaamiphala.m, anaagaamiphala.m, arahattaphala.m.) ------- Walshe DN 33.1.11(16) 'Four elements: the elements of "earth", "water", "fire", "air" (pa.thavii-, aapo-, tejo, vaayo-dhaatu). -------- Walshe DN 33.1.11(17) 'Four nutriments (aahaaraa): "material" *1061 (kabalinkaara) food, gross or subtle; *1062 contact as second; mental volition (manosa~ncetanaa) *1063 as third; consciousness as fourth. (Cattaaro aahaaraa : kaba.liikaaro aahaaro o.laariko vaa sukhumo vaa, phasso dutiyo, manosa~ncetanaa tatiyaa, vi~n~naa.na.m catuttha.m.) **rd: 4.17Cf. Bud. Psy. Eth., p 61 f. B. gives as a special aspect under which sections xiii-xv. are to be regarded, 'their [relative] grossness and subtlety by way of harsh or pleasant basis' (luukhapa.niitavatthuvasena) ------------- N: Material food can be gross or subtle. This refers to the substance (vatthu), according to the commentary. We read in the ‘Expositor’ (II, p. 431): The ‘Expositor’ then compares the nutriment of peafowl which is more subtle than the nutriment of crocodiles which swallow and digest stones. -------- In this section of the Fours all realities are classified as fourfold. That is why four Elements have been mentioned. In other sections of the teachings elements are classified as two, three, six or eighteen. No matter in what way they are classified, we should not forget the meaning of dhaatu: a reality devoid of self. When we are seeing, we forget that seeing is an element, a conditioned dhamma. It is not self who sees, only an element. Seeing sees visible object, ruupa dhaatu, a conditioned dhamma that does not belong to a self. Nobody can cause the arising of seeing and visible object, they are elements that are beyond control. ********** Co: Phaladhaatuaahaaracatukkaani uttaanatthaaneva. Apicettha luukhapa.niitavatthuvasena o.laarikasukhumataa veditabbaa. -------- Nina. #98365 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:26 am Subject: The Great Forty, Middle Length Sayings, no 117. nilovg Dear Jessica, --------- J: Now while I'm studying MN117, I have a few questions as follows: 1. at the end of the sutta, it is said that there are 20 "factors" on the wholesome side, and 20 on the unwholesome side. Together, they make up this great Forty dhamma. But I cannot see where the 20 of each come from. I can only see the 10 path factors that a taintless person has. And the counter side of the 10 unwholesome factors. ------- N: I have a note from the commentary in the PtS ediiton: ten beginning with right view and ten come under 'various skilled things conditioned by right view. I do not know whether this helps. ------- J: 2. In the sutta, the 8 super-mundane(10 in case of a Arahat)path factors will arise at(or before ?) the moment of super-mundane knowledge arise, ie. the lokuttara cittas taking the Nibanna as object. ------- N: Not before, but at the moment of lokuttara citta. -------- J: So are these path factors arise at those moments not the same type as the right view(wisdom) cetasika arising at the mundane level ? If they are, then how can they perceive the super- mundane objects ? If they are not, why the sutta makes the distinction between the mundane and super-mundane levels of the path factors ? ------- N: The three factors of right action, right speech and right livelihood can arise one at a time in the case of the mundane eightfold Path, as the occasion presents itself. There is not always an opportunity for abstention. Thus, the pathfactors are five or six when the Path is mundane. In the case of lokuttara maggacitta, all eight factors arise together including the three abstentions. It experiences nibbaana as object, and at that moment the base of these kinds of akusala is being eradicated. --------- J: 3. Does the mind of an Arahat always possess the Noble path factors throughout the day, or it is only when the lokuttara citta arises ? ------- N: At the moment of reaching arahatship, lokuttara cittas arose and fell away. Only if he has also developed jhaana can the phalacitta experiencing nibbaana arise again and again. If he has not developed jhaana, he has only mundane cittas, such as seeing, thinking, but no defilements. ------ Nina. #98366 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 11-jun-2009, om 9:50 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Can you say more on nimmita of realities? -------- N: I can quote from some old posts: The nimitta of sankhaaras, of conditioned realities is not the nimitta in the sense of outward appearance of things and details, or just pa~n~nattis or mind-constructs. A more subtle meaning of nimitta. Sankhaara nimitta, mentioned in the Path of Discrimination, is not nimitta in the sense of outward appearance of things or concept on a account of what is perceived and remembered. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa-nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na-nimitta. Thus a nimitta of each of the five khandhas, or in other words of naama and ruupa, of realities. ... Kh Sujin said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle of fire. (Ledi Sayadaw mentioned this also). Or it seems that there is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa- nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na- nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta. ... We could use the word shadow of a reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. She often said: what appears has arisen. And this also means that what has arisen is gone already before we realize it. .. It is useful to learn about nimitta because we realize that as soon as a dhamma appears it has fallen away already. I also heard that nimitta refers to a reality that has fallen away, not to visible object that is seen in a sensedoor process and has not fallen away yet. But when we notice a reality or are aware of a reality such as visible object or sound, it has fallen away already. Say, sound appears to sati, but that sound has gone already. Another sound impinges again on the earsense and who knows which one appears? It does not matter. No need to think all the time: it is a nimitta. or, the reality has fallen away. There are different characteristics appearing and these can be objects of awareness when there are the right conditions for the arising of awareness. There can be awareness of the nimitta of a reality, we have to add: *of a reality*. This is not a concept or pa~n~natti. Nina. #98367 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:10 am Subject: Re: The Great Forty, Middle Length Sayings, no 117. hantun1 Dear Nina and Jessica, I hope you will kindly allow me to come in at this stage, because the questions and answers are very much interesting to me. --------- > > J: Now while I'm studying MN117, I have a few questions as follows: 1. at the end of the sutta, it is said that there are 20 "factors" on the wholesome side, and 20 on the unwholesome side. Together, they make up this great Forty dhamma. But I cannot see where the 20 of each come from. I can only see the 10 path factors that a taintless person has. And the counter side of the 10 unwholesome factors. ------- > N: I have a note from the commentary in the PtS ediiton: ten beginning with right view and ten come under 'various skilled things conditioned by right view. I do not know whether this helps. ------- Han: First let us see how we get the ten factors. Towards the end of paragraph 34 of the book translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, it states that [
..in one of the right concentration, right knowledge (sammaa ~naana) comes into being; in one of the right knowledge, right deliverance (sammaa vimutti) comes into being. Thus, bhikkhus, the path of the disciple in higher training possesses eight factors, the arahant possesses ten factors.] On the unwholesome side, the two additional factors are wrong knowledge (micchaa ~naana) and wrong deliverance (micchaa vimutti). Having got these ten factors each, how to get (20) each is as Nina has already explained. Also in Note 1113 of the same book, it states [The twenty factors on the wholesome side are the ten right factors and the wholesome states that originate from each; the twenty factors on the unwholesome side are the ten wrong factors and the unwholesome states that originate from each. Hence the name : The Great Forty.] =============== > > J: 2. In the sutta, the 8 super-mundane (10 in case of a Arahat) path factors will arise at (or before ?) the moment of super-mundane knowledge arise, ie. The lokuttara cittas taking the Nibanna as object. ------- > N: Not before, but at the moment of lokuttara citta. =============== > > J: So are these path factors arise at those moments not the same type as the right view (wisdom) cetasika arising at the mundane level? If they are, then how can they perceive the super-mundane objects? If they are not, why the sutta makes the distinction between the mundane and super-mundane levels of the path factors? ------- > N: The three factors of right action, right speech and right livelihood can arise one at a time in the case of the mundane eightfold Path, as the occasion presents itself. There is not always an opportunity for abstention. Thus, the path factors are five or six when the Path is mundane. In the case of lokuttara maggacitta, all eight factors arise together including the three abstentions. It experiences nibbaana as object, and at that moment the base of these kinds of akusala is being eradicated. --------- Han: I thank Nina very much for the answer. On page 444 of The Manuals of Buddhism by