#106200 From: Ken O Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Part 2 : Jhanas -> 4 stages of Awakening ashkenn2k Dear Alex I hope you take my comments with an open mind.? >To start with, some on this board have said that since phenomena flash by so quickly, we see their sign. In other words we see mental representation of objects. > >As to Nibbana. As state devoid of greed, anger & delusion - it can be >known by the mind. But the actual experience of the mind ceasing without remainder, that cannot directly be cognized. > >>Then the enlightment is indirect enlightment. > >Living Arhat's mind is without greed, anger & delusion. In this case it is direct experience. KO:? The sutta said they are directly cognized.? If they cannot be directly cognized, it would be impossible to describe them.? About phenomena flash so quickly, it is a truth, it is written in the suttas. ?We cannot compare our panna with that even of a sotapanna.? They could understand citta at that level.? Or you like to discuss on the fastness of cittas whether it is true or not, we could also do that. >> >That level that allows one to realize the perils of senses & craving and to reach Jhana. The exact amount of theory may vary for different people. But as long as theory remains just words, it is not that good IMHO. > KO:? You mean understanding dhamma now is theory and developing jhanas is training.? >> Also you are telling now?that it?is wisdom that is beneficial to >concentration. > >Did I ever say that wisdom is not required for Right Jhana? KO:? Thats good because I felt you keep telling me it is jhanas that condition wisdom.? >>But that is not in line with your previous >argument.? You usually >said first develop sila?and not wisdom.? > >Sila is mastered first. Then based on mastered sila on masters Samadhi. Then on mastered Samadhi, panna is mastered. > >There is a difference between attaining & mastering. > >While sila is mastered first, certain amount of understanding of it is required. KO:? A bit confused by your statements.? You said in the earlier statements ?that it wisdom is require first before jhanas, then now you said the opposite.? ? >Are you saying that wisdom after insight based on Jhanas is the same as wisdom prior to insight based on Jhanas base on Jhana? > >Wisdom after Jhana is better, clearer and more experiential than previous instance of theoretic wisdom (pre-Jhana). > KO:? No you are the one saying mutually reinforcing loop, the sutta said it is a basis for wisdom, not a loop.? >theory -> experience -> more understanding of previously read theory -> even deeper experience -> more wisdom , etc KO:? The sutta formulae is different for samantha bhavana.??It is virture,? restraint of sense faculties, mindfulness and clear comprehension, contentment, secluded place then jhanas.??It may not follow this?sequence but the factors are more or less?inside.? ?Also do you realise that jhanas are only practise after all these requisties are mastered and they are all recluses.? Do you wish to discuss all these factors above so that you have a some understanding on what is in the suttas.?? thanks Ken O #106201 From: "Mike" Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:31 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Robert, Thank you for the explanation of your perspective. It is clear and to the point. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > R: Now according to my perpective if panna cetasika- which is conditioned by right pariyatti- arises in conjunction with sati then one of these elements (be it nama or rupa) will be insighted , seen, known at some level. And thus it is not neccessary to try to observe or focus on any element (since the elements are arising ceaselessly and automatically)- one doesn't need to go looking for vedana, feeling or rupa and so on, as they are always there Mike: So by hearing and considering the Dhamma you naturally start to see these things with insight? > R: The meditation centers seem to have a different perspective in that one should follow a technique such as mentally sweeping the body, or sitting still until unpleasant feelings arise, or try to note mentally every moment that arises. There seems to be a factor of searching and trying that seems redundant (being that the elements can never not be present) and it indicates a lack of trust in the element of panna to perform its function. > R: One doesn't need to prod panna or sati to do what they must do and this proding even if it is very slight can take one in a wrong way. Mike: Aren't the decisions to follow an approach of listening/reading Dhamma, and so on, also "prodding?". Mike: I can see how it could be argued that such prodding is "less risky", but I can't understand how it is qualitatively different. Why not trust that panna will arise and forget about studying Suttas and Abhidhamma? Metta Mike #106202 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:28 am Subject: Re: kusala for kusala sake kenhowardau Hi Azita, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > hallo friends, > > was listening to a recorded discussion re kusala actions. That particular conversation was about doing kusala for one's own benefit, or for someone else's benefit, the third was doing kusala for the sake of the dhamma. > > my query is how would the third and IMO, the purest kind, manifest itself. ------------- Should that be a capital D Dhamma or a small d dhamma? Was the discussion about transferring merit? ------------------- A: > would it be the type that arises spontaneously rather than 'encouraging' oneself to do good deeds bec its better than doing bad deeds and has better results? anyone got any other ideas on this? ------------------- Oh, skip my last question; looks as though the discussion wasn't about transferring merit. Kusala is developed by panna, isn't it? And panna can be divided into two broad categories. There is samatha panna that knows kusala from akusala, and there is vipassana panna that knows nama from rupa. So I wonder if that is what it's all about. Kusala that is developed by vipassana is the best. Now to consider your question. :-) How would it manifest? Vipassana develops all kinds of kusala. Therefore it could manifest in every possible way. So it looks as though I have completely misunderstood the question. :-) I'll get my coat. Ken H #106203 From: Ken O Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] xxxExtracts from recent Bkk & KK discussions with K.Sujin (1) ashkenn2k Dear Sarah I like to talk to her :-). KK is a fantastic place, open space and greenery. Just that a bit too wide open to talk. Cheers Ken O > > >Dear Nina, Azita & all, > >(An extract from the very informal discussion with K.Sujin just as we were leaving KK, before you joined us, Nina) >**** >S: ...As soon as you read it like a list of things to do, it's not the understanding of anatta. > >KO: ...just like a list of cetasikas, if you don't know that, it's useless... > >KS: Do you know lobha? > >KO: I don't know directly, I just understand.. . > >KS: Good! Good! Otherwise one might think "Oh, I know", but actually it's not at all. It's only the concept of lobha. > >KO: If I know lobha, I wouldn't behave like that just now, because I have a lot of lobha - finding things to do here. There is a lot of lobha there. > >KS: Are you sure you that won't be like this when you know lobha? > >KO: That's part of my character. > >KS: Right understanding begins to know lobha. Everything cannot be changed just by understanding lobha, just very little. > >KO: It takes me a while to understand it's just a dhamma. Nothing to it, no self, just a reality, a cetasika, not a citta, citta will not know, a cetasika which arise, they just come together.... > >KS: Is that not too quick? Too quick to know that one knows. > >KO: Yeah, they just come together. They don't know each other... > >KS: This is only concept. Have you met lobha? > >KO: I just understand it intellectually. > >KS: Even when it appears, no understanding, it means you do not know lobha yet - just think about it, instead of knowing it as it is. > >KO: Lucky with you, now I know a bit, understanding about lobha. > >KS: Er,I think people come across the terms like naama and ruupa and remember two words - naama, that which experiences and ruupa, that which cannot experience. What about now? You don't have to think about the term or the word at all, but the characteristic of ruupa appears because that cannot experience. Instead of remembering or thinking or reciting the word - it's ony the development of understanding that characteristic as a dhamma. Just there and then never comes back again. A different moment, a different reality appears again. This is the way to see the anicca.m, the anatta of dhammas. But forget? > >KO: Easily! > >KS: Correct, one forgets, until it's not forget. >... >KO: It's true....When I was sitting, drinking... >... >KS: Until it's the moment of not being forgetful that it's dhamma. Not by reciting, but by being aware of a characteristic. >**** > >Metta > >Sarah >======== > > #106204 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hello Vince, If I respond to this post in full, I estimate that it will be 10 pages long. So I?m not going to do this. ;-) I take it that you have read at least one of Nina?s books on the Abhidhamma, but I get the impression that you do not interpret what has been written the way it is meant to be. I suggest then that we start a discussion on one of those books, perhaps the SPD or ADL. What do you say? Metta, Sukinder Vince wrote: > Dear Sukinder > > you wrote: > > >> S: I have no idea Vince, what you are referring to. Could you explain? >> > > I was in agreement; progress doesn't depends of a particular position of body. > > > >> S: I?m not sure, but are you saying that one can mistake intellectual >> understanding for direct understanding? >> I?d say given the accumulated ignorance and attachment, anything can >> happen. And so again I come to the conclusion that hearing and >> considering the Dhamma cannot be done enough. ;-) >> > > I pointed to the real meaning of understanding. Even when there is > action of panna, later our deluded mind can make a distortion of > that. The risk exists except in the case of arhants. Therefore, one > must preserve a sense of uncertainty despite there is certainty, > because such certainty doesn't belong to the object grasped by our > understanding but just to a right movement. #106205 From: Ken O Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Mike >--- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, "rjkjp1" wrote: >> R: Now according to my perpective if panna cetasika- which is conditioned by right pariyatti- arises in conjunction with sati then one of these elements (be it nama or rupa) will be insighted , seen, known at some level. And thus it is not neccessary to try to observe or focus on any element (since the elements are arising ceaselessly and automatically) - one doesn't need to go looking for vedana, feeling or rupa and so on, as they are always there > >Mike: So by hearing and considering the Dhamma you naturally start to see these things with insight? KO:?Yes > >> R: The meditation centers seem to have a different perspective in that one should follow a technique such as mentally sweeping the body, or sitting still until unpleasant feelings arise, or try to note mentally every moment that arises. There seems to be a factor of searching and trying that seems redundant (being that the elements can never not be present) and it indicates a lack of trust in the element of panna to perform its function. >> R: One doesn't need to prod panna or sati to do what they must do and this proding even if it is very slight can take one in a wrong way. >Mike: Aren't the decisions to follow an approach of listening/reading Dhamma, and so on, also "prodding?". KO:? I agree with Rob K?on going to meditation centre for a retreat.? To me it is not according to the suttas and the text.? Yes at the centre there?could be?kusala cittas and panna to arise.? Without virtue, contentment, restraining of sense faculties and clear comprehension, secluded place, the samantha bhavana would not manifest it results.? It is counter productive as people keep thinking meditation retreat is the answer, in actual fact, it could be detrimental and conditioning more wrong practise.?? Meditation should not be done by ordinary persons, to do it we must follow Visud guidance and also those from the suttas. On prodding: To classify studying or listening as action or a prodding is perfectly fine with me, there is nothing wrong with it.? It is when we think there is a self that do or we must purposedly do that, that becomes a hindrance.? The Fruits of Recluseship.? The Sammannaphala suttas and its commentaries translated by B Bodhi,? pg 105-106 <<(iv) Clear comprehension of non-delusion is the clear comprehension which does not become deluded about going forward etc.? It should be understood as follow. ??? Herein, when going forward and returning, a bhikkhu does not become deluded about these actions like the blind and the foolish worlding who deluded thinks: " A self goes forward, the action of going forward is produced by a self." or " I go forward, the action of going forward is produced by me."? Instead he undeludedly understands.? When the thought "Let me go forward" arises the mind originated air element arises together witht that though producing [bodily] intimation.? Thus through the diffusion of the air element (originating from) mental activity, this set of bones conceived as the body goes forward.>> > >Mike: I can see how it could be argued that such prodding is "less risky", but I can't understand how it is qualitatively different. Why not trust that panna will arise and forget about studying Suttas and Abhidhamma? KO:? this is a good argument of conditions. ?Conditions?are?not just panna, it has many other cetasikas and the paccaya effect.??? Studying suttas?could be?conditioned by panna?or by faith.? ? It is reinforcing cycle as the more one consider?dhamma from reading of sutta, the?more?one want to study suttas and Abhidhamma.??This is because?one is motivated by chanda with panna?that?we should completely wipe out rebirth, the end of suffering.???It is definitely less risky?than doing samantha when we do not have the necessary conditions.? Everyone can practise this way but not everyone can practise samatha. Cheers Ken O #106206 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] xxxExtracts from recent Bkk & KK discussions with K.Sujin (1) nilovg Dear Sarah, thanks, that is very nice. I sent it through to Vince Tassiello. Nina. Op 23-mrt-2010, om 2:29 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > (An extract from the very informal discussion with K.Sujin just as > we were leaving KK, before you joined us, Nina) #106207 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Part 2 : Jhanas -> 4 stages of Awakening truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > I hope you take my comments with an open mind.? > > > >To start with, some on this board have said that since phenomena flash by so quickly, we see their sign. In other words we see mental representation of objects. > > > >As to Nibbana. As state devoid of greed, anger & delusion - it can be > >known by the mind. But the actual experience of the mind ceasing without remainder, that cannot directly be cognized. > > > >>Then the enlightment is indirect enlightment. > > > >Living Arhat's mind is without greed, anger & delusion. In this case it is direct experience. > > KO:? The sutta said they are directly cognized.? Right. An arhat knows the mind state that is without greed, anger & delusion. >About phenomena flash so quickly, it is a truth, it is written in >the suttas. ?We cannot compare our panna with that even of a >sotapanna.? They could understand citta at that level.? Or you like >to discuss on the fastness of cittas whether it is true or not, we >could also do that. Mind can change very fast. True. I am inspired by stories of sudden Arhatship (after very long practice, of course) of such people like Ven. Channa, Ven. Godhika, Ven. Vakkali. > > > >> > >That level that allows one to realize the perils of senses & craving and to reach Jhana. The exact amount of theory