Ledi Sayadaw, it states that [After observing the three constituents of the morality-group of the Eightfold Path, the practice of the two constituents of the wisdom group of the Eightfold Path is undertaken. The three constituents of the concentration group of the Eightfold Path come along together with the two constituents of the wisdom group of the Eightfold Path, and these two sets are termed pa~ncangikamagga (the five constituents of the Eightfold Path). These five form one group and together with the aforesaid three constituents of the morality group of the Eightfold Path they become the Noble Eightfold Path.] On page 363 of the same book, Ledi Sayadaw said: [Just as trees grow in the soil, the six visuddhis beginning with citta-visuddhi develop in the soil of sila-visuddhi. In particular, sila-visuddi, does not mix with the five middle visuddhi beginning with citta-visuddhi, but supports them by securing antecedent purity. In the case of lokuttara-nanadassana-visuddhi, sila-visuddhi operates in conjunction with it as three constituents of silakkhandha-magganga. The reason is, the objects of attention of sila-visuddhi are of a different order from those of the five middle visuddhi, while they are identical with those of the lokuttara-visuddhi, thus operating together with it as sahajata (coexistent).] Han: What Ledi Sayadaw said was the above-mentioned pa~ncangikamagga (the five constituents of the Eightfold Path) and the three constituents of the morality-group of the Eightfold Path (siilakkhandha-magganga) cannot be practiced together at the mundane stage, because their objects of attention are different at that stage. At the mundane stage, the objects of the attention for the three constituents of the morality group are the objects to be abstained; whereas the objects of attention for the pa~ncangikamagga are the three characteristics of the conditioned dhammas. But at the moment of lokuttara citta, as Nina had said, all eight factors shift their object of attention to Nibbaana, and all eight can arise together as sahajata dhammas. This complicated developments are not usually found in the books by Western authors, and when I mention them the readers of my post do not accept. I thank Nina very much for bringing this up. At the mundane stage, as Nina said, the path factors are only five or six when the Path is mundane. =============== > > J: 3. Does the mind of an Arahat always possess the Noble path factors throughout the day, or it is only when the lokuttara citta arises ? ------- > N: At the moment of reaching arahatship, lokuttara cittas arose and fell away. Only if he has also developed jhaana can the phalacitta experiencing nibbaana arise again and again. If he has not developed jhaana, he has only mundane cittas, such as seeing, thinking, but no defilements. ------ Han: The fact that jhaana is absolutely necessary for the arising of phalacittas is new to me. I will have to study more on this aspect. Thank you very much both Nina and Jessica. Respectfully, Han #98368 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:25 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (19) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (19) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- As we have seen, the four great Elements always arise together, and each of them has the other three as its proximate cause. The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 109) states that the four great Elements condition one another: the earth element acts as the foundation of the elements of water, fire and wind; the water element acts as cohesion for the other three Great Elements; the fire element maintains the other three Great Elements; the wind element acts as distension of the other three Great Elements. We should remember that the element of water or cohesion cannot be experienced through the bodysense, only through the mind-door, and that the elements of earth, fire and wind can be directly experienced through the bodysense. The element of earth appears as hardness or softness, the element of fire as heat or cold and the element of wind as motion or pressure. Time and again ruupas such as hardness or heat impinge on the bodysense but we are forgetful of what things really are. We let ourselves be deceived by the outer appearance of things. The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 100) states that the four Great Elements are "deceivers": "And just as the great creatures known as female spirits (yakkhiní) conceal their own fearfulness with a pleasing colour, shape and gesture to deceive beings, so too, these elements conceal each their own characteristics and function classed as hardness, etc., by means of a pleasing skin colour of women's and men's bodies, etc., and pleasing shapes of limbs and pleasing gestures of fingers, toes and eyebrows, and they deceive simple people by concealing their own functions and characteristics beginning with hardness and do not allow their individual essences to be seen. Thus they are great primaries (mahaa-bhuuta) in being equal to the great creatures (mahaa-bhuuta), the female spirits, since they are deceivers." -------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (to be continued) with metta, Han #98369 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking gazita2002 hallo Mike and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Mike and Azita, > I just want to add something to your discussion. > > > > Is the idea that the conventional language was meant to make the > > underlying > > > > 'realities' approachable by those who couldn't understand the > > > abhidhamma directly? And if so, doesn't that suggest a kind of > > > 'conceptual right > > > > view' that doesn't refer directly to insight at all? I'll stick my > > > neck out and say, "It does to me". > > > > > > azita: conceptual right view, isnt that pariyatti? > > > > Mike: Pariyatti, as I see it, includes both paramattha desana and > > sammuti desana. > > > > > in the buddhist dictionary, pariyatti is described as learning the > > > doctrine, the wording of the doctrine, > > > Wisdom has to begin somewhere, it doesnt just 'happen'. > ------- > N: I heard something on a recording something that may be of interest: > < All the teachings are pariyatti, they are not just theory. If one > does not understand reality right now one does not know what > pariyatti is. It has to be the reality appearing now. The book just > helps one to consider more. When understanding of pariyatti is fully > developed it is sacca ~naa.na. There is then no doubt about the > reality appearing right now.> > > As you remember, sacca ~naa.na is the first round of understanding > > the four Truths: one clearly understands what the reality now is > > and what the path is. > Thus, it is more than just theoretical understanding. It refers to > the reality appearing now and it leads to pa.tipatti: direct > understanding of whatever reality appears. > --------- > > > > Azita:> so 'conceptual > > > right view' sounds fine to me :-) > > > > Mike:It does to me, too (well, obviously). That is, a right view > > apart from mudane and supramundane insight. Without it there could > > be no Buddha-, > > Dhamma-, or Sangha-nusati, or reflections on the five subjects for > > frequent recollections* etc., as I see it. > ------- > N: why not leave out conceptual? Just right view of different levels. azita; I like this, right view of different levels. Weak at first and growing with ea moment of knowing a reality. Mike, as far as I am concerned, we can discuss the buddha's teachings on the conceptual level endlessly, and we do!!! However, for the development of wisdom and understanding and finally the eradication of wrong view, I think I prefer to hear about the realities that are the truth 'underlying' the sea of concepts. Not only did the Buddha teach about oral hygiene, but also modern day dentists, however we both know who knew the absolute truth behind such a concept. > Your discussions started about the rules of the monks that refer to > situations of daily life, like using tooth sticks. The monks did not > need to be reminded that life is naama and ruupa, it was understood. > At the same time they led their daily lives, like we now. Both monks > and laypeople have to be careful in matters of health lest they > become sick. Thinking 'there is no tooth, no toothstick' does not > have to occur all the time. It does not mean that they have to throw > away all tooth sticks or not take care of their teeth. From examples > like this we can see that satipa.t.thaana should be very natural. azita: good reminders, Nina, satipatthaana being very natural, I think we forget this and think we can do something for sati to arise, but it must be as natural as seeing, hearing. patience, courage and good cheer, azita #98370 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. gazita2002 hallo Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Mr. G., > > First I will quote your question about personality-belief: "I wish > you could tell me more about personality-belief, sakkåya-ditthi. Is > sakkåya-ditthi wrong view? But, if I have wrong view, it is only a > kind of nåma, to be recognized as such." > Sakkåya is a name for the five khandhas which are objects of > clinging. Sakkåya-ditthi is wrong view about the five khandhas. We > have accumulated wrong view about them during many lives. There is > wrong view about the khandhas when we really believe that they are > permanent and self. > All conditioned realities in ourselves and around ourselves can be > classified as five khandhas ......... > This classification may seem rather theoretical, but it is a > classification of realities which arise now. There are the five > khandhas now while you are seeing. There is the eyesense which is > rúpa-kkhandha, there is visible object which is also rúpa-kkhandha, > there is seeing which is viññåna-kkhandha. Seeing is accompanied by > feeling, vedanå-kkhandha, by remembrance, saññå-kkhandha, and by > other cetasikas which are sankhåra-kkhandha. The khandhas arise and > fall away, they do not stay and none of the khandhas is self. Do you > have an idea of a self who is seeing? azita: yes, all the time :-( It is only viññåna-kkhandha > which arises for an extremely short moment, performs the function of > seeing and then falls away. Seeing arises because of its own > conditions. Eyesense and visible object are conditions for seeing. > Without these conditions you could not see. Can you create your own > eye-sense? It arises because of its appropriate conditions. Seeing, > eyesense and visible object do not belong to you. azita: in a very recent post, you wrote that satipatthaana must be very natural, so I'm thinking that it must be a natural as the arising of seeing. Arising bec of appropriate conditions and then falling away again. Would that be correct? Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #98371 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:09 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: The Great Forty, Middle Length Sayings, no 117. nilovg Dear Han, Thank you for all your remarks and additions. Op 11-jun-2009, om 12:10 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Han: The fact that jhaana is absolutely necessary for the arising > of phalacittas is new to me. I will have to study more on this aspect. ------- N: I shall quote parts of a treatise in Thai I translated as Dhamma Issues: The Visuddhimagga, Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding (explaining who can enter fruition attainment and who cannot) states: “All ariyans can enter fruition- attainment”. This is a conclusion which refutes an argument of some teachers who had wrong view. They stated that the sotåpanna (streamwinner) and the sakadågåmí (once-returner) are not able to enter fruition-attainment, and that only the anågåmí (non-returner) and the arahat could enter fruition-attainment. They argued that only the anågåmí and the arahat could reach accomplishment in samådhi (concentration). However, even the ordinary person (who is not an ariyan) may reach accomplishment in samådhi, so that he may enter mundane jhåna-attainment, jhåna-samåpatti. Thus, all ariyans, namely, the sotåpanna, the sakadågåmí, the anågåmí and the arahat can enter fruition-attainment, provided they are able to attain jhåna. -------- The Saddhammappakåsiní, Commentary to the Paìisambhidåmagga, Path of Discrimination, Khuddaka Nikåya, explains that the ariyan who can enter fruition-attainment must have attained jhåna. We read in the Commentary to Ch XXXIII, Abiding without Conflict (Arana Vihåra, peaceful abiding) about the understanding of peaceful abiding (araùa vihåra). It explains about the arana vihåra dhammas as the means to be without defilements which are like enemies or cause beings to cry and lament. It states that the ariyans who can enter fruition attainment must have attained jhåna; only then can they be intent upon fruition-attainment. As it is said: “ Panítådhimutta, they are intent upon fruition attainment. (panítå means: excellent, superior, what does not cause agitation and leads to predominance; adhimutta means: to be intent upon, inclined to). The inclination and disposition to fruition-attainment is called paùítådhimutta. It is the inclination to fruition-attainment which is subtle and refined. Paùítådhimutta is here actually the prerequisite of paññå which is intent upon fruition-attainment.” ------- In another part in the Commentary, in the explanation of “Understanding of Peaceful Abiding”, arana vihåra ñåna, we read about the arahat entering into fruition-attainment: ”With the words pathamam jhånaÿ, the first jhåna, he speaks about the attainment of jhåna (jhåna samåpatti) which is the object of vipassanå of someone wanting to enter fruition-attainment of the stage of the arahat.” Even the arahat who is without the hindrances must, when he wants to enter fruition-attainment, have calm of citta of the degree of jhåna, from the first stage of jhåna onwards, and this is arana vihåra, peaceful abiding. We read: “The meaning of the words ‘pathamena jhånena nívarane harati ti, arana vihåro’, is as follows: it is called araùa vihåra, peaceful abiding, because it removes the hindrances by the first jhåna. It is explained that the first jhåna is called peaceful abiding because the factors which constitute the first jhåna remove the hindrances (nívarane harati). The other words of the text also explain this in the same way. One should know that the first jhåna has been referred to as removing the hindrances because the first jhåna is opposed to the hindrances and this is said also with regard to the arahat who does not have them anymore.” We read further on: ”...Jhåna-attainment which is the foundation for vipassanå of fruition-attainment”. This clearly shows that in order to enter fruition-attainment one must be able to attain jhåna. The Commentary (of the Path of Discrimination) to the Chapter on “Attainment of Cessation” (Nirodha Samåpatti, Ch XXXIV) explains three classifications of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåna: “There are three kinds of insight knowledge: insight as comprehension of formations (sankhåra parigganhanaka vipassanå) insight as fruition-attainment, phala-samåpatti vipassanå insight as cessation-attainment, nirodha-samåpatti vipassanå These three kinds of vipassanå are explained as different: insight as comprehension of formations is paññå which understands conditioned dhammas, sankhåra dhammas, that is, nåma dhamma and rúpa dhamma; insight as fruition-attainment and insight as cessation attainment are degrees of insight knowledge which have as their aim to enter fruition-attainment and progressively cessation-attainment. For the latter two attainments it is necessary to be able to attain jhåna which is in conformity with those attainments.” ---------- With regard to the arahats who are sukkhavipassaka, with “dry” insight (insight alone), they have attained arahatship with lokuttara cittas without jhåna factors of the different stages of jhåna, but they have calm of citta since defilements have been completely eradicated. If they have accumulated the inclination to calm of the degree of jhånacitta, then they are able to enter fruition- attainment, which is “abiding in bliss here now” (ditthadhamma sukhavihåra). With respect to this, we read in the Subcommentary (Tíka) to the Vinaya, the Såratthadípaní, in the section “Through wisdom (vijjå)”: “As to the words stating the benefit of citta which has a single object, thus, the benefit of citta with samådhi, concentration, these have been explained as follows: the benefit of “abiding in bliss here now” (ditthadhamma sukhavihåra). The abiding in bliss (sukha) here now, the commentator describes this with the leading words that the citta has a single object and that the citta having a single object has that benefit. This refers to the arahat who has dry insight (sukkha vipassaka).” --------- We read in the Visuddhimagga Ch XXIII, the Benefits of the Development of Understanding, (XXIII, 11, how can one enter fruition- attainment?): ”And if the Path he has arrived at was accompanied by the first jhåna (pathama jhånika magga), his fruition will also be accompanied by the first jhåna when it arises. If the Path is with the second jhåna, so will the fruition. And so with the other jhånas.” This shows that here only the person who is able to attain jhåna has been referred to. Thus, if the supramundane path-consciousness (lokuttara magga-citta) is accompanied by factors of one of the stages of jhåna he can enter fruition-attainment in accordance with the factors of that particular jhåna. One may object that when for the ariyan without jhåna-attainment the magga-citta arises there is a high degree of calm with absorption which can be compared to the calm of the first stage of jhåna. One might therefore conclude that afterwards he is likely to be able to enter fruition-attainment with phala-citta accompanied by factors of the first jhåna (pathama jhånika phala). However, we should consider the following: it is true that the magga-citta of the ariyan without jhåna-attainment has calm with absorption equal to the tranquillity of the first jhåna, but this is because nibbåna is the object at that moment. Since he is without jhåna attainment and he has lokuttara citta without jhåna factors, samådhi, concentration, has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbåna could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan. ****** Nina. #98372 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:19 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear Azita, I like your posts. You always give us something to think over. Op 11-jun-2009, om 13:19 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > The khandhas arise and > > fall away, they do not stay and none of the khandhas is self. Do you > > have an idea of a self who is seeing? > > azita: yes, all the time :-( ------ N: Yes, me too. The moments of right understanding are so few. But we should not regret it. If we regret, the idea of self shows up. ------- > > It is only viññåna-kkhandha > > which arises for an extremely short moment, performs the function of > > seeing and then falls away. Seeing arises because of its own > > conditions. Eyesense and visible object are conditions for seeing. > > Without these conditions you could not see. Can you create your own > > eye-sense? It arises because of its appropriate conditions. Seeing, > > eyesense and visible object do not belong to you. > > azita: in a very recent post, you wrote that satipatthaana must be > very natural, so I'm thinking that it must be a natural as the > arising of seeing. Arising bec of appropriate conditions and then > falling away again. Would that be correct? ----- N: Yes, correct. Generally, this point is hard to accept. People cannot believe that sati, when it arises, does so just as naturally as seeing now. As Kh Sujin says: nothing can prevent it from arising when there are the right conditions. It is best not to think too much about sati, but rather pay attention to hearing the Dhamma and considering, yoniso manasikaara. What matters most is more understanding of the present reality. Nina. #98373 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:22 pm Subject: Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. szmicio Dear Nina, Does Arahats still have pa~n~na different then lokuttara pa~n~na? When Buddha became a Buddha did he still experience nimitta of realities? What about samatha and nimitta? Are they depend of each other? My best wishes Lukas #98374 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:16 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: The Great Forty, Middle Length Sayings, no 117. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. I have also located your references to Visuddhimagga XXIII, and Pa.tisambhidaamagga (33 ara.navihaara~naa.na, 34. nirodhasamaapatti~naa.na). I do not have the Commentary, but your explanation will help me to understand better the Burmese translation and the Pali text that I have. I will take time and study them carefully. Right now, I have some difficulty in understanding your last paragraph: [However, we should consider the following: it is true that the magga-citta of the ariyan without jhaana-attainment has calm with absorption equal to the tranquillity of the first jhaana, but this is because nibbaana is the object at that moment. Since he is without jhaana attainment and he has lokuttara citta without jhaana factors, samaadhi, concentration, has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbaana could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan.] The most difficult part is the last sentence. [samaadhi, concentration, has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbaana could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan.] Is becoming ariyan off and on? Does he become ariyan, and then non-ariyan, and then ariyan? Respectfully, Han #98375 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear friends, Bhante Dhammadhara, Be here now: ----------------------- Best wishes Lukas #98376 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:28 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. szmicio Dear Nina, Azita and Lodewijk >>Do you > > > have an idea of a self who is seeing? > > > > azita: yes, all the time :-( > ------ > N: Yes, me too. The moments of right understanding are so few. But we > should not regret it. If we regret, the idea of self shows up. > ------- L: Still very natural. dosa is conditioned in the same way as everything else. Even when we know that is akusala, we cannot make it all more convinience for ourself. When there are conditions for dosa then dosa will arise. Then its another moment in life, nothing more. When dosa arises we dont like it. My best wishes Lukas #98377 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 11-jun-2009, om 17:59 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Prior to the moment of its arising there is not any awareness one > can put somewhere. And now we still have an idea in our minds of > 'my awareness' but it is gone. ------ N: I especially like this sentence, very helpful. It is gone completely, nobody can hold it. Nina. #98378 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Lukas) - In a message dated 6/11/2009 2:30:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Lukas, Op 11-jun-2009, om 17:59 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Prior to the moment of its arising there is not any awareness one > can put somewhere. And now we still have an idea in our minds of > 'my awareness' but it is gone. ------ N: I especially like this sentence, very helpful. It is gone completely, nobody can hold it. ------------------------------------------- Nina, I quite agree with you! This is *excellent*! This gives the true sense, I believe, of "no control". What has arisen is already arisen, and it is either known or not - it is too late for attention to be applied or for adverting to be attempted. And what is not arisen is simply an unreality. But what mental operations occur now, including right or wrong thinking, useful or harmful planning, and useful or harmful intention, most especially the intention and remembering to be attentive and remain mindful (or not), will cultivate the mind (for good or ill), and can lead to future arising and renewed arising of what is "good" or of what is "bad". This is a very subtle matter, I believe. ----------------------------------------- Nina. ======================== With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98379 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:53 am Subject: Safe Medicine! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Then Impossible to be Dominated by Evil States of Mind! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus and Friends: Once the mental release by infinite Friendliness has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for ill-will to take possession of and obsess the mind, for the mental release by infinite Friendliness is the release from all ill-will! Once the mental release by compassionate Pity & tender understanding has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for violence to take possession of and obsess the mind, for the mental release by compassionate Pity is the release from all violence! Once the mental release by mutual Joy rejoicing in other being's success has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for discontent to take possession of & obsess the mind, for the mental release by mutual Joy is the release from all discontent! Once the mental release by serene, still and imperturbable Equanimity has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for greed & lust to take possession of & obsess the mind, for release by imperturbable Equanimity is the deliverance from all greed! The 4 supreme mental attitudes (Brahmavihāra ) are thus: Friendliness, Pity, Mutual Joy and Equanimity! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara <....> Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Infinite Friendliness! #98380 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:18 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: The Great Forty, Middle Length Sayings, no 117. hantun1 Dear Nina, Please ignore my last post to you on this subject. I miss-read your last paragraph. I now understand it clearly. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han > Han wrote: Right now, I have some difficulty in understanding your last paragraph: [However, we should consider the following: it is true that the magga-citta of the ariyan without jhaana-attainment has calm with absorption equal to the tranquillity of the first jhaana, but this is because nibbaana is the object at that moment. Since he is without jhaana attainment and he has lokuttara citta without jhaana factors, samaadhi, concentration, has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbaana could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan.] #98381 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:14 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18) nichiconn Dear Friends, Continuing from #98319 Fours (15-17) (cy: #98364): CSCD < Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep (& Suan), --- On Tue, 9/6/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >"Thus a bhikkhu mindful and aware > approaches; mindful and aware he departs; mindful and aware he looks > ahead; mindful and aware he looks around; mindful and aware he bends; > mindful and aware he stretches; mindful he acts with awareness; in > bearing the outer robe, the alms-bowl and the under robe, mindful he > acts > with awareness; in eating, in drinking, in chewing, in tasting, mindful > he > acts with awareness; in walking, in standing, in sitting, in sleeping, > in > waking, in talking, in being silent, he acts with awareness." > ***** > ***** > #31744 R:> Enjoyed the quotes, this one in particular. Thanks! ... S: After reading quotes such as this one, do you think there can be any idea that the Buddha recommended particular activities rather than other ones that must be pursued in order for understanding and awareness (sati-sampaja~n~naa) to arise? Or can the development of sati-sampaja~n~naa occur anytime and any place, would you say? Metta, Sarah ======= #98383 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:13 am Subject: Re: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Jon, Rob Ep & Scott, Also from #30697, more translations and commentary on the same passage from the Bahiya Udana: >>>> --- macdocaz1@... wrote: <...