may vary for different people. But as long as theory remains just words, it is not that good IMHO. > > > KO:? You mean understanding dhamma now is theory and developing >jhanas is training.? Training is letting go of greed, anger and delusion. These are obstacles not only to Jhana, but awakening as well. > >> Also you are telling now?that it?is wisdom that is beneficial to >concentration. > > > >Did I ever say that wisdom is not required for Right Jhana? > > KO:? Thats good because I felt you keep telling me it is jhanas that condition wisdom.? > > > >>But that is not in line with your previous >argument.? You usually >said first develop sila?and not wisdom.? > > > >Sila is mastered first. Then based on mastered sila on masters Samadhi. Then on mastered Samadhi, panna is mastered. > > > >There is a difference between attaining & mastering. > > > >While sila is mastered first, certain amount of understanding of it is required. > > KO:? A bit confused by your statements.? You said in the earlier >statements ?that it wisdom is require first before jhanas, then now >you said the opposite.? All I am saying is that wisdom can become better and it can take Jhanic experience for investigation (of anicca, dukkha, anatta). wisdom -> jhana -> more wisdom -> deeper Jhana -> even more wisdom, etc. >Also do you realise that jhanas are only practise after all these >requisties are mastered and they are all recluses.? Do you wish to >discuss all these factors above so that you have a some >understanding on what is in the suttas.?? > > > thanks > Ken O If you want to discuss, we can. With metta, Alex #106208 From: Vince Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:08 am Subject: Re[2]: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) cerovzt@... Dear Sukinder you wrote: > If I respond to this post in full, I estimate that it will be 10 pages > long. So I?m not going to do this. ;-) ok, don't worry. > I take it that you have read at least one of Nina?s books on the > Abhidhamma, but I get the impression that you do not interpret what has > been written the way it is meant to be. I suggest then that we start a > discussion on one of those books, perhaps the SPD or ADL. What do you say? yes, I have read four books. And also I think there is other people who don't interpret rightly what finally these books says. There is nothing wrong on this, because we all try to understand the best we can, and everybody build their own conclusions with and without mistakes. On my side, I think there is not sense in discussing what these books says because they are fully right and for sure the translation is excellent. I mean, we can repeat thousand times that paramatta-dhammas are four, panna is real knowledge, and there is the present moment. Details of these objects for our intellect are very well explained inside "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas". Anyone can read it. At same time, I think this acquired knowledge can remain paralyzed while one reject an investigation about the implied things; as the investigation in the nature of time, or what the final nature of knowledge and understanding. However, such things can be considered of secondary importance for other person under other concerns, and not everybody wants to discuss these points. Every person is focused in different objects according their trends and understanding. So there is not problem. But on my side I don't see the sense in discussing Abhidhamma, because already I have the books and for sure there is not any failure in them. Today I see the sense in discussing how to use that knowledge, and what can be the right position to do it. I don't know really if this is better or worse but this my interest today. We interrupt the discussion here. Don't worry and thanks! :-) best wishes, Vince, #106209 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Mike > <. . .> > On prodding: > To classify studying or listening as action or a prodding is perfectly fine with me, there is nothing wrong with it.? It is when we think there is a self that do or we must purposedly do that, that becomes a hindrance.? ------------- KH: This reminds me of your earlier conversation with Sarah and me in which you maintained that belief in the ultimate existence of a computer was not attaditthi. It is attaditthi! And so too is belief in the ultimate existence of a conventional action, or prodding. Ken H #106210 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >KH: This reminds me of your earlier conversation with Sarah and me in which you maintained that belief in the ultimate existence of a computer was not attaditthi. It is attaditthi! And so too is belief in the ultimate existence of a conventional action, or prodding. KO:? You are?saying that reading dhamma and listening to dhamma is?not a conventional action?? Also is it possible to have?conventional action without paramatha dhamma?arise it.?? Are you saying there is no action in the paramatha level, if there is no action at the paramatha level,?then we do not need the function of cetana.??In another words? How do you go to read then, panna alone?? Do you understand what is panna,?the characteristic of panna.? So must all our conventional actions be motivated by self?? Then why read dhamma, isnt it another conventional action or you are telling me you could read words at the paramatha level?? You are motivated by panna?to read dhamma books, if there is no action or cetana, could you do it???Since you said?conventional action is self and?citta dont read, so isn't?reading a conventional action also a self.??? Also not everything is self even in aksuala cittas. Sometimes when we eat an apple, it could just purely motivated by lobha and not self. There is nothing wrong?in?conventional action,? It is only wrong when we? purposedly act, or control actions or?have expectations to develop panna.?? There is conventional and ultimate meanings of dhamma, that is difference we should understand.?The developing understanding is by ultimate meanings of dhamma attaniditthi is the same as sakkaditthi unless you could prove me wrong.??? Arahant also see concept like us.? At that moment is an mental object, .? it is consider attanuditthi if we think this object is mine or I am the object.? We cannot say I am the computer, will you?? We would say?thinking is I in the thinking of the mental object of computer.????? There is nothing wrong with a thing like a house.? A thing is wrong when we think we posesses it or there is self in it or it is permanent (which is another miccha ditthi). Cheers Ken O #106211 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Hi Sukin, Re 106015 Sorry for a late response. ----- previous stuff in case you forgot ------- > > S: I of course see meditation as being an attempt at control and > > hence contradicting what one otherwise believes to be the truth. I don't > > therefore see this as possibly leading to those truths being > > directly experienced, but in fact to further encouraging the tendency > to and > > belief in 'self' and control. > > Pt: > I think this is a view that KenH, Sarah and other here share. One > problem I have with it is that it kind of goes to the opposite extreme > of when beginner meditators think that all meditation is good, i.e. > always kusala. I mean both seem inaccurate, as the cittas are > conditioned, they cannot be made to be all kusala or all akusala. --------------- > Suk: But why must you base your judgement on this? pt: Because saying that meditation is all akusala is not factual, at least not in my experience. E.g. in my younger days when I had no idea what's the difference between kusala and akusala, I would try really hard to concentrate on this or that, because some or other book said so (or at least I thought it did at the time), and even despite all this trying (that I can now define as akusala), there would still be a few spontaneous moments where this trying was recognised to not work, and was then be followed by a brief moment of calm (what I can now define as kusala). Of course, very soon there would then arise the trying to hold onto this calm, and so on. This was the beginning of understanding the difference between kusala and akusla. Or the beginning of learning the difference between control and no control. So, it is simply non-factual in my experience to say that meditation is all kusala or all aksuala (even in case of absolute beginners). Ultimately put, all moments that go on to be a "meditation session" are made of conditioned dhammas, so cannot be made to be all kusala or all akusala. I mean, otherwise you are positing a self that can make dhammas be this way or that. > Suk: It is about whether or not one understands that at any given moment, there are > only ultimate realties arising and falling away. pt: Agreed, though this would have to do with vipassana bhavana. Not with samatha. > Suk: Those who meditate seem > to believe that it is more likely that certain wanted dhammas will arise > when engaged in what they do than at other times. pt: From experience, when there are periods in my life when I have time for samatha, there's much more moments with calm arising spontaneously during the day (i.e. outside of "formal meditation"), more metta, more contentment, etc, as compared to times when I don't have the opportunity for samatha. So, some dhammas seem to be more likely to arise in association with sustained samatha practice and it would be lying to deny this. > Suk: Those who do not, make > no such association, therefore their objection to meditation is not so > much ?don?t do this? but rather that, ?why not understand that now there > are dhammas arising and falling away by conditions beyond control?! pt: Well, I don't really know an experienced meditator who would dispute that. At least on an intellectual level that is, as it's a whole another matter to what depth there's an actual understanding of this point in terms of insight. But then this problem equally applies to both meditators and non-meditators. Easy to talk about it, but even easier to completely miss it. > Suk: This > would at the same time, point to the reality / concept distinction which > followers of meditation seem to continue failing at. pt: Not sure why insist on using ultimate terminology to discuss dhamma, and then all of a sudden make sweeping generalisations on the conventional level? :) E.g. all meditators are this or that. What's the point of this really other than in terms of a superiority contest? I think this is what Mike calls a straw-man. I'd call it something like "the great ultimately conventional monster" :) > Suk: Why guess? Why not let the Dhamma be the guide? > If your real-life Buddhist friends believe as some of us do, in dhammas > being all there is at any given moment and that can be studied, what is > their reason for meditating? Perhaps they have the idea of applying what > they learnt in meditation to other activities in daily life? If so, > would the result not more likely be a projection? I don?t see why one > would be driven to distinguish between time for meditation and not, if > there is a correct understanding about dhammas. But I may be missing > something, in which case please explain more. Pt: Many kinds of meditators with different depths of understanding, so I think if we try to discuss them, we'd just be throwing more of the aforementioned monsters at one another, so perhaps it's best we stick to discussing our own experiences and understanding as you do below. > > Pt: The > difference between trying to focus on the breath in order to relax is > fairly obvious when compared to settling on the breath that happens > because there's no interest in engaging with the outward sense impressions. > Suk: But this can be the result of having developed the particular > habit, no? > You are suggesting that concentrating on the breath is akusala when > associated with the ?aim to relax? but not when it happens more or less > spontaneously as a result of non-interest in other sense impressions. > But is this how kusala is determined and subsequently developed? > Wouldn?t the measure be that sati arises ?now? to know whether the mind > is kusala or akusala, such that one would then know ?then? in the same > way whether the one with breath as object is kusala or akusala? In other > words, I don?t see why if there is no understanding at other times of > the difference between kusala and akusala, one should be so certain that > the non-interest in sense impressions leading to the concentration on > the breath, are both kusala, in fact with wisdom. pt: I was putting it in conventional terms, so I don't disagree with how you say it above in ultimate terms. > Pt: > And then at some point thinking would start all on its own, and then a > bit later a brief awareness would kick in finding the thinking > unsettling and would then again settle on the breath, and so it would go > until my alarm clock goes off. > > Suk: You highlight ?thinking? instead of whether the citta is kusala or > akusala. The jhana factors such as vitakka, vicara and ekaggata arise > during times when the breath is object as well as during instances of > what you call ?thinking?. This makes both of them the same in this > regard, and I therefore do not think wisdom would make the kind of > distinction you suggest. Thinking is never the problem, except when the > actual jhanas are attained, in which case vitakka and vicara are seen > with the level of wisdom to be an obstacle to the attainment of deeper > levels of calm. > > I think it is so easy to be fooled by some kind of illusion of result. pt: Again you say in ultimate terms what I was saying conventionally. > Suk: Those with developed understanding to the point of sati and panna > being indriya and bala, for them it is the accumulated tendency to > always come back to the present moment and to *not choose* particular > objects, which allows for any reality to be known directly by natural > decisive support condition. But so is the case with any and every citta, > including ignorance and samatha development. For us any reality is, you > could say, invariably NDSC for ignorance and craving. Regarding those > with well developed panna who can so to speak know any reality at any > time, I don?t think you could describe any of what happens as ?switching > to a particular mode?. Since there are only conditioned and fleeting > dhammas, what switches to what? Are you suggesting an extended period of > ignorance followed by sudden arising of sati and panna which then lasts > for some time? pt: Sure, in ultimate terms it's probably as you put it. Best wishes pt #106212 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Ken^2, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Ken H > > > >KH: This reminds me of your earlier conversation with Sarah and me in which you maintained that belief in the ultimate existence of a computer was not attaditthi. It is attaditthi! And so too is belief in the ultimate existence of a conventional action, or prodding. > > KO:? You are?saying that reading dhamma and listening to dhamma is?not a conventional action?? ... Mike: I agree with KO. This is the point that I see getting lost in many of these conversations. The way our minds function (at least until we are Aryans) is in terms of concepts. As far as I can see, any discussion about paramattha dhammas is actually about the CONCEPT of paramattha dhammas. Mike #106213 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:13 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert, > > Thank you for the explanation of your perspective. It is clear and to the point. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > R: Now according to my perpective if panna cetasika- which is conditioned by right pariyatti- arises in conjunction with sati then one of these elements (be it nama or rupa) will be insighted , seen, known at some level. And thus it is not neccessary to try to observe or focus on any element (since the elements are arising ceaselessly and automatically)- one doesn't need to go looking for vedana, feeling or rupa and so on, as they are always there > > Mike: So by hearing and considering the Dhamma you naturally start to see these things with insight? Dear Mke yes, if there is wise attention to what is heard, and whether that factor arises is largely due to pubbekata punnata - wholesome accumlations from the past. > Mike: Aren't the decisions to follow an approach of listening/reading Dhamma, and so on, also "prodding?". > > Mike: I can see how it could be argued that such prodding is "less risky", but I can't understand how it is qualitatively different. Why not trust that panna will arise and forget about studying Suttas and Abhidhamma? > Because without the conditions of study and consideration there will be nothing to condition panna cetasika. robert #106214 From: Gemunu Rohana Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:31 am Subject: Samatha Meditation Vs Vipassana Meditation And Daathu Manasikara E-book Download URL gemunu.rohana Following is a translation of preface of the book named "Chaththaaleesaakaara Maha Vipassana Bhawanawa" in the page x There is a belief with some people that "Without gaining Samadi from Samatha there is no point doing Vipassana". This is a false understanding according to Most Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala Thero. Ven. Thero further says: If someone do Samatha to build Samadi- Dyana and plan to do Vipassana afterwards, that persons life will end without having a chance to even start Vipassana. That way the most valuable achievement that is only possible during existence of venerating Sasana is missed. Please buy the book ( only Rs 160/=) available in all leading bookshops to read Ven. Theros beautiful teachings. If you want to start a Vipassana prescribed for highly intelligent shrawakas by Gem Lord Buddha, The site contains illustrations of Daathu Manasikaara Vipassana Bhawana. I could also managed to upload the E-book to the URL: http://rapidshare.com/files/367273678/Daathu_Manasikaara_Kamatahan_E-Book.pdf.ht\ ml The Bhawana anuhas post in the site is also updated with this URL. Please be hurry and download the E-book before it is being removed by the RapidShare owners. May the Triple Gem Bless You! May You Attain Sowan (Nirvana) in This Very Life! Visit http://sinhaladharmastore.blogspot.com/ for freely downloadable Dharma content. #106215 From: si-la-nanda Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Part 2 : Jhanas -> 4 stages of Awakening silananda_t Hi Dhammafarers, There is no end in this discussion because they are just still as views. Practice and know for oneself is the only way. In that oneself the discussion ends right there, within. Despite the ending within, the discussion will still never end without. mahakaruna, silananda *what-Buddha-taught.net* On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:24 AM, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Dear KenO, all, > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Ken O wrote: > > > > Dear Alex > > > > I hope you take my comments with an open mind. > > > > > > >To start with, some on this board have said that since phenomena flash > by so quickly, we see their sign. In other words we see mental > representation of objects. > > > > > >As to Nibbana. As state devoid of greed, anger & delusion - it can be > > >known by the mind. But the actual experience of the mind ceasing without > remainder, that cannot directly be cognized. > > > > > >>Then the enlightment is indirect enlightment. > > > > > >Living Arhat's mind is without greed, anger & delusion. In this case it > is direct experience. > > > > KO: The sutta said they are directly cognized. > > Right. An arhat knows the mind state that is without greed, anger & > delusion. > > > >About phenomena flash so quickly, it is a truth, it is written in >the > suttas. We cannot compare our panna with that even of a >sotapanna. They > could understand citta at that level. Or you like >to discuss on the > fastness of cittas whether it is true or not, we >could also do that. > > Mind can change very fast. True. I am inspired by stories of sudden > Arhatship (after very long practice, of course) of such people like Ven. > Channa, Ven. Godhika, Ven. Vakkali. <...> #106216 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:48 am Subject: Contentment Causes Calm Cool Comfort! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Contentment is the most supreme Treasure! The Blessed Buddha often noted contentment as the highest treasure: There is the case where a Bhikkhu is quite content with whatever old robe, quite content with whatever old almsfood, quite content with whatever hut, and quite content with whatever bitter medicine for curing sickness. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent! Thus was it said. And with reference to exactly this salient contentment with whatever little one has, was this simple, serene modesty well spoken... AN VIII 30 Contentment with whatever little one has! And how is a Bhikkhu content? Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden, even so is he content with a single set of robes to protect his body and begged almsfood to pacify his hunger. Wherever he goes, he takes only these few simple necessities as robes, belt, bowl and razor along with him. This is how a Bhikkhu is content... DN 2 There is the case where a Bhikkhu is content with whatever old robe at all, with whatever old almsfood at all, with whatever old hut at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old requisite at all. He does not, for the sake of any requisite, do anything unsuitable or inappropriate. When not getting any requisites, he is not troubled. When getting requisites, he just uses it without being attached to it. He is not obsessed, blameless, and seeing the drawbacks and dangers of possessions, he realizes the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old requisite at all, exalt himself or disparage others. Thus is he modest, clever, energetic, alert, & acutely aware! This, Bhikkhus, is called a Bhikkhu standing quite firm in the ancient, original lineage of the Noble Ones... AN IV 28 Good are friends, when need arises. Good is contentment with just what one has. Good is merit done well, when life is at the end. Good is the elimination of all Suffering! Dhammapada 331 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma and clearly understands. Harmlessness is happiness in all worlds! Harmlessness towards all breathing beings. Udana 10 Therefore be capable, upright, and straight, easy to instruct, gentle, and not proud, content and easy to support with little, with few duties, living simple and light, with peaceful abilities, mastering all, modest, and with no greed for support. Do not do even a minor thing that the wise and noble would later criticize. Sutta Nipata I, 8 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #106217 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:35 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > Mike: I can see how it could be argued that such prodding is "less risky", but I can't understand how it is qualitatively different. Why not trust that panna will arise and forget about studying Suttas and Abhidhamma? > Dear Mike http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html Right view "Friend, how many conditions are there for the arising of right view?" "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." Without panna (rightview) no path and right view is conditioned by appropriate study. It doesn't depend on following a meditation technique. Robert #106218 From: "Jega" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:35 am Subject: the idea of self tesan670 the idea about the body is the element ,the mind is about condition, the intellect about perception... connecting all this together is the breath....all this belong to the nature.that means the idea of self\soul never exist and the idea of nature is real.please comment,tq. #106219 From: "colette" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ksheri3 Hi Ken H. and Ken O, Those two tiny little paragraphs, maybe three sentences each, put me in a bit of a stupor. In the concentration I maintained on Ken H.'s and Ken O.'s discusion I eventually believe that I figured it out. And now, as I think of how to respond, I see this HUGE CHASM between you two. Ken O. doesn't carry the concept of attaditthi far enough; from what I perceive that Ken H. is saying Ken O. is still caught in this web of rupa or matter which he then falls victim to by the belief that they exist and since "they", things, exist he is therefore suggesting that HIS EXISTANT SELF EXISTS TO SEE THESE NON-EXISTANT THINGS, RUPAS. Since I don't know the discussion that Ken H., Sarah, and Ken O. were discussing I may be a bit out of my league here, however I'll take a stab at it. Ken O. is merely making the statement that "studying or listening" GENERATE KARMA and he suggests that if there is any kind of belief in a "self" that is the generator behind the action then he classifies it as becoming a "hinderance". Fine, any belief in a self is fundamentally a Hinderance in the Buddhist context Ken H., attaditthi is a "self view", maybe a form of covetting which falls in with clinging. Any belief in an actual ULTIMATE existance of computer, a rupa, a thing, is WRONG VIEW, it is, FUNDAMENTALLY, a HINDERANCE (more like a delusion or hallucination). Are you, Ken H., suggesting that there is a DESTINY or a pre-determined path that each person is born in to and therefore has no ability to control anything in their lives, existance? Hmmmmm, did I just fall into a trap here since I suggested that people exist and people possess lives? That's a winner, no? Wow, that is a problem! Naturally that I run into <...> like this AFTER I'VE FINISHED WITH THE GENERATION STAGE(S) and I'm having a blast with the maliability of TIME & SPACE so that I can quickly pass through dzog rim. Now, you two jokers come along and pose this inconsistantcy to me and the group, where I find problems in my own construction. Hmmmmm, it will bother me for a while but I'll get over it. It just goes to show that I really gotta clean up ALL OF MY BUDDHIST FILES, especially the DEFINITIONS. Thanx. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > Hi Ken O, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > > > Dear Mike > > > <. . .> > > On prodding: > > To classify studying or listening as action or a prodding is perfectly fine with me, there is nothing wrong with it.? It is when we think there is a self that do or we must purposedly do that, that becomes a hindrance.? > ------------- > > KH: This reminds me of your earlier conversation with Sarah and me in which you maintained that belief in the ultimate existence of a computer was not attaditthi. It is attaditthi! And so too is belief in the ultimate existence of a conventional action, or prodding. > > Ken H > #106220 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:53 am Subject: Re: Re[2]: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) nilovg Dear Vince and Sukin, Op 24-mrt-2010, om 1:08 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > But on my side I don't see the sense in discussing Abhidhamma, because > already I have the books and for sure there is not any failure in > them. Today I see the sense in discussing how to use that knowledge, > and what can be the right position to do it. ------- N: I see the usefulness of discussing Abhidhamma, even though I have written books. It helps me to consider more what is in the book, and then we come to understand that the Abhidhamma is not in the book. But Vince you say: < Today I see the sense in discussing how to use that knowledge, > and what can be the right position to do it> and that is good. But > even this is worth discussing. Nina. > #106221 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ----------------- KH: > > This reminds me of your earlier conversation with Sarah and me in which you maintained that belief in the ultimate existence of a computer was not attaditthi. It is attaditthi! And so too is belief in the ultimate existence of a conventional action, or prodding. > > KO:?> You are?saying that reading dhamma and listening to dhamma is?not a conventional action?? ------------------ I am saying there are ultimately only the presently arisen dhammas. All else is illusion. A conventional action is an example of something *else.* It is an illusion. Ultimately there are no books, no readers, no reading, no speakers no listeners and no listening. ------------------------------ KO> > Also is it possible to have?conventional action without paramatha dhamma?arise it.?? ------------------------------ There are always paramattha dhammas. There are never conventional actions. ---------------------------------------- KO: > Are you saying there is no action in the paramatha level, if there is no action at the paramatha level,?then we do not need the function of cetana.??In another words? How do you go to read then, panna alone??Do you understand what is panna,?the characteristic of panna.? ---------------------------------------- There are actions at the paramattha level, but they have the same single-moment duration as the citta and cetasikas that perform them. Seeing, for example, is an ultimately real action performed by eye consciousness. Intending is an ultimately real action performed by cetana and javana cita. -------------------------------------------------- KO > So must all our conventional actions be motivated by self?? ------------------------------------------------- Illusions of conventional action are created by cetana with pannatti as object. Sometimes attaditthi is present, in which case we could say actions were motivated by self-view. ------------------------------ KO: > Then why read dhamma, isnt it another conventional action or you are telling me you could read words at the paramatha level?? ------------------------------ There are no conventional actions. Conventional actions are illusions. They are things that ordinary people - and even dogs and jackals - know. That is not real knowing (panna), it is only thinking. Real knowing is satipatthana. It has a dhamma as its object. Dhammas arise, perform their functions, and fall away. Sometimes those functions include creating concepts of "doing" (concepts of reading a book, for example). -------------------------- KO: > You are motivated by panna?to read dhamma books, if there is no action or cetana, could you do it???Since you said?conventional action is self and?citta dont read, so isn't?reading a conventional action also a self.??? Also not everything is self even in aksuala cittas. Sometimes when we eat an apple, it could just purely motivated by lobha and not self. --------------------------- Yes, as I have already agreed, there can be concepts without wrong view. There can even be concepts without ignorance. Dana, sila and samatha are instances of concepts being experienced without ignorance. ---------------------------------- KO: > There is nothing wrong?in?conventional action,? It is only wrong when we?purposedly act, or control actions or?have expectations to develop panna.?? ---------------------------------- Yes; in other words, there is wrong view when we believe conventional actions really exist. They don't. Only dhammas really exist. ---------------------------------------- KO: > There is conventional and ultimate meanings of dhamma, that is difference we should understand.?The developing understanding is by ultimate meanings of dhamma attaniditthi is the same as sakkaditthi unless you could prove me wrong.???Arahant also see concept like us.? At that moment is an mental object, .? it is consider attanuditthi if we think this object is mine or I am the object.? We cannot say I am the computer, will you?? We would say?thinking is I in the thinking of the mental object of computer.????? There is nothing wrong with a thing like a house.? A thing is wrong when we think we posesses it or there is self in it or it is permanent (which is another miccha ditthi). ------------------------------------------- Anything that is not either a citta, a cetasika, a rupa, or nibbana, is an illusion. Belief in the ultimate reality of illusions is silabbataparamasa and miccha ditthi. The particular type of miccha ditthi is attaditthi. Ken H #106222 From: Vince Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:34 pm Subject: Re[2]: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > But Vince you say: < Today I see the sense in discussing how to use > that knowledge, and what can be the right position to do it > and that is good. But even this is worth discussing. you right Nina but everyone is linked to Dhamma by different ways. Also by discussing the Abhidhamma contents, the purpose of Abhidhamma, the non-discussion or the non-purpose. I wonder there is something useless or useful. Of course also we are linked without discussing nothing. Or we can keep this discussion if we want. Things happens. Vince. #106223 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:30 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg truth_aerator Dear Robert, KenO, Mike all, Yes it is trut that MN43 says that 2 conditions are necessary for right view. Voice of another + yoniso manasikaro (appropriate) attention. Yoniso manasikaro does NOT refute methods done such as those taught by Mahasi, Goenka, Ashin Tejaniya and other wise teachers. What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/suffering/not self. The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible only on retreat settings) allows one to break up the continuity, see the impermanence, and realize vipassana nanas. One does NOT control what namarupa arises and one is warned against trying to expect anything. One simply observes to the deepest and most precise degree possible. In what way isn't it appropriate attention (yoniso manasikaro)?! With metta, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > > > > Mike: I can see how it could be argued that such prodding is "less risky", but I can't understand how it is qualitatively different. Why not trust that panna will arise and forget about studying Suttas and Abhidhamma? > > > Dear Mike > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html > Right view > "Friend, how many conditions are there for the arising of right view?" > > "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." > > Without panna (rightview) no path and right view is conditioned by appropriate study. It doesn't depend on following a meditation technique. > Robert > #106224 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H ------------ ------ > >I am saying there are ultimately only the presently arisen dhammas. All else is illusion. A conventional action is an example of something *else.* It is an illusion. Ultimately there are no books, no readers, no reading, no speakers no listeners and no listening. > > >There are always paramattha dhammas. There are never conventional actions. >------------ --------- --------- KO:? without reading will you able to reach your goal.? That is the reason why sometimes DSG people get carried away by paramatha dhamma.? Understanding paramattha dhamma does not mean there is no conventional action.? You should not listen or read dhamma, because they are all conventional actions since ulimately there is on reading.?? >------------ --------- --------- --------- - > >There are actions at the paramattha level, but they have the same single-moment duration as the citta and cetasikas that perform them. Seeing, for example, is an ultimately real action performed by eye consciousness. Intending is an ultimately real action performed by cetana and javana cita. > KO:? Does that mean there is no conventional action?? Can you quote me which Buddha disciple who do not do conventional action like listening to dhamma.? Citta cannot understand word until citta experience the?words?of dhamma.??Words are pannati.??You are saying you could understand more paramatha dhamma without such conventional actions to listen to dhamma >------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- - > >Illusions of conventional action are created by cetana with pannatti as object. Sometimes attaditthi is present, in which case we could say actions were motivated by self-view. >------------ --------- --------- KO:???So?now you are saying when attanuditthi is present. we could say the action were motivated by self-view.??? >------------ --------- --------- > >There are no conventional actions. Conventional actions are illusions. They are things that ordinary people - and even dogs and jackals - know. > >That is not real knowing (panna), it is only thinking. Real knowing is satipatthana. It has a dhamma as its object. > >Dhammas arise, perform their functions, and fall away. Sometimes those functions include creating concepts of "doing" (concepts of reading a book, for example). > >------------ --------- ----- KO:? you have yet address my questions, citta can read dhamma at the paramatha level.? >------------ --------- ------ > >Yes, as I have already agreed, there can be concepts without wrong view. There can even be concepts without ignorance. Dana, sila and samatha are instances of concepts being experienced without ignorance. > >------------ --------- --------- ---- KO:? You are saying?there is concepts without ignorance,?it is contradictory to?your argument because you said there is no reading in your first statments, all is paramatha.??? >------------ --------- --------- ---- > >Yes; in other words, there is wrong view when we believe conventional actions really exist. KO:? If there is no conventional exist, pse do not read dhamma books since it is wrong view.? On one hand you said there are concepts without ignorance and on the other you are saying it is wrong view when we believe conventional action really exist.? >------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- > >Anything that is not either a citta, a cetasika, a rupa, or nibbana, is an illusion. Belief in the ultimate reality of illusions is silabbataparamasa and miccha ditthi. The particular type of miccha ditthi is attaditthi. KO:? which text you are quoting ?? Attanuditthi?is also?a cetasika.? Attanuditthi is not illusion, it is real.??The believe?that there is a self?is real that?is why we could only eradicate it at paramatha level as it exists in the paramatha level.? Then all Visud and commentary text are questionable as there were many examples?of conventional actions.? Cheers Ken O #106225 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Yes it is trut that MN43 says that 2 conditions are necessary for right view. Voice of another + yoniso manasikaro (appropriate) attention. > >Yoniso manasikaro does NOT refute methods done such as those taught by Mahasi, Goenka, Ashin Tejaniya and other wise teachers. > >What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/ suffering/ not self. The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible only on retreat settings) allows one to break up the continuity, see the impermanence, and realize vipassana nanas. One does NOT control what namarupa arises and one is warned against trying to expect anything. One simply observes to the deepest and most precise degree possible. In what way isn't it appropriate attention (yoniso manasikaro)? ! KO:? All methods of samantha must start from virtue, restraint of sense faculty, clear comprehension,?contentment and?seluded place.? Pse see Visud and suttas.? We must honestly ask, do such systems have all these in place.?? Be truthful to oneself and to the text? Dont just follow people just because it is common approach or a common practise.??It could condition more wrong understanding and wrong practise. Cheers Ken O #106226 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:25 pm Subject: Re: Re[2]: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) nilovg Dear Vince, Op 24-mrt-2010, om 16:34 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > Or we can > keep this discussion if we want. > Things happens. ------ N: Fully agreed, things happen. An Abhidhamma discussion when and where we do not expect it, some surprises. Nina. #106227 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:29 pm Subject: KenH views. How do you drive? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Ken O, > I am saying there are ultimately only the presently arisen dhammas. All else is illusion. A conventional action is an example of something *else.* It is an illusion. Ultimately there are no books, no readers, no reading, no speakers no listeners and no listening. > > > There are always paramattha dhammas. There are never conventional actions. > > > Illusions of conventional action are created by cetana with pannatti as object. Sometimes attaditthi is present, in which case we could say actions were motivated by self-view. > > There are no conventional actions. Conventional actions are illusions. They are things that ordinary people - and even dogs and jackals - know. > > That is not real knowing (panna), it is only thinking. Real knowing is satipatthana. It has a dhamma as its object. > > Dhammas arise, perform their functions, and fall away. Sometimes those functions include creating concepts of "doing" (concepts of reading a book, for example). > > Yes, as I have already agreed, there can be concepts without wrong view. There can even be concepts without ignorance. Dana, sila and samatha are instances of concepts being experienced without ignorance. > > ---------------------------------- > KO: > There is nothing wrong?in?conventional action,? It is only wrong when we?purposedly act, or control actions or?have expectations to develop panna.?? > ---------------------------------- > > Yes; in other words, there is wrong view when we believe conventional actions really exist. > > They don't. Only dhammas really exist. > > ---------------------------------------- > KO: > There is conventional and ultimate meanings of dhamma, that is difference we should understand.?The developing understanding is by ultimate meanings of dhamma > > > attaniditthi is the same as sakkaditthi unless you could prove me wrong.???Arahant also see concept like us.? At that moment is an mental object, .? it is consider attanuditthi if we think this object is mine or I am the object.? We cannot say I am the computer, will you?? We would say?thinking is I in the thinking of the mental object of computer.????? There is nothing wrong with a thing like a house.? A thing is wrong when we think we posesses it or there is self in it or it is permanent (which is another miccha ditthi). > ------------------------------------------- > > Anything that is not either a citta, a cetasika, a rupa, or nibbana, is an illusion. Belief in the ultimate reality of illusions is silabbataparamasa and miccha ditthi. The particular type of miccha ditthi is attaditthi. > > Ken H Dear KenH, all, I really hope that when you drive you switch to conventional, REAL LIFE thingsruths. When you drive, I hope you understand that trees and pedestrians do exist. Traffic lights do exist. One shouldn't disregard red light and incoming traffic at 100kmh by saying that it doesn't exist. KenH, how come you don't walk into the walls? Do you ever eat? After all, does "hunger & thirst" exist at the ultimate level? What happens when your bank account gets overdrawn. Do you say the teller, "there is no me, no bank account, no overdraft. You don't exist, this Bank doesn't exist, I don't exist. It is just citta and cetasika and rupas arising at trillions of times per second." KenH, how do you live? With metta, Alex #106228 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg nilovg Dear Alex, Op 24-mrt-2010, om 16:30 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the > presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/suffering/not self. > The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible > only on retreat settings) allows one to break up the continuity, > see the impermanence, and realize vipassana nanas. One does NOT > control what namarupa arises and one is warned against trying to > expect anything. One simply observes to the deepest and most > precise degree possible. In what way isn't it appropriate attention > (yoniso manasikaro)?! ------- N: I think that one should not think by way of: in meditation, and out of meditation. As you also agree, realities arise because of their own conditions. If they do not appear in daily life, just now, how could the fact of their being beyond control be known? Awareness can naturally arise just now, in daily life. It is not a question of observing to the deepest and most precise degree. Pa~n~naa is still weak in the beginning, it cannot be precise yet. Nina. #106229 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg truth_aerator >-- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > > >Yes it is trut that MN43 says that 2 conditions are necessary for right view. Voice of another + yoniso manasikaro (appropriate) attention. > > > >Yoniso manasikaro does NOT refute methods done such as those taught by Mahasi, Goenka, Ashin Tejaniya and other wise teachers. > > > >What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/ suffering/ not self. The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible only on retreat settings) allows one to break up the continuity, see the impermanence, and realize vipassana nanas. One does NOT control what namarupa arises and one is warned against trying to expect anything. One simply observes to the deepest and most precise degree possible. In what way isn't it appropriate attention (yoniso manasikaro)? ! > > KO:? All methods of samantha must start from virtue, restraint of sense faculty, clear comprehension,?contentment and?seluded place.? Pse see Visud and suttas.? We must honestly ask, do such systems have all these in place.?? Be truthful to oneself and to the text? Dont just follow people just because it is common approach or a common practise.??It could condition more wrong understanding and wrong practise. > > > Cheers > Ken O > Hello KenO, all, Yes you are right. We have to keep virtue, practice as much restraint as possible and do one's best in the circumstances that we are in. Ultimately it is almost always the case that situation is never perfect, and tough things can happen anywhere - even on a retreat. Those who wait for "the perfect time, the perfect conditions" never encounter one! IMHO. With metta, Alex #106230 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg truth_aerator Dear Nina, KenH, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 24-mrt-2010, om 16:30 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > > What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the > > presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/suffering/not self. > > The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible > > only on retreat settings) allows one to break up the continuity, > > see the impermanence, and realize vipassana nanas. One does NOT > > control what namarupa arises and one is warned against trying to > > expect anything. One simply observes to the deepest and most > > precise degree possible. In what way isn't it appropriate attention > > (yoniso manasikaro)?! > ------- > N: I think that one should not think by way of: in meditation, and > out of meditation. Right. One should carry the understanding off the cushion as well. The other thing however is that sitting session (in addition to all else) IS IMPORTANT. >As you also agree, realities arise because of their own conditions. Right. And even in sitting meditation you cannot control them. >If they do not appear in daily life, just now, > how could the fact of their being beyond control be known? The thing is that one cannot be consistently aware of "ultimate only" reality in daily life. This is why retreats and daily secluded sittings are a good idea. You cannot ignore traffic lights (because they are only conventional truths). When you drive you have to assume that there are real pedestrians, real cars, real trees, etc etc. When you do conventional activities you do have to assume that they exist and you cannot totally disregard them. So I partially disagree with tne below: > Awareness can naturally arise just now, in daily life. It is not a > question of observing to the deepest and most precise degree. A lot of talk about ultimates is irrelevant at best and DANGEROUS at worse when one has to drive, go to the Bank, and navigate around furniture, walls and so on. When one sits in sitting meditation, then one can and should totally disregard conventional world and observe, understand and learn about the ultimates. With metta, Alex #106231 