> Jeff:> Bahiya Sutta Udana I.10 > > "...then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you > in > terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you > are > neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end > of > dissatisfaction (dukkha)." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud1-10.html > From: "nidive" <...> SB:> "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be > merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the > sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely > what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. > > "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the > cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be > 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you > will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, > Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. > Just this is the end of suffering." > > > What does 'with that', 'in that' mean? ... Sarah: Interesting. Let me add the Peter Masefield translation with commentary notes on the phrases you ask about at the end, [my asterisks for the phrases you ask about]: “There, Baahiya, you should so train yourself that with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen,........cognised - so should you, Baahiya, train yourself. When for you, Baahiya, with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen,......cognised, then you, Baahiya, will not be *therewith*. When you, Baahiya, are not *therewith*, then you, Baahiya, will not be *therein*. When you , Baahiya, are not *therein*, then you, Baahiya, will be neither here nor there nor, additionally, in both - this alone is the end of dukkha”. ..... Udana 1:10 commentary to just the last part. [Square brackets give my insertions taken from PM's notes]: “>Therewith (tena)<: with that seen and so on, or alternatively with that lust and so forth that is subject to the seen and so on.[tena di.t.thaadinaa di.t.thaadipa.tibaddhena raagaadinaa vaa]. This is what is said: “Baahiya, at such time as, or alternatively as a result of that reason by means of which, there will be for you, as you are practising the method spoken of by me, with respect to the seen and so on merely the seen and so forth, through unequivocal awareness as to their own nature [sabhava], at that time, or alternatively as a result of that [tena va] reason, you will not be in concert with that lust and so on [raagaadinaa saha na bhavissasi] that is subject to the seen and so forth, you will not be either excited or blemished or deluded, or alternatively you will not be subject, in concert with the seen and so on, (thereto,) on account of your being one for whom lust and so on are abandoned [pahiinaraagaadikattaa].” >Then you, Baahiya, will not be therein (tato tva.m Baahiya na tattha)<: when, or alternatively since, you will be neither excited with [these refs to ‘with’ refer back to >therewith (tena)< above] that lust [tena raagena vaa ratto], blemished with that anger, nor deluded with that delusion, then, or alternatively therefore, you will not be therein, in that seen and so on, you will not be attached, established, either in that seen or in that heard, sensed, cognised, by way of craving, conceit and (wrong) view thinking “This is mine, this I am, this is for me the self” - to this extent there is indicated, by causing full understanding as to abandoning to reach the summit, the plane of the one in whom the aasavas have been destroyed. >Then you, Baahiya, will be neither here nor there nor, additionally, in both (tato tva.m Baahiya nev’idha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena)<: when you, Baahiya, will not be therein, subject to the seen and so forth, with that lust and so on, then you will be neither in this world nor in the next world, nor also [pi] in both [ubhayattha]. >This alone is the end of dukkha (es’ev’anto dukkhassa)<: for this alone is the end, this the demarcation, limitation [paricchedo pariva.tumabhaavo], of dukkha in the form of the defilements and of dukkha belonging to the cycle......’” ***** Sarah: Swee Boon, hope this helps. Again we see the teaching about right awareness and understanding of namas and rupas leading to the guarding of the sense doors and the eradication of defilements.<<<<< ***** Metta, Sarah > Scott: This is Udana 1, 10. Here's John Ireland's translation (ATI - the one given was Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation) : > > "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. > > "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." > > And the Paa.li: > > Tasmaatiha te, baahiya, eva.m sikkhitabba. m" 'di.t.the di.t.thamatta. m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta. m bhavissatii 'ti. Eva~nhi te, baahiya, sikkhitabba. m. Yato kho te, baahiya, di.t.the di.t.thamatta. m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta. m bhavissati, tato tva.m, baahiya, na tena; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tena tato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha, tato tva.m, baahiya, nevidha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassaa' 'ti. #98384 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Mike), --- On Mon, 8/6/09, kenhowardau wrote: >Re "no foul": Allow me to translate the North American lingo. :-) >Mike was agreeing with Scott that certain concepts were just micchaasankappa. But then he wondered if micchaditthi might not be a more correct term. >There was no need at the time to get into a discussion about it because in either case there was an accompanying attasanna, and that was enough to know that there was miccha of one kind or the other. If there was attasana there was miccha (foul). No attasanna, no foul. :-) .... S: Yes, well....as you were saying about solidity and extension as synonyms, some points we need to leave aside. I read this half a dozen times (and Jon a couple), and neither of us were the wiser.... Never mind, it's a glorious day at Manly and time for us to have a gentle surf.... Metta, Sarah ===== #98385 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Mike (& Ken H), --- On Tue, 9/6/09, m_nease wrote: >> M:> Yes, just micchaasankappa, I think--nothing personal. Or is is micchadi.t.thi? Either way, no atta sa~n~naa (or is it attadi.t.thi? ), no foul. > ... > Sarah: Micchadi.t.thi is accompanied by micchasankappa. I'm curious > as to why you would suggest no atta sa~n~naa (or attadi.t.thi) be > involved? >M:No no, I just wasn't sure whether micchaasankappa, micchadi.t.thi atta sa~n~naa or attadi.t.thi- -or what combination of them all--would be involved. .... S: Actually, it's a good point for consideration. I was going to say that micchasankappa always arises with micchadi.t.thi, but I think that at moments of lobha, dosa and moha when there's no wrong view involved, we can still say the thinking, the vitakka is 'miccha', i.e. micchasankappa. Now when there's atta sa~n~naa, there has to be attadi.t.thi, but there are other kinds of micchadi.t.thi which are not attadi.t.thi even though they cannot arise once attadi.t.thi has been eradicated. For example, wrong views about kamma. So, it'll be up to the pa~n~naa or sammaa di.t.thi to know what is the reality appearing... .... >> And what do you mean by "no foul."? >M:Just that, as long as there's no attasa~n~naa (or whatever), there's no offense given or taken. ... S: Ok, that's beginning to make sense, thx to Ken's hint about the expression. A new one on me... Metta, Sarah ======== #98386 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:38 am Subject: Pakatùpanissaya: abyàkata -> abyàkata/kusala/akusala; paññatti sprlrt Patthàna ... 2. Concise exposition of conditions … Strong dependence condition - Kusala dhammas [arisen] (much) earlier are condition, as strong dependence condition, for kusala / for some akusala / for abyàkata dhammas [arising] (much) later. - Akusala dhammas [arisen] (much) earlier are condition, as strong dependence condition, for akusala / for some kusala / for abyàkata dhammas [arising] (much) later. - Abyàkata dhammas [arisen] (much) earlier are condition, as strong dependence condition, for abyàkata / for kusala / for akusala dhammas [arising] (much) later. [These three triplets deal with paramattha dhammas, kusala, akusala and abyàkata (vipàka, kiriya and rùpa, conditioned/sankhara dhammas, and nibbàna, the unconditioned/asankhata dhamma)] - The environment and food / People / Dwellings are also condition by strong dependence condition [The last triplet of upanissaya paccaya deals with the four major paññatti/concepts, conditioning factors causing results, but not conditioned/sankhara dhammas themselves, since they don't arise (sañña khandha just marks them and then recollects them, by conditions, inc. pakatùpanissaya). Three of them, with the exeption of people, feature as pakatùpanissaya paccaya, strong dependence on habits condition, in the exposition of the abyàkata triplet in the following section:] ... 