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Hello KenO, all, > >Yes you are right. We have to keep virtue, practice as much restraint as possible and do one's best in the circumstances that we are in. > >Ultimately it is almost always the case that situation is never perfect, and tough things can happen anywhere - even on a retreat. Those who wait for "the perfect time, the perfect conditions" never encounter one! > KO:? Buddha always said it is a gradual training.?There were examples of his disciples who go into the forest but came out of it as evil thoughts arise in them, because they are not ready.? It is not about perfect conditions, it is about understanding what is gradual training, what is the right practise.? Visud is very clear on what is the ready conditions.? Without them, learning samantha bhavana is my humble opinion wrong practise. I promise I will discuss with you on the factors, I will and I hope you read it with an open mind.?? Cheers Ken O #106232 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Pt, > > > S: I of course see meditation as being an attempt at control and > > > hence contradicting what one otherwise believes to be the truth. I don't > > > therefore see this as possibly leading to those truths being > > > directly experienced, but in fact to further encouraging the tendency > > to and belief in 'self' and control. > > > > Pt: > > I think this is a view that KenH, Sarah and other here share. One > > problem I have with it is that it kind of goes to the opposite extreme > > of when beginner meditators think that all meditation is good, i.e. > > always kusala. I mean both seem inaccurate, as the cittas are > > conditioned, they cannot be made to be all kusala or all akusala. > --------------- > > Suk: But why must you base your judgement on this? > > pt: Because saying that meditation is all akusala is not factual, at least not in my experience. E.g. in my younger days when I had no idea what's the difference between kusala and akusala, I would try really hard to concentrate on this or that, because some or other book said so (or at least I thought it did at the time), and even despite all this trying (that I can now define as akusala), there would still be a few spontaneous moments where this trying was recognised to not work, and was then be followed by a brief moment of calm (what I can now define as kusala). Of course, very soon there would then arise the trying to hold onto this calm, and so on. > > This was the beginning of understanding the difference between kusala and akusla. Or the beginning of learning the difference between control and no control. So, it is simply non-factual in my experience to say that meditation is all kusala or all aksuala (even in case of absolute beginners). Ultimately put, all moments that go on to be a "meditation session" are made of conditioned dhammas, so cannot be made to be all kusala or all akusala. I mean, otherwise you are positing a self that can make dhammas be this way or that. S Now: Allow me to come in from another direction. Some people have the idea that for a beginner on the Buddha?s path, Sila should be stressed, and in reaction to the anatta and no-control position expressed here, they think that this leads possibly to Sila being overlooked. This however, is due to not understanding the nature of paramattha dhammas and conditionality and a misconception about what the Middle Way is and how understanding is developed. As is with any and every dhamma, sila is conditioned and can?t be made to arise by will. As in the case say, lobha, sila arises due to past accumulations, such that when the time comes, no one can stop it from arising. In other words, how often sila arises for anyone, past accumulation is the main factor. The person who believes in proactively encouraging sila is therefore not going to increase his sila by virtue of this and likewise those who believe in no-control, for them instances of sila won?t decrease just because he doesn?t tell himself that he must try to have more of it. For the latter however, there is possibility that sila is developed gradually and becoming purified since he is also developing Right View. This however won?t happen if one was to continue taking sila for self, such as when one is being proactive about it. Can you see a connection here, between being proactive and failure at understanding the Middle Way on one hand, and Right View and the idea of no-control? But there is more, it is quite evident to me, that those who fail to see the Middle Way and insist instead on being proactive, this is due to their not seeing the greater harm in ignorance and more particularly, of self-view. And on the whole this results in what could be said to be a greater evil being encouraged while trying to deal with the lesser ones. In the same way, my argument with you is not about frequency of akusala and kusala, but something else. I am not arguing against meditation because I believe that it involves little kusala or none at all, but that conceiving of the idea and believing in it is *wrong view*, period. And this is regardless of whether one is doing so-called samatha or vipassana. As it is with the person who believes in proactively practicing sila, the one who conceives of meditation as ?a practice? misunderstands the nature of paramattha dhamma and conditionality and takes what is not the path for the Path. He does not see self-view for what it is when it arises. And sure, the frequency for kusala and akusala is determined largely by accumulations, regardless of what one does in a day. However in this particular case, wrong understanding of the Path is being encouraged and this accumulates and won?t lead to any good. Besides even if I allowed for the possibility that you or any particular meditator at some point is able to distinguish kusala from akusala when you sit, to claim that ?the difference between control and no control? is also seen to some extent sounds more like being confused about the whole thing. After all you do insist that what you practice is samatha, so how can panna of vipassana come in to know anatta to any degree?!! Besides, if no control is really understood, what of the attempt at going back to the meditation object, maintain a particular posture, keep the eyes shut or half open and whatever else that is included in the program? Why the need for this continues when the object of the development of understanding are paramattha dhammas? As I tried to point out in an earlier post, I think it is unwise to refer to one?s experience as means to judge whether one?s practice is right or wrong. A moment of understanding after all must necessarily be accompanied with a corresponding degree of detachment such that when this happens, this would most particularly be towards having the understanding itself arise again. In other words, if you genuinely understood anatta to any extent while meditating, you?d see no reason to continue with it. But since you bring up personal experience, and even though I don?t see any value in referring to hindsight, what if I told you that, not long after I joined DSG, one day while meditating I saw what I otherwise would have taken for sati to actually be lobha, and this caused me to drop meditation completely? I don?t trust hindsight, but I have no reason to believe any worldling when he claims that he knows. My level of understanding is mostly Pariyatti and even this very little, but that should not stop me from pointing out wrong view when I see one expressed. =============== > > Suk: It is about whether or not one understands that at any given moment, there are > > only ultimate realties arising and falling away. > > pt: Agreed, though this would have to do with vipassana bhavana. Not with samatha. S Now: But still, this is the nature of all dhammas and it?s about the understanding of the individual involved. One can?t suddenly talk as if one has never heard about anatta when wanting to justify practicing samatha. Besides even though the panna associated with samatha does not see the danger of ignorance, it is still however panna and therefore self view would not be involved. =============== > > Suk: Those who meditate seem > > to believe that it is more likely that certain wanted dhammas will arise > > when engaged in what they do than at other times. > > pt: From experience, when there are periods in my life when I have time for samatha, there's much more moments with calm arising spontaneously during the day (i.e. outside of "formal meditation"), more metta, more contentment, etc, as compared to times when I don't have the opportunity for samatha. So, some dhammas seem to be more likely to arise in association with sustained samatha practice and it would be lying to deny this. S Now: Right and this is one thing that keeps you motivated. ;-) =============== > > Suk: Those who do not, make > > no such association, therefore their objection to meditation is not so > > much ?don?t do this? but rather that, ?why not understand that now there > > are dhammas arising and falling away by conditions beyond control?! > > pt: Well, I don't really know an experienced meditator who would dispute that. At least on an intellectual level that is, as it's a whole another matter to what depth there's an actual understanding of this point in terms of insight. But then this problem equally applies to both meditators and non-meditators. Easy to talk about it, but even easier to completely miss it. S Now: Now means now and this has nothing to do with any decision to observe. It is more that either there is sati or there isn?t. It is about recognizing any desire to have sati whether here at this very moment or there at another time and place. Yes, yes, it is easy to talk and miss the point. One gets the point when panna does arise to know a paramattha. The one who continues to think in terms of concepts of better time, place and posture, does this not appear to you like decreasing the chance for such an understanding to arise? And that which constantly points to the present moment, is this not one that allows for better recognition of obstacles such as this? ============= > > Suk: This > > would at the same time, point to the reality / concept distinction which > > followers of meditation seem to continue failing at. > > pt: Not sure why insist on using ultimate terminology to discuss dhamma, and then all of a sudden make sweeping generalisations on the conventional level? :) E.g. all meditators are this or that. What's the point of this really other than in terms of a superiority contest? I think this is what Mike calls a straw-man. I'd call it something like "the great ultimately conventional monster" :) S Now: Or if you didn?t so easily jump the gun each time, you?d recognize something else in these statements. ;-) In the above I was loudly making the point that the idea of meditation is wrong per se, therefore in all cases with no exception. Not only this, but also to point out one common symptom, which is that of the lack of appreciation regarding the reality / concept distinction. You and some others may go on to point out in theory this to me, for example saying that paramattha dhammas on one side are realities and people and things on another, are concepts. However, as far as I?m concerned, the test comes not here, but when referring to the ?meditation practice? you are all involved in. Why is it that one fails to admit that the object in those cases are concepts, yet one talks about them as if the Path is being pointed out to? Tell me Pt, the whole idea of meditation, what is the rationale behind it? If you restrict to samatha only, keep in mind that you are coming in with the knowledge about Buddhadhamma. ============ > > Suk: Why guess? Why not let the Dhamma be the guide? > > If your real-life Buddhist friends believe as some of us do, in dhammas > > being all there is at any given moment and that can be studied, what is > > their reason for meditating? Perhaps they have the idea of applying what > > they learnt in meditation to other activities in daily life? If so, > > would the result not more likely be a projection? I don?t see why one > > would be driven to distinguish between time for meditation and not, if > > there is a correct understanding about dhammas. But I may be missing > > something, in which case please explain more. > > Pt: Many kinds of meditators with different depths of understanding, so I think if we try to discuss them, we'd just be throwing more of the aforementioned monsters at one another, so perhaps it's best we stick to discussing our own experiences and understanding as you do below. S Now: Better stick with the Dhamma ;-) and you may come see the point I am making. But surely, let us not refer to one?s own experience, wouldn?t this risk one or more of the cheating dhammas taking control? While what I have been saying all along could be said to be proclaiming and insisting on the fact of there being only One Path namely the Noble Eightfold Path, the defense you take and the arguments made, appear to be suggesting otherwise. Certainly, while I continue to perceive that the view behind my conclusion about the Path is one thing, I see yours and those of all meditators as being of something else altogether, but you have been trying to tell me that I must allow for all being possibly right! Can you please clarify here? I?m leaving the rest of the post as this is too long already and will end here. Metta, Sukinder #106233 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Mike ... > >Mike: I agree with KO. This is the point that I see getting lost in many of these conversations. The way our minds function (at least until we are Aryans) is in terms of concepts. As far as I can see, any discussion about paramattha dhammas is actually about the CONCEPT of paramattha dhammas. KO:? Abhidhamma sangahata is very clear what is concepts and what is not concept.? We understand words conceptually but that does not mean our development of paramatha dhamma is conceptual.? ?The development of?vipassana?bhavana?is base on nimita of paramatha dhamma.? If there is no?nimita of paramath dhamma, we cannot?understand the characteristics of dhamma.? ?Only when there is direct experience, what we development now is nimitta.? But that is the right way because concepts are not real while nimitta of paramatha dhamma is real which lead to the direct experience when panna is?develop to that level. My discussion with Ken H is whether there is conventional action and not conceptual action.? All words are conceptual that does not mean all our actions are conceptual because?cetana is real and not conceptual.? This is the difference here. Cheers Ken O #106234 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg truth_aerator Dear KenO, KenH, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > My discussion with Ken H is whether there is conventional action >and not conceptual action.? All words are conceptual that does not >mean all our actions are conceptual because?cetana is real and not >conceptual.? This is the difference here. > Cheers > Ken O Of course there is conceptual action. An Arahant doesn't die at the spot of awakening from starvation & dehydration, or from falling off a cliff. Arahant can walk, talk, navigate around trees, avoid cliffs, go to almsround, teach and do things. In fact I think that this whole "ultimate reality" talk which is so prevailant in other religions, to be just a philosophy more proper to Hinduism, rather than Dhamma. It is in HINDU philosophies where the world is an illusion and only Brahman is real. The Heart of Buddha's teaching is 4NT, and they are applicable to actual reality. They don't talk about philosophy (divorced from reality), and are actually useful. Every day we have to avoid walking into obstacles, we have to walk through doors not walls, we have to eat, we can't drive with non-existent cars into non-existent pedestrians or non-existent trees. Head on collisions can happen. I hope that no one tries to test the non-existence of the world in that fashion. I see how craving & ignorance of 4NT applies in all situations (lay or ordained), but I see how metaphysics does not. You can't seriously live with that sort of metaphysics which denies the existence of solid objects, cars, pedestrians, traffic lights, speed and so on. With metta, Alex #106235 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:47 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Ken H. and Ken O, > > Those two tiny little paragraphs, maybe three sentences each, put me in a bit of a stupor. In the concentration I maintained on Ken H.'s and Ken O.'s discusion I eventually believe that I figured it out. And now, as I think of how to respond, I see this HUGE CHASM between you two. Ken O. doesn't carry the concept of attaditthi far enough; from what I perceive that Ken H. is saying Ken O. is still caught in this web of rupa or matter which he then falls victim to by the belief that they exist and since "they", things, exist he is therefore suggesting that HIS EXISTANT SELF EXISTS TO SEE THESE NON-EXISTANT THINGS, RUPAS. ------------------- Hi Colette, It does get complicated, doesn't it? And so the thing to do is to start at the beginning. There are only the dhammas that exist in the present moment. No self! Nothing other than those dhammas! Whenever the conversation gets complicated, we should go back to that beginning. From there, we might be able to see where it went wrong. ------------------------------- C: > Since I don't know the discussion that Ken H., Sarah, and Ken O. were discussing I may be a bit out of my league here, however I'll take a stab at it. Ken O. is merely making the statement that "studying or listening" GENERATE KARMA and he suggests that if there is any kind of belief in a "self" that is the generator behind the action then he classifies it as becoming a "hinderance". -------------------------------- You're never out of your league when you remember there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. Other people may have more theoretical knowledge of what those dhammas may be, but, if they are forgetting that's all there is, they are the ones out of their league, not you. -------------------------------------------- C: > Fine, any belief in a self is fundamentally a Hinderance in the Buddhist context Ken H., attaditthi is a "self view", maybe a form of covetting which falls in with clinging. Any belief in an actual ULTIMATE existance of computer, a rupa, a thing, is WRONG VIEW, it is, FUNDAMENTALLY, a HINDERANCE (more like a delusion or hallucination). Are you, Ken H., suggesting that there is a DESTINY or a pre-determined path that each person is born in to and therefore has no ability to control anything in their lives, existance? Hmmmmm, did I just fall into a trap here since I suggested that people exist and people possess lives? That's a winner, no? ----------------------------------------------- Yes, exactly! It is the same trap that everyone falls into occasionally. We have to help each other out. Remember there are only dhammas. At that moment of right remembering we are safely out of the trap. From there we can see how it got complicated - see how we fell into the trap. Ken H #106236 From: Kevin Farrell Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, Kevin: Hi, yiou wrote: "The thing is that one cannot be consistently aware of "ultimate only" reality in daily life. This is why retreats and daily secluded sittings are a good idea. You cannot ignore traffic lights (because they are only conventional truths). When you drive you have to assume that there are real pedestrians, real cars, real trees, etc etc... With metta, Alex" Kevin: Hi Alex. You've got to understand that there is a difference between sanna, perception, knowing a reality (paramattha dhamma) and panna, the cetasika of wisdom, knowing one. Perception knows realities all the time without trying. That is how we operate. Off of the realities known by citta, concepts are developed and we experience people, places and events and so on. Sanna knowing realities does not cause their characteristics of anicca, anatta, or dukkha to be understood. It only observes but does not penetrate. There is only penetration of the characteristic, and any development toward the removal of the fetters, if panna arises. Right now the citta knows realities, but it is not necessarily panna knowing realities. It is the same in meditation sessions, even when we think we see anicca, anatta, and dukkha during meditation, like I did on my one month mahasi retreat and on my shorter retreat, and retreat with Bhante Pesala. However, even then it is just the citta simply knowing realities as it normally does and concepts about their impermanence and so on being built up. I know that it seems as if we observe realities at those times, but we don't-- we generally are simply more aware that things fall away very quickly and so forth but it is still concepts about this-- it is not actually panna arising and knowing a reality while it is there, ie. satipatthana. You may feel that you have developed understanding on a retreat but the cetasika of panna may not even arise once. Further not only are realities not known through panna, but self-view is reinforced by thinking we can push and make wisdom arise. We can't push and make it. Panna, however, can arise and make us wish to understand the dhamma more through discussing, studying, and reflecting, which is more of a shedding than a "doing", but the distinction is very subtle and hard to see. It has to be known by panna. Realities are known by wisdom spontaneously, when the conditions are right. I think it might be very helpful for you if you read Realities and Concepts by Sujin so that you can understand the difference between realities and concepts and how that whole thing functions. Lest someone understands about realities and concepts very clearly on the conceptual level, I doubt there is any room for development in this day and age because our wisdom faculty is low. Knowing this makes wisdom grow, and wisdom is the antithesis of delusion (that is why panna is also called amoha). Only panna, nothing else, cuts off delusion and ignorance. People who know about realities and concepts clearly are wise. Wisdom on the level of pariyatti, on the level of practice, and on the level of penetration are all wisdom. One leads to the next because wisdom developes more wisdom. Pariyatti, which includes proper attention, leads to wisdom on the level of practice. These three types of wisdom follow suit. If you hear this and you wish to read or discuss, it may be panna that understands to do this. When there is a "push to make oneself see" though, at that moment, there is no panna, there is wrong view. I hope this helps. Yours with metta, kevin F. The Lost Trailers: http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 #106237 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg truth_aerator Dear Kevin, all, > Kevin Farrell wrote: > > > > > Dear Alex, > > Kevin: Hi, yiou wrote: > > > > > "The thing is that one cannot be consistently aware of "ultimate only" reality in daily life. This is why retreats and daily secluded sittings are a good idea. > > You cannot ignore traffic lights (because they are only conventional truths). When you drive you have to assume that there are real pedestrians, real cars, real trees, etc etc... > > With metta, > > Alex" > > Kevin: Hi Alex. You've got to understand that there is a >difference between sanna, perception, knowing a reality (paramattha >dhamma) and panna, the cetasika of wisdom, knowing one. Does panna arise with sanna or without any sanna? > Perception knows realities all the time without trying. That is >how we operate. Off of the realities known by citta, concepts are >developed and we experience people, places and events and so on. Perception can be akusala or kusala. So I don't think that saying, "oh, it is just sanna" is totally appropriate. > Sanna knowing realities does not cause their characteristics of >anicca, anatta, or dukkha to be understood. It only observes but >does not penetrate. There is only penetration of the >characteristic, and any development toward the removal of the >fetters, if panna arises. Panna comes with sanna. Sanna can be appropriate. Furthermore the cause for sati in CMA is strong perception. In any case, a mind requires perception to be present. A lot of things that lead to awakening is based on concepts and ALL are based on wholesome perception along with other factors. > > Right now the citta knows realities, but it is not necessarily >panna knowing realities. And panna being a cetasika comes with a citta. >It is the same in meditation sessions, >even when we think we see >anicca, anatta, and dukkha during meditation, like I did on my one >month mahasi retreat and on my shorter retreat, and retreat with >Bhante Pesala. However, even then it is just the citta simply >knowing realities as it normally does and concepts about their >impermanence and so on being built up. You are observing arisen namarupa that rises and falls. You are breaking down the apparent continuity to see many different things happening. Please don't kid anyone that a householder (or a busy person) can easily develop the sort of attention to detail. Can you imagine doing Mahasi style vipassana while driving or crossing a busy street? The label should be put 5-10% of attention, it is a convinient pointer-tool to zoom and ground in the present (and not a vague idea of the present moment). >I know that it seems as if we observe realities at those times, When it comes to anicca-dukkha-anatta, are these esoteric concepts hidden from our perception? >Further not only are realities not known through panna, but >self-view is reinforced by thinking we can push > and make wisdom arise. And if one is heedless and doesn't put in diligent effort, then progress won't be made. Rocks and stones do not will at all, have no Self-Concept or any fetters - but they aren't awakened. Please forgive me, but it seems that what you are implying is a cop-out to avoid doing hard work of going against kilesas, developing understanding, etc. I know that RobertK2 is a fan of quoting a certain passage of Nettipakarana and the Sutta about awakening while hearing a discource. If you believe all that commentary states, and if you believe that we today are neyya at best, then the comy does state that listening & considering alone is not enough for neyya. All the dream cases of people awakening through hearing discource may belong only to highest two types! We have to do the hard work... What is possible for the brightest types, may not be enough for us. http://www.triplegem.plus.com/individu.htm Mahasi Sayadaw was a big fan of Abhidhamma and commentaries. He did stress the importance of practice. Even the commentaries refute the idea of awakening through listening for neyya/padaparama types. >I doubt there is any room for development in this day and age >because our wisdom faculty is low Do you have omniscient powers? Have you spoken to every monk? How can you know the above for sure, without guessing? IMHO, when Dhamma became Buddh-ism ,and forest dwelling was replaced with big city monasteries filled with many scholars, the emphasis on scholarship and philosophy has made the progress more difficult. Many sutta quotes do talk about that one doesn't need a PhD in Buddhism to realize the highest truths. Ultimately the Books contain concepts, even if these are "concepts of the ultimate". Dhamma isn't mastered like physics, chemistry or mathematics. I know, I am one of them, it is very hard for intellectual people to stop proliferating thoughts and focus on boring present moment. "If a monk understands the meaning and the text of Dhamma- even if it be but a stanza of four lines-and be set on living in accordance with the dhamma, he may be called "one widely learnt, who knows Dhamma by heart." AN Vi (186) Approach "And how, bhikkhus, is one a knowledge-master? When a bhikkhu understands as the y really are the origin, the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to the six bases for contact, such a bhikkhu is a knowledge-master." SN 35.103 (10) Uddaka And there are many suttas where it clearly says that Dhamma doesn't require "tons of books". IMHO that may actually mislead one, cause "paralysis by analysis" and carry away from mindfulness of the present moment - the "battlefield". It is much more convenient to read and gather more and more food for thought... It is much harder to watch something as boring and common as one's breath (as part of satipatthana). With metta, Alex #106238 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > S Now: Allow me to come in from another direction. > Some people have the idea that for a beginner on the Buddha?s path, Sila > should be stressed, and in reaction to the anatta and no-control > position expressed here, they think that this leads possibly to Sila > being overlooked. This however, is due to not understanding the nature > of paramattha dhammas and conditionality and a misconception about what > the Middle Way is and how understanding is developed. > > As is with any and every dhamma, sila is conditioned and can?t be made > to arise by will. As in the case say, lobha, sila arises due to past > accumulations, such that when the time comes, no one can stop it from > arising. In other words, how often sila arises for anyone, past > accumulation is the main factor. The person who believes in proactively > encouraging sila is therefore not going to increase his sila by virtue > of this and likewise those who believe in no-control, for them instances > of sila won?t decrease just because he doesn?t tell himself that he must > try to have more of it. > > For the latter however, there is possibility that sila is developed > gradually and becoming purified since he is also developing Right View. > This however won?t happen if one was to continue taking sila for self, > such as when one is being proactive about it. Can you see a connection > here, between being proactive and failure at understanding the Middle > Way on one hand, and Right View and the idea of no-control? But there is > more, it is quite evident to me, that those who fail to see the Middle > Way and insist instead on being proactive, this is due to their not > seeing the greater harm in ignorance and more particularly, of > self-view. And on the whole this results in what could be said to be a > greater evil being encouraged while trying to deal with the lesser ones. pt: There's merit in what you say above, but it's choked to death by a small battalion of strawmen :) > Suk: In the same way, my argument with you is not about frequency of akusala > and kusala, but something else. I am not arguing against meditation > because I believe that it involves little kusala or none at all, but > that conceiving of the idea and believing in it is *wrong view*, period. > And this is regardless of whether one is doing so-called samatha or > vipassana. pt: Hm, well we keep talking past each other, as I'm trying to stress a related, but different, point - I'll try putting it in more ultimate terms which might be more familiar to you: Let's start with how Sarah defined bhavana before - a moment of citta arising with panna (and other kusala dhammas). This is pretty much the clearest definition of meditation there is imo on a moment to moment level - and it's clear it's kusala when it happens. Now in a similar sense, I agree that "conceiving" the idea of meditation as something that will make panna (or wahtever else) arise is wrong view, or akusala basically. But this is also on a moment to moment basis, is it not? So, then what I'm trying to argue against is the reasoning that the conventional activity of "meditation" that takes place over a stretch of time will necessarily be comprised of only kusala, or only akusala moments, as defined above. I mean, if we say there are only conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing, then it seems imprecise/pointless to talk about activities being kusala or akusala. I mean, regardless of whether conventionally speaking the person is meditating, or reading, or whatever, there'll still be conditioned kusala and akusala cittas arising and ceasing regardless of the activity. Thus, to imply that meditation as an activity is "wrong view", or akusala, seems imprecise because "meditating", or whatever other activity, is simply not a dhamma. Thus, to even stress a distinction between "meditation" and some other