7. Pañàvaro - 1. Paccayànulomam - 1. Vibhangavàro .... Strong dependence condition ... - Abyàkata dhammas are condition, as strong dependence condition, for [others] abyàkata dhammas - (strong dependence on object / on proximity / on habits) ... Strong dependence on habits Pleasant bodily feeling / Painful bodily feeling [vipaka kusala/akusala cittas] is condition, as strong dependence condition, for [both] pleasant and unpleasant bodily feeling [vipàka], and for phalasamàpatti. The environment / Foodstuff / Dwelling is condition, as strong dependence condition, for [both] pleasant and unpleasant bodily feeling, and for phalasamàpatti ... Phalasamàpatti is condition, as strong dependence condition, for pleasant bodily feeling. Strongly depending on pleasant bodily feeling / on unpleasant bodily feeling unarisen kiriyasamàpatti arises, arisen [kiriyasamàpatti] is established, and the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature of a sankhara dhamma is directly experienced [I think this refers to the 4 ñanasampayutta maha-kiriya cittas of an arahant]. Strongly depending on the environment / on food / on dwellings unarisen kiriyasamàpatti arises, arisen [kiriyasamàpatti] is attained, and the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature of a conditioned dhamma is directly experienced. - Abyàkata dhammas are condition, as strong dependence condition, for kusala dhammas - (strong dependence on object / on proximity / on habits) ... Strong dependence on habits Strongly depending on pleasant bodily feeling / on unpleasant bodily feeling / on the environment / on food / on dwellings one offers dana. / one complies to sila. / one observes the precepts. / one attains jhana. / one attains vipassana. / one attains the path. / one attains abhiñña. / one attains samàpatti. Pleasant bodily feeling / Painful bodily feeling is condition, as strong dependence condition, for confidence in kusala, for sìla, for hearing-studying, for detachment, and for pañña. The environment / Foodstuff / Dwelling is condition, as strong dependence condition, for confidence in kusala, for sìla, for hearing-studying, for detachment, and for pañña. - Abyàkata dhammas are condition, as strong dependence condition, for akusala dhammas - (strong dependence on object / on proximity / on habits) ... Strong dependence on habits Strongly depending on pleasant bodily feeling, / on unpleasant bodily feeling, / on the environment, / on food, / on dwellings, one injures or kills. / one steals. / one slanders. / one abuses. / one deceives or reviles. / one breaks into another's house. / one robs. / one gets drunk or intoxicated. / one seduces another's wife or husband. / one plunders a village or a market. / one takes the life of one's own mother. / one takes the life of one's own father. / one takes the life of an arahant. / one injures a tathagata with a corrupted mind. / one splits the sangha. Pleasant bodily feeling / Painful bodily feeling is condition, as strong dependence condition, for lust, for dosa, for moha, for mana, for ditthi, and for attachment. The environment / Foodstuff / Dwelling is condition, as strong dependence condition, for lust, for dosa, for moha, for mana, for ditthi, and for attachment. #98387 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Pakatùpanissaya: abyàkata -> abyàkata/kusala/akusala; paññatti sprlrt Pàli Patthàna ... 2. paccayaniddeso … upanissayapaccayo purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m kesa~nci upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m abyaakataana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m kesa~nci upanissayapaccayenapaccayo. purimaa purimaa akusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m abyaakataana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa abyaakataa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m abyaakataana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo purimaa purimaa abyaakataa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. purimaa purimaa abyaakataa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo. utubhojanampi upanissayapaccayena paccayo. puggalopi upanissayapaccayena paccayo. senaasanampi upanissayapaccayena paccayo. ... 7. Pañàvaro - 1. Paccayànulomam - 1. Vibhangavàro .... abyaakato dhammo abyaakatassa dhammassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo -- aaramma.nuupanissayo, anantaruupanissayo, pakatuupanissayo. ... pakatuupanissayo kaayika.m sukha.m kaayikassa sukhassa, kaayikassa dukkhassa, phalasamaapattiyaa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. kaayika.m dukkha.m kaayikassa sukhassa, kaayikassa dukkhassa, phalasamaapattiyaa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. utu kaayikassa sukhassa, kaayikassa dukkhassa, phalasamaapattiyaa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. bhojana.m kaayikassa sukhassa, kaayikassa dukkhassa, phalasamaapattiyaa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. senaasana.m kaayikassa sukhassa, kaayikassa dukkhassa, phalasamaapattiyaa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. kaayika.m sukha.m... kaayika.m dukkha.m... utu... bhojana.m... senaasana.m kaayikassa sukhassa, kaayikassa dukkhassa, phalasamaapattiyaa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. phalasamaapatti kaayikassa sukhassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo. arahaa kaayika.m sukha.m upanissaaya anuppanna.m kiriyasamaapatti.m uppaadeti, uppanna.m samaapajjati, sa"nkhaare aniccato dukkhato anattato vipassati. kaayika.m dukkha.m... utu.m... bhojana.m... senaasana.m upanissaaya anuppanna.m kiriyasamaapatti.m uppaadeti, uppanna.m samaapajjati, sa"nkhaare aniccato dukkhato anattato vipassati. abyaakato dhammo kusalassa dhammassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo -- aaramma.nuupanissayo, anantaruupanissayo, pakatuupanissayo. ... pakatuupanissayo -- kaayika.m sukha.m upanissaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti, jhaana.m uppaadeti, vipassana.m uppaadeti, magga.m uppaadeti, abhi~n~na.m uppaadeti, samaapatti.m uppaadeti. kaayika.m dukkha.m... utu.m... bhojana.m... senaasana.m upanissaaya daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati, uposathakamma.m karoti, jhaana.m uppaadeti, vipassana.m uppaadeti, magga.m uppaadeti, abhi~n~na.m uppaadeti, samaapatti.m uppaadeti. kaayika.m sukha.m... kaayika.m dukkha.m... utu... bhojana.m... senaasana.m saddhaaya... siilassa... sutassa... caagassa... pa~n~naaya upanissayapaccayena paccayo. abyaakato dhammo akusalassa dhammassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo -- aaramma.nuupanissayo, anantaruupanissayo, pakatuupanissayo. ... pakatuupanissayo kaayika.m sukha.m upanissaaya paa.na.m hanati, adinna.m aadiyati, musaa bha.nati, pisu.na.m bha.nati, pharusa.m bha.nati, sampha.m palapati, sandhi.m chindati, nillopa.m harati, ekaagaarika.m karoti, paripanthe ti.t.thati, paradaara.m gacchati, gaamaghaata.m karoti, nigamaghaata.m karoti, maatara.m jiivitaa voropeti, pitara.m jiivitaa voropeti, arahanta.m jiivitaa voropeti, du.t.thena cittena tathaagatassa lohita.m uppaadeti, sa"ngha.m bhindati. kaayika.m dukkha.m...pe0... utu.m...pe0... bhojana.m...pe0... senaasana.m upanissaaya paa.na.m hanati... (sa.mkhitta.m.) sa"ngha.m bhindati. kaayika.m sukha.m... kaayika.m dukkha.m... utu... bhojana.m... senaasana.m raagassa... dosassa... mohassa... maanassa... di.t.thiyaa... patthanaaya upanissayapaccayena paccayo. #98388 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Mike & all, --- On Tue, 9/6/09, m_nease wrote: > S: As Ken H said, I think that (as usual in the suttas) concepts are > used which point to realities. Mother, father etc are used here to > counteract the wrong views mentioned (as taken from an earlier message): > > < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, > < nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no > > this > > world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn > > spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have > > realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and > > the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> M:> Yes, I've read all that, many times actually. This is one of my favorites. >Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.. ." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. .... S: It refers to the right understanding about the attainment of arahatship, Buddhahood and nibbana, the right understanding that full enlightenment (the lokuttara cittas of the arahat) has occurred and that the eradication of defilements is possible through the growth of wisdom. In other words it refers to the confidence (which comes with the growth of right understanding) in the Triple Gem - through the full understanding of namas and rupas, the 'All', as anicca, dukkha and anatta. **** This is what I wrote before on the quote above about 'No mother.....wrong view', when I had access to some commentary notes: >S: This is the serious wrong view of annihilation and this passage is repeated in many suttas. In MN 41, Nanamoli/Bodhi give the following summary explanation to the same quote in note 425: "This is a morally nihilistic materialist view that denies an afterlife and kammic retribution. "There is nothing given" means that there is no fruit of giving; "no this world, no other world" that there is no rebirth into either this world or a world beyond; "no mother, no father" that there is no fruit of good conduct and bad conduct towards mother and father. The statement about recluses and brahmins denies the existence of Buddhas and arahants." A lot more is said about this under "The Doctrine of Ajita Kesakambala" in the Saamma~n~naphala Sutta and its commentary. For example, in B.Bodhi's translation of these (BPS wheel), it says: "Cy. By denying kamma one denies its result [because there is no result when there is no kamma]. By denying the result one denies kamma [because when there is no result, kamma becomes inefficacious]. Thus all these thinkers [S: inc. Ajita], by denying both (kamma and its results), in effect espouse acausalims (ahetukavaada), the inefficacy of action (akiriyavaada), and moreal nihilism (natthikavaada)." Also more on this quote in these two messages. The second one is Nina's from the Sangiiti Corner. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84298 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/89956 Does it still seem very conceptual? I'm reminded about the references to people even in the Abhidhamma texts when discussing paramattha dhammas. For example, I had a discussion before with Han & Tep about the designations of people in the Puggalapa~n~natti, the Abhidhamma text: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76748 >S:...the text (Puggala-Pa~n~natti) introduces 'puggala-pa~n~natti' with: "In what ways is there a designation of human types? 1- Grouping of Human Types by One. "(1) One who is emancipated in season (samayavimutto) (2) One who is emancipated out of season (asamayavimutto) (3) One of perturbable nature.(kuppadhammo) (4) One of imperturbably nature.(akuppadhammo) (5) One liable to fall away (gotrabhuu)......" So, in reality, are these people or cittas? I'd suggest (with the help of the notes)these refer to: (1) The path cittas of the sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami, i.e to sotapatti-magga citta and so on. (2) The path cittas of the sukkhavipassaka-khii.naasavas (Arahants who do not practise Jhaana - comy) (3) The cittas of the putthujana,sotapanna and sakadagami having attained the 8 samaapattis (absorptions/jhanas) (4) The cittas of the anagami or arahant having attained the 8 samaapatis. (5) The citta which is succeeded by the ariyan magga citta, referring here, 'According to the Commentary....to a person who has reached the family, circle, or designation of Ariyas....'. Again, this is referring in an absolute sense to a series of cittas only. In other words, all sammuti sacca using various pa~n~natti, but always to designate and point again to absolute realities.< S: Anyway, Mike, I know you've read all this before. I'll be glad to hear any further comments you have. Metta, Sarah ======== #98389 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Mike (& Azita), --- On Tue, 9/6/09, m. nease wrote: >> azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? M:>Well, that's clearly what Sarah thinks-- >>A: For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. > 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right > understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. > 'proclaim this world and the next.....for themselves' - highly developed > panna which knows what this world etc really is - impermanent, not-self > and therefore dukkha. M:>OK. Of course I do understand that it refers to beings who have achieved not only the beautiful factors you mention, but I think nibbaana too. Still, it refers to 'beings' who have achieved--and aren't beings pa.n.natti?. <...> >Does this interpretation mean to you that, when the Buddha talks about a tooth stick, he is speaking a kind of code for abhidhamma-- the elements, let's say, that are usually taken for a tooth stick? ... S: Yes, just like the butter-jar in the following: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75961 >S:In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41) <....>: ***** QUOTE “ “Without self” means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. ".....Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, there is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: “there is the person.” This is the sense here. "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: “These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.” (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. "The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence, ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning. "Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahant, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. "He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahant, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. "Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. On the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards. "Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the Buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. ‘they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.’ Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e. known). Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ‘person’ is ended.” < ***** M:>....Is it your view that this entire stratum of his teachings was and is nothing more than a sort of coded (esoteric?) reference to naama and ruupa? ... S: Yes, but we have to use ordinary language. People vary in how they find the truth palatable as the quote above indicates. As Alberto suggested, for some it may be helpful to have daily life examples, for others it's a condition to cling all the more to beings, selves and butter-jars. Metta, Sarah ======= #98390 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard (and Lukas), Op 11-jun-2009, om 22:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What has arisen is already arisen, and > it is either known or not - it is too late for attention to be > applied or > for adverting to be attempted. And what is not arisen is simply an > unreality. > But what mental operations occur now, including right or wrong > thinking, useful or harmful planning, and useful or harmful > intention, most > especially the intention and remembering to be attentive and remain > mindful (or > not), will cultivate the mind (for good or ill), and can lead to > future > arising and renewed arising of what is "good" or of what is "bad". > This is a > very subtle matter, I believe. --------- N: I agree, the Dhamma is subtle and profound. People may easily misread a text about strenuous effort, forgetting that effort is a cetasika, not a person. Thinking, vitakka, intention, cetanaa, and effort,viriya, maybe, as you suggest, right or wrong and they condition the arising of wholesome or unwholesome qualities in the future. The passage was about the arising of sati, and I would like to add: sati accompanying right understanding of realities. Right understanding is the most important factor and it can grow by listening to the explanations about citta, cetasika and ruupa. Pariyatti conditions pa.tipatti, the practice, and this conditions pa.tiveda, the direct realisation of the truth. ------ Nina. #98391 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Nina, and Lukas, Regarding: H: "...But what mental operations occur now, including right or wrong thinking, useful or harmful planning, and useful or harmful intention, most especially the intention and remembering to be attentive and remain mindful (or not), will cultivate the mind (for good or ill), and can lead to future arising and renewed arising of what is 'good' or of what is 'bad'." Scott: The subtlety of self-view is also something to be considered. An example would be helpful here, but I suspect it would consist fully of 'someone' having intention, 'someone' remembering to be attentive, 'someone' cultivating the mind. When it is said that dhammaa are not subject to control, it means that it is totally illusory that someone controls anything. The above, I would suggest, would have it that 'someone' can influence the future arising of dhammaa by intention. If this is not the case, an example would demonstrate it as well. While it is true that the presence of a given dhamma, and its falling away can be condition for the arising of subsequent dhammas, this is an entirely impersonal process. No one can make a good thing happen just by wanting it. Sincerely, Scott. #98392 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 11-jun-2009, om 15:22 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Does Arahats still have pa~n~na different then lokuttara pa~n~na? -------- N: The Arahat does not have lokuttara cittas accompanied by lokuttara pa~n~naa all the time. Those arose at the moment of reaching arahatship, and if he has developed mundane jhaana, phalacittas accompanied by jhaanafactors can arise also after the moments of enlightenment with nibbaana as object, but not all the time. He has mahaakiriyacittas accompanied by mundane pa~n~naa or unaccompanied by pa~n~naa, and also vipaakacittas and ahetuka kiriyacittas. ------ > > L: When Buddha became a Buddha did he still experience nimitta of > realities? ------ N: Nibbaana is animitta, thus when attaining Buddhahood he experienced nibbaana which is animitta. As to being aware of visible object, this has just fallen away when being aware of it, no matter who is aware of it, a Buddha or an ordinary person. I am not sure we can speak of nimitta in the case of a Buddha. He does not live in the world of dreams, like we do. --------- > > L: What about samatha and nimitta? Are they depend of each other? ------- N: The object of samatha is usually a nimitta, but here it nimitta has another meaning: the subject of meditation which is a concept. ---- Nina. #98393 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:24 am Subject: Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. szmicio Dear Nina, > > Does Arahats still have pa~n~na different then lokuttara pa~n~na? > -------- > N: The Arahat does not have lokuttara cittas accompanied by lokuttara > pa~n~naa all the time. Those arose at the moment of reaching > arahatship, and if he has developed mundane jhaana, phalacittas > accompanied by jhaanafactors can arise also after the moments of > enlightenment