activity, seems a bit pointless, because they are not dhammas. Even more pointless is if we start insisting that this or that activity is always a/kusala. > Suk: As it is with the person who believes in proactively practicing sila, > the one who conceives of meditation as ?a practice? misunderstands the > nature of paramattha dhamma and conditionality and takes what is not the > path for the Path. He does not see self-view for what it is when it > arises. And sure, the frequency for kusala and akusala is determined > largely by accumulations, regardless of what one does in a day. However > in this particular case, wrong understanding of the Path is being > encouraged and this accumulates and won?t lead to any good. pr: Again with the same battalion... > Suk: Besides even if I allowed for the possibility that you or any particular > meditator at some point is able to distinguish kusala from akusala when > you sit, to claim that ?the difference between control and no control? > is also seen to some extent sounds more like being confused about the > whole thing. pt: Sure, always a possibility. Suk: After all you do insist that what you practice is samatha, > so how can panna of vipassana come in to know anatta to any degree?!! pt: Not sure I understand what you are trying to ask? > Suk: Besides, if no control is really understood, what of the attempt at > going back to the meditation object, maintain a particular posture, keep > the eyes shut or half open and whatever else that is included in the > program? Why the need for this continues when the object of the > development of understanding are paramattha dhammas? pt: Accumulations, no? > Suk: As I tried to point out in an earlier post, I think it is unwise to > refer to one?s experience as means to judge whether one?s practice is > right or wrong. A moment of understanding after all must necessarily be > accompanied with a corresponding degree of detachment such that when > this happens, this would most particularly be towards having the > understanding itself arise again. In other words, if you genuinely > understood anatta to any extent while meditating, you?d see no reason to > continue with it. pt: Okay, but I don't see how this conclusion is not according to your previous experiences? Besides, I don't think I can agree with the last statement - imo, if you genuinely understood anatta to any extent while meditating, you'd see no reason to continue with it or stop it, because it'll be clear that meditation is a concept, not a dhamma. I mean, you'd be concerned with dhammas, not with concepts at that moment. Suk: But since you bring up personal experience, and even > though I don?t see any value in referring to hindsight, what if I told > you that, not long after I joined DSG, one day while meditating I saw > what I otherwise would have taken for sati to actually be lobha, and > this caused me to drop meditation completely? pt: I think I know what you are saying re sati and lobha. And I've heard it from others. So, I guess it's a common thing to come across so to speak. Some then seem to stop, some continue to see what other things they've been confusing all along. Some would even say that's the whole point of meditation. I find it hard to agree that one approach can be said to be better than the other, I mean, people have different accumulations so to speak. > Suk: I don?t trust hindsight, > but I have no reason to believe any worldling when he claims that he > knows. My level of understanding is mostly Pariyatti and even this very > little, but that should not stop me from pointing out wrong view when I > see one expressed. pt: As your personal opinion, that's fine, and while I'm grateful when people point out my mistakes, I guess it's hard to take kindly to strawman arguments. > > pt: Agreed, though this would have to do with vipassana bhavana. Not > with samatha. > > S Now: But still, this is the nature of all dhammas and it?s about the > understanding of the individual involved. One can?t suddenly talk as if > one has never heard about anatta when wanting to justify practicing > samatha. Besides even though the panna associated with samatha does not > see the danger of ignorance, it is still however panna and therefore > self view would not be involved. pt: Well, this has been said many times here, is there a particular point you are trying to make? > > pt: From experience, when there are periods in my life when I have > time for samatha, there's much more moments with calm arising > spontaneously during the day (i.e. outside of "formal meditation"), more > metta, more contentment, etc, as compared to times when I don't have the > opportunity for samatha. So, some dhammas seem to be more likely to > arise in association with sustained samatha practice and it would be > lying to deny this. > > S Now: Right and this is one thing that keeps you motivated. ;-) pt: Nice one:) > S Now: Now means now and this has nothing to do with any decision to > observe. It is more that either there is sati or there isn?t. It is > about recognizing any desire to have sati whether here at this very > moment or there at another time and place. Yes, yes, it is easy to talk > and miss the point. One gets the point when panna does arise to know a > paramattha. The one who continues to think in terms of concepts of > better time, place and posture, does this not appear to you like > decreasing the chance for such an understanding to arise? And that which > constantly points to the present moment, is this not one that allows for > better recognition of obstacles such as this? pt: Again... You start beautifully, and then choke it to death... > S Now: Or if you didn?t so easily jump the gun each time, you?d > recognize something else in these statements. ;-) > In the above I was loudly making the point that the idea of meditation > is wrong per se, therefore in all cases with no exception. Not only > this, but also to point out one common symptom, which is that of the > lack of appreciation regarding the reality / concept distinction. pt: Yes, on a moment to moment basis. On a conventional level though, meditation as a conventional activity is simply not a dhamma, and thus claiming that meditation is a/kusala or right/wrong view is also mistaking concepts for realities, is it not? > Suk: You > and some others may go on to point out in theory this to me, for example > saying that paramattha dhammas on one side are realities and people and > things on another, are concepts. However, as far as I?m concerned, the > test comes not here, but when referring to the ?meditation practice? you > are all involved in. Why is it that one fails to admit that the object > in those cases are concepts, yet one talks about them as if the Path is > being pointed out to? pt: Again... > Suk: Tell me Pt, the whole idea of meditation, what is the rationale behind > it? If you restrict to samatha only, keep in mind that you are coming in > with the knowledge about Buddhadhamma. pt: It seems right when it happens. > Suk: Better stick with the Dhamma ;-) and you may come see the point I > am making. But surely, let us not refer to one?s own experience, > wouldn?t this risk one or more of the cheating dhammas taking control? pt: I like the topic of cheating dhammas. Very useful. E.g. sati and lobha. Many more examples. > Suk: While what I have been saying all along could be said to be proclaiming > and insisting on the fact of there being only One Path namely the Noble > Eightfold Path, the defense you take and the arguments made, appear to > be suggesting otherwise. Certainly, while I continue to perceive that > the view behind my conclusion about the Path is one thing, I see yours > and those of all meditators as being of something else altogether, but > you have been trying to tell me that I must allow for all being possibly > right! Can you please clarify here? pt: Again... Please, let's be constructive rather than trying to be right. Best wishes pt #106239 From: Gemunu Rohana Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:51 am Subject: Learn Abhidharma the easy way - Names of all 21 Ruupa Kalapa (Compound Ruupa) gemunu.rohana A Ruupa kalapa considered unique not only by its name (or composition) , but also by the cause of it. When both are taken together, 21 different possibilities are there (as explained in the previous post as well). In addition to the information in previous post, this one contains names of all 21 Ruupa kalapa to further expand your knowledge on the topic. It is interesting to cross check the 28 Ruupa (Ruupa Skanda) to understand formation of Ruupa Kalapa (Compound Ruupa) by keeping both of them side by side. Please note following if you do. • Ksudashtaka is the Avinirbauga Ruupa 8 • Any Navaka is formed by adding the prefixed Ruupa (in the name) to above Ksudashtaka (Please note that the three relevant 9th Ruupa is placed in very close proximity to Avinibauga Ruupa 8 in the Ruupa Skanda image • Any Kamma Dashaka is formed by adding the prefixed Ruupa (in the name) to above Ksudashtaka plus Jeevithendriya Ruupa • The Chittha Dashaka is formed just like above except that Shabda Ruupa is used in place of Jeevithendriya Ruupa • Eka Dashaka are all the same: Ksudashtaka plus Lahuthadee Ruupa 3 • Any Dwa Dashaka is formed by adding the prefixed Ruupa (in the name) to above Eka Dashaka • The Thearasaka is formed by adding the 2 prefixed Ruupa (in the name) to above Eka Dashaka I would recommend to print and post these images in a place where you can see most of the time. The eye sense can be utilized best to help Nirvana that way. N.B. The recommendation to read the relevant books is valid for all the postings (past/future) on Abhidharma. May the Triple Gem Bless You! May You Attain Sowan (Nirvana) in This Very Life! Visit http://sinhaladharmastore.blogspot.com/ for freely downloadable Dharma content. #106240 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:11 pm Subject: Crushing the Carrot! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: No Urge for Delight Ceases the Suffering! The Venerable Migaj ala once drew near to the Accomplished One, bowed, paid his respects, sat down, and asked him: Venerable Sir, it would be good if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief, then I might dwell alone, withdrawn to the forest, attentive, keen, and determined... The Consummated Buddha then explained: There are here, Migaj ala, forms experiencable by the eye, sounds that are experiencable by the ear, odours experiencable by the nose, many tastes experiencable by the tongue, tactile objects experiencable by the body, and mental phenomena cognizable by the mind, that are quite attractive, charming, enjoyable, pleasing, enticing, and very tantalizing. In anyone who seeks delight in them, welcomes them, and clings to them, delight arises! With the arising of this delight, Migaj ala, there is the arising of Suffering! In anyone who does not seek delight in them, who does not welcome them, who does not remain holding on or clinging to them, that delight ceases... With the ceasing of this delight, there comes the cessation of suffering... Then Venerable Migaj ala, agreeing & rejoicing in what the Buddha had said, rose from his seat, & after having bowed for the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he left for the forest. There, alone, withdrawn, enthusiastic, devoted, & resolute, Venerable Migaj ala, realized it by direct experience, himself, in this very life, by entering & abiding in that unsurpassed goal of the Noble life for which men of good family rightly go forth from the dusty household life into homelessness. He directly knew: Destroyed is rebirth, the holy life has been lived, done is what had to be done, there is no state of being beyond this! The Venerable Migaj ala became one of the Arahats ... The addiction to pleasure by sensing is an obsessive slavery! <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV 35-7 The 6 senses section 35. Thread on Delight: Migajala Sutta (63) http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #106241 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hello Vince, ========== > I take it that you have read at least one of Nina?s books on the > Abhidhamma, but I get the impression that you do not interpret what has > been written the way it is meant to be. I suggest then that we start a > discussion on one of those books, perhaps the SPD or ADL. What do you say? Vince: yes, I have read four books. And also I think there is other people who don't interpret rightly what finally these books says. There is nothing wrong on this, because we all try to understand the best we can, and everybody build their own conclusions with and without mistakes. On my side, I think there is not sense in discussing what these books says because they are fully right and for sure the translation is excellent. S: The problem is that you use the concepts in there to argue but with an interpretation quite different from how I understand them. ========== Vince: I mean, we can repeat thousand times that paramatta-dhammas are four, panna is real knowledge, and there is the present moment. Details of these objects for our intellect are very well explained inside "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas". Anyone can read it. S: You mean once it is memorized, there would never be a need to read these texts ever again? You have read four of those books and I have read only half of one book in nine years. ;-) If I was interested in acquiring the details, I?d probably read all of the books available more than once. But this is clearly not the aim of study. Pariyatti is not knowledge acquired through reading, it refers to a necessary level of *understanding* without which no Patipatti can ever arise. This understanding grows with more Patipatti and does not stop when Pativedha happens but would arise and develop also after one has become an ariyan. The motivation to read and discuss is understanding and there is no end to this; so clearly, it is not what you are judging all this to be. ========== Vince: At same time, I think this acquired knowledge can remain paralyzed while one reject an investigation about the implied things; as the investigation in the nature of time, or what the final nature of knowledge and understanding. However, such things can be considered of secondary importance for other person under other concerns, and not everybody wants to discuss these points. Every person is focused in different objects according their trends and understanding. So there is not problem. S: Yes, every person is different, but this is no reason to justify downplaying the importance of reading and discussing the Dhamma. Why would anyone who appreciates the Teachings, ever think to do without it at some point? Is it because he sees something else as being more valuable, such as ?meditation practice? or some other personal view regarding what needs to be done? Should he not realize what he is doing at those times, namely that he is giving priority to some set of ideas personally held over the Buddhadhamma? ========== Vince: But on my side I don't see the sense in discussing Abhidhamma, because already I have the books and for sure there is not any failure in them. Today I see the sense in discussing how to use that knowledge, and what can be the right position to do it. I don't know really if this is better or worse but this my interest today. We interrupt the discussion here. Don't worry and thanks! :-) S: Sorry, but I couldn?t just let this pass without comment. Ok, so do you really want to discuss, ?how to use that knowledge, and what can be the right position to do it?? I?d be very happy to discuss this with you. Thanks in advance. Metta, Sukinder #106242 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:48 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Dear Nina and Scott, Thanks for your replies regarding the duration and moment. > As we shall see, only the classification according to moment, kha.na, > is to be taken literally. > ---------- > Text Vis. Ch XIV, 190: (d) 'According to moment': what is included in > the trio of moments, [that is to say, arising, presence, and > dissolution] beginning with > arising is called 'present'. At a time previous to that it is 'future'. > At