with nibbaana as object, but not all the time. He has > mahaakiriyacittas accompanied by mundane pa~n~naa or unaccompanied by > pa~n~naa, and also vipaakacittas and ahetuka kiriyacittas. > ------ L: What about moment of reviewing past lokuttara cittas? Is it lokuttara panna that reviews it or is it mundane panna? When we talk about attaining nibbana without jhana, then there are 4 magga-cittas and 4 phala-cittas that arise in appropriate order. So there are 8 lokuttara cittas and nibbana that is an object. But can nibbana be experienced after it? > > > > L: When Buddha became a Buddha did he still experience nimitta of > > realities? > ------ > N: Nibbaana is animitta, thus when attaining Buddhahood he > experienced nibbaana which is animitta. As to being aware of visible > object, this has just fallen away when being aware of it, no matter > who is aware of it, a Buddha or an ordinary person. I am not sure we > can speak of nimitta in the case of a Buddha. He does not live in the > world of dreams, like we do. > --------- L: Yes but in the case of mahakiriyacittas of Buddha does he still has nimitta? Is he aware of reality or aware of shadow of reality? There is a kind of nana that is no tender insight and it knows how things falls away(dont remember the name),does in such moments of that nana, nimitta is still present? > > > > L: What about samatha and nimitta? Are they depend of each other? > ------- > N: The object of samatha is usually a nimitta, but here it nimitta > has another meaning: the subject of meditation which is a concept. > ---- L: I like it very much. Best wishes Lukas #98394 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Howard, Scott and Nina > H: "...But what mental operations occur now, including right or wrong thinking, useful or harmful planning, and useful or harmful intention, most especially the intention and remembering to be attentive and remain mindful (or not), will cultivate the mind (for good or ill), and can lead to future arising and renewed arising of what is 'good' or of what is 'bad'." > > Scott: The subtlety of self-view is also something to be considered. An example would be helpful here, but I suspect it would consist fully of 'someone' having intention, 'someone' remembering to be attentive, 'someone' cultivating the mind. When it is said that dhammaa are not subject to control, it means that it is totally illusory that someone controls anything. The above, I would suggest, would have it that 'someone' can influence the future arising of dhammaa by intention. L: That's always very helpful to consider patticcasamupada more. It helps. If you has Vibhanga, see patticcasamupada chapter. There are also diffrent classification: classification of khandha, bases and elements. Reading Dhamma can be a condition for right understanding to arise. best wishes Lukas #98395 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:20 am Subject: Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Lukas, Howard, and Nina H: "...But what mental operations occur now, including right or wrong thinking, useful or harmful planning, and useful or harmful intention, most especially the intention and remembering to be attentive and remain mindful (or not), will cultivate the mind (for good or ill), and can lead to future arising and renewed arising of what is 'good' or of what is 'bad'." L: "That's always very helpful to consider patticcasamupada more. It helps...Reading Dhamma can be a condition for right understanding to arise." Scott: Yes, I agree. However, to go beyond a statement is another matter. In the above, consider 'useful or harmful planning'. I'm not aware of a dhamma known as 'planning'. This then is the oft encountered and not so subtle belief in the ability to control dhammaa. There can be no 'planning' and hence, when Howard suggests he agrees, I read that he does not. This is why I thought if he could give an example we could consider the matter with a little more precision. As I mentioned, I imagine that any example will demonstrate a belief in the controllabilities of dhammaa, however subtly worded. Reading Dhamma can also condition wrong view - or,rather, wrong view can render a reading of Dhamma inaccurate. Sincerely, Scott. #98396 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:10 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Scott, Howard, Nina and friends > H: "...But what mental operations occur now, including right or wrong thinking, useful or harmful planning, and useful or harmful intention, most especially the intention and remembering to be attentive and remain mindful (or not), will cultivate the mind (for good or ill), and can lead to future arising and renewed arising of what is 'good' or of what is 'bad'." > > L: "That's always very helpful to consider patticcasamupada more. It helps...Reading Dhamma can be a condition for right understanding to arise." > > Scott: Yes, I agree. However, to go beyond a statement is another matter. In the above, consider 'useful or harmful planning'. I'm not aware of a dhamma known as 'planning'. L: Yes, but I think there are kusala dhammas. So in such moments of sobhana cittas there can be wise consideration or 'planning'. But thats also conditioned. We can think that we can 'plan', but thats thinking condition by moha. I like your saying: "there is no such dhamma as 'planning'". > There can be no 'planning' and hence, when Howard suggests he agrees, I read that he does not. This is why I thought if he could give an example we could consider the matter with a little more precision. As I mentioned, I imagine that any example will demonstrate a belief in the controllabilities of dhammaa, however subtly worded. L: Can you say more on cetana cetasika, that wills to kusala? > Reading Dhamma can also condition wrong view - or,rather, wrong view can render a reading of Dhamma inaccurate. L: Yes, that's true. I like Alberto recent reminders on pakatupanisayapaccaya. They are very accurate. My best wishes Lukas #98397 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:06 am Subject: Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Lukas, Regarding: L: "Yes, but I think there are kusala dhammas. So in such moments of sobhana cittas there can be wise consideration or 'planning'. But thats also conditioned. We can think that we can 'plan', but thats thinking condition by moha. I like your saying: 'there is no such dhamma as 'planning'...Can you say more on cetana cetasika, that wills to kusala?" Scott: Consider The Atthasalini (I, Part , Chapter I, 111), which states that cetanaa has as its characteristic the coordinating of the associated dhammas (citta and the other cetasikas) on the object and that its function willing: "... There is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of coordinating: all volition has it. But the function of 'willing' is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) states... It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter. etc. who fulfil their own and others' duties." Scott: This is ofter, but ought not to be, misunderstood as justification in a belief in the controllability of dhammaa. I suppose the English word 'wills' is simply too loaded. Cetanaa performs its function, nothing more. There is no one who wills and no subtle way to suggest otherwise. Sincerely, Scott. #98398 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Lukas and Alberto, Op 12-jun-2009, om 18:10 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: Yes, that's true. I like Alberto recent reminders on > pakatupanisayapaccaya. They are very accurate. ------- N: I like them and also the Pali: purimaa, purimaa, repeatedly saying: former, thus, a long time ago. Purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaana.m pacchimaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m upanissayapaccayena paccayo.Those dhammas condition others that arise much later: pacchimaa, pacchimaa. Nina. #98399 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:59 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Scott What is a difference between manasikara and cetana? > Scott: Consider The Atthasalini (I, Part , Chapter I, 111), which states that cetanaa has as its characteristic the coordinating of > the associated dhammas (citta and the other cetasikas) > on the object and that its function willing: > > "... There is no such thing as volition in the four > planes of existence without the characteristic of > coordinating: all volition has it. But the function of > 'willing' is only in moral (kusala) and immoral > (akusala) states... It has directing as manifestation. > It arises directing associated states, like the chief > disciple, the chief carpenter. etc. who fulfil their > own and others' duties." L: What is the proximate cause of cetana? cetana is also the second factor in patticasamupada isnt it? What is the function of cetana in patticcasamupada? > Scott: This is ofter, but ought not to be, misunderstood as justification in a belief in the controllability of dhammaa. I suppose the English word 'wills' is simply too loaded. Cetanaa performs its function, nothing more. There is no one who wills and no subtle way to suggest otherwise. L: That's really good to hear that. It always support me very much. I am constant thinking about 'me' and 'I', that is doing this or that. That wills to do this or that. That it wills kusala to arise. I am very happy that I have opportunity to hear this Dhamma. My best wishes Lukas P.s I would appreciate any other quotes. They are always very good reminders.