a time subsequent to that it is 'past'. Would it be correct then to say that a "moment" (as in cittakkhana) refers not to some specific duration of conceptual time, but to an instance of certain dhammas coming together and falling apart (or more precisely, arising, presence and dissolving) that can be seen to happen through insight? In addition, another thing I find really hard here is when it's said that dhammas arise and then fall away completely. I mean, I don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that every single citta will be accompanied by the same cetasika, like manasikara for example which has the function of attention. So, the same function every time, even though cittas and jati might succesively change. So, while I can understand that saying "dhammas fall away completely" can be useful in order to stress the anatta acharacteristic of dhammas, at the same time, it doesn't seem to be very precise, because the same function is evident from one citta to another. I'm curious how you and others resolve this logical problem. Best wishes pt #106243 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Mike, > > KO:? You are?saying that reading dhamma and listening to dhamma is?not a conventional action?? ... > > Mike: I agree with KO. This is the point that I see getting lost in many of these conversations. The way our minds function (at least until we are Aryans) is in terms of concepts. As far as I can see, any discussion about paramattha dhammas is actually about the CONCEPT of paramattha dhammas. ----------- I'm sorry, I can't see the point you are trying to make. I'm not sure I can see the point Ken O is trying to make either. The Dhamma teaches that there is no self. That entirely changes our understanding of the way things ultimately are. Ken O seems to think it only changes a few things. He seems to think it means there are no ultimately no people but it doesn't mean there are ultimately no computers (for example) or courses of action. I, on the other hand, think anatta means there are only dhammas. Ken H #106244 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:42 am Subject: Re: the idea of self szmicio Hi Jega, > the idea about the body is the element ,the mind is about condition, the > intellect about perception... connecting all this together is the > breath....all this belong to the nature.that means the idea of self\soul > never exist and the idea of nature is real.please comment,tq. L: This is just a word, But even doing bad deeds, there is no Self and we can learn this. The characteristic of ALL realities now is non-Self. This happens cause of conditions and development is mental. Knowing conditions for development gradually in life this is development, bhavana. All kinds of development are good: metta bhavana, samatha bhavana, vipassana bhavana. Best wishes Lukas #106245 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:01 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Robert, KenO, Mike all, > > Yes it is trut that MN43 says that 2 conditions are necessary for right view. Voice of another + yoniso manasikaro (appropriate) attention. > > Yoniso manasikaro does NOT refute methods done such as those taught by Mahasi, Goenka, Ashin Tejaniya and other wise teachers. > > What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/suffering/not self. The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible only on retreat settings) a Dear Alex in these posts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 you seemed to have doubts about the mahasi system. Could I ask why you are so positive about it now? Robert #106246 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:06 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg rjkjp1 sorry this was the other post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77291 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Dear Robert, KenO, Mike all, > > > > Yes it is trut that MN43 says that 2 conditions are necessary for right view. Voice of another + yoniso manasikaro (appropriate) attention. > > > > Yoniso manasikaro does NOT refute methods done such as those taught by Mahasi, Goenka, Ashin Tejaniya and other wise teachers. > > > > What one does in Mahasi (and other) systems is observe the presently arisen namarupa, see its impermanence/suffering/not self. The deep attention to the present moment (consistently possible only on retreat settings) a > Dear Alex in these posts > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 you seemed to have doubts about the mahasi system. Could I ask why you are so positive about it now? > Robert > #106247 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nama vs Citta sarahprocter... Hi Nori, (Han & all), Great to be discussing Dhamma with you again! --- On Mon, 22/3/10, nori wrote: >>S: "The cittas just experience their objects. For example, seeing consciousness just experiences visible object. It just sees." N:>Now, I am sure this is just a matter of semantics, but I think even in the context of your (that is the Abhidhammic) definition of citta, it must have the additional characteristic of, apart from only seeing/witnessing, to somehow effect and/or condition the cetasikas. ... S: Yes, the citta just experiences its object, but you're right when you say that the citta conditions the accompanying cetasikas and vice versa. This is by sahajata paccaya. They all need the others as mutually arising supports. ... N:> That is, in some way, Citta must somehow condition/effect the "'willing', 'feeling', 'remembering' " (or at least I would think) if "the citta is the 'leader' in experiencing the visible object." >Any thoughts on this? ... S: Whilst only the cetana 'wills', the vedana 'feels' and so on, without their 'leader', they would not be able to perform their respective functions. However, the citta itself does not perform these functions. That's why it needs its 'accomplices'. Just like the King and his retinue. Each member of his retinue has a particular job, but without the King, no King's retinue. ----- >This reminds me of Arjuna's explanation of the 'self' in Milinda Panna. <...> S:Thanks for the good points. ....----- >N:"Do you think D.O. (also the sequence that begins with Avijja & Sankharas) is representing 3 consecutive lives?" >>S: I think it's representing the cycle of samsara. ... how life now conditions the next and future moments. N:>So do you think in the sequence - >Avijjaapaccayaa - ignorance sa.nkhaaraa vi~n~naa.na / Citta naamaruupa sa.laayatana. m ... >... all of these things can occur sequentially, or non-sequentially in a 'single' given 'lifetime'? ... and if so then what (phenomenon) is actually ignorant, and what (phenomenon) is actually giving birth? ... S: Let's start with avijja. Avijja arises with all unwholesome (akusala) cittas. So now, after seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, unless there is dana, sila or bhavana, there is bound to be avijja. Even if there is the giving of a gift, good morality or wisdom arising, there is bound to be avijja in between. Without such avijja, there'd be no conditions for life to continue at the end of this one. There'd be no further kamma in life once the avijja was eradicated. Therefore it is avijja which is an essential condition for kamma (of all kinds) which leads to rebirth and the continuation of the entire cycle. You may be familiar with the 3 rounds of rebirth, i.e. the rounds of kamma-vatta, vipaka-vatta, kilesa-vatta. In other words, because of past kamma, there are the vipaka cittas we've discussed, such as the moments of seeing and hearing now. On account of the vipaka, the experiencing of sense objects, kilesa (defilements) arise, leading to more kamma, more vipaka and again more kilesa, life after life. Let's go slowly with this complex matter. Does all this make sense so far? Thanks again for the helpful qus and comments. Metta Sarah >I'm doing pretty good; I just need to find a job... >I finally got around to visiting Sri Lanka. I stayed there with a Thero I met in India. ... S: So glad you got to Sri Lanka.... I forget if you were originally from Asia or not? ... >So how are things with you; I forgot where you lived? ... S: Jon and I live in Hong Kong - we have done so for the last 25 yrs or so. Originally he's from Australia and we're now spending more and more time here in semi-retirement. I'm from England. ======== #106248 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex) - In a message dated 3/25/2010 3:01:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear Alex in these posts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 you seemed to have doubts about the mahasi system. Could I ask why you are so positive about it now? Robert ============================== Robert, these two addresses are the same. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106249 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex) - In a message dated 3/25/2010 3:09:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: sorry this was the other post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77291 ================================================= Thanks for that, Robert. The content of that post is as follows: ________________________________ Hello all. Have you heard about Bhante Vimalaramsi? He claims that he went through entire Mahasi Method (sometimes meditating 20-22 hours per day) in Burma, reached what they said was Nibbana - but he says that it is not real thing and so he got dissatisfied with Mahasi Saydaws system. Any comments? How can this be? It appears that the system has to lead atleast to Sotapanna stage. Any ideas? Lots of metta, Alex _______________________________ I'd like to add two comments: 1) I think rather favorably of Ven V, and 2) I have strong reservations about Ven Mahasi's approach. Explaining the second of these: My main objection is the "labeling" he teaches, for I consider that to be a matter of thinking, not mere attentive observing, and it opens one up to all the conceptual presuppositions and errors already in place. As I see it, for the meditation process to be productive, it must involve not only calm but also a balancing clarity growing out of an objectivity of observation that sets aside discursive thinking for the time being. Labeling, I believe, subverts that relinquishment. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106250 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "...2) I have strong reservations about Ven Mahasi's approach. Explaining the second of these: My main objection is the 'labeling' he teaches, for I consider that to be a matter of thinking, not mere attentive observing, and it opens one up to all the conceptual presuppositions and errors already in place. As I see it, for the meditation process to be productive, it must involve not only calm but also a balancing clarity growing out of an objectivity of observation that sets aside discursive thinking for the time being. Labeling, I believe, subverts that relinquishment." Scott: This so-called 'objectivity of observation' is, as I see it, nothing more than thinking as well, hence, in the above, it is the pot calling the kettle black. ;-) The notion of the heroic meditator glibly differentiating between 'discursive thinking' and other aspects of consciousness by sheer dint of thinking about it is patently absurd. More evidence, for me, that all this is the Emperor's Clothes. Sincerely, Scott. #106251 From: han tun Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nama vs Citta hantun1 Re: [dsg] Re: Nama vs Citta dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Dear Sarah and Nori, Please click on the following http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/106141 One of the questions asked by Nori was quite specific: [Do you think D.O. (also the sequence that begins with Avijja & Sankharas) is representing 3 consecutive lives?] I think Nori was asking how the 12 factors of Dependent Origination are spread out into 3 consecutive lives. On page 301 of CMA, you will see Table 8.1: Dependent Arising Past life: 1. ignorance, 2. formation. Present life: 3. consciousness, 4. mind & matter, 5. six sense bases, 6. contact, 7. feeling, 8. craving, 9. clinging, 10. existence. Future life; 11. birth, 12. decay & death. And also in para 5 of CMA, it states: [How? Ignorance and kammic formations belong to the past; birth and decay-and-death belong to the future; the intermediate eight factors belong to the present. Thus there are three periods.] Nori (and I also) wanted to know what do you think about these 3 consecutive lives or the three periods? Your explanation by three rounds, i.e. the rounds of kamma-va.t.ta, vipaaka-va.t.ta, kilesa-va.t.ta, is very useful. It will even be more useful if we can know your views in terms of three periods as well. Respectfully, Han #106252 From: Ken O Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H > >I'm not sure I can see the point Ken O is trying to make either. > >The Dhamma teaches that there is no self. That entirely changes our understanding of the way things ultimately are. Ken O seems to think it only changes a few things. He seems to think it means there are no ultimately no people but it doesn't mean there are ultimately no computers (for example) or courses of action. > >I, on the other hand, think anatta means there are only dhammas. > >Ken H KO:? At utlimate level, definitely there is no self as all dhamma is not self.? The development of understanding must start conventionally.? No worldlings could expect to penetrate the meaning of not self in dhammas without conventional?language and actions like listening.? When you hear a dhamma talk, there is a conventional action, that does mean there is a self.?? When hearing citta hears, it hears only?sound rupa, it does not hear words, it is only through many process of hearing and mind process, then we are able to understand words.? that is no longer at paramatha level.? when we listen to words, that is already conventional. Conventional action does not mean a self, if everytime there is a conventional action and?equate it as?a self then there is no salvation?as all our listening will be full of self .? Then we cannot practise vipassana bhavana.? Conventional actions can be wrong also that is when miccha ditthi arise to conditon the wrong view of self which is one purposely intent to do an action for development of panna.? Until one is able to listening to words and the?direct understanding of?the sense door and mind door processing at the paramatha level and accumulate to the?understanding of these words, all our actions now?are just conventional. Cheers Ken O #106253 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:35 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg truth_aerator Hello Robert, All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Alex in these posts > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77320 you seemed to have doubts about the mahasi system. Could I ask why you are so positive about it now? > Robert > Check the date "Thu Oct 11, 2007" I've gotten far more wisdom since that time, and I've done a mahasi like retreat in '08. You probably can dig up a lot of things that I've said years ago with which I may disagree right now. One of the things is that I've grown more tolerant with different and perhaps valid approaches. The pali suttas may suggest labeling, so it may not be such a bad idea to label. With metta, Alex #106254 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:46 pm Subject: Part 1 of Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Pt (and Phil), I appreciate your patience! ========= > > Way on one hand, and Right View and the idea of no-control? But there is > > more, it is quite evident to me, that those who fail to see the Middle > > Way and insist instead on being proactive, this is due to their not > > seeing the greater harm in ignorance and more particularly, of > > self-view. And on the whole this results in what could be said to be a > > greater evil being encouraged while trying to deal with the lesser ones. > > pt: There's merit in what you say above, but it's choked to death by a small battalion of strawmen :) Sukin: :-) Frankly I?m not so familiar with the expression. So far I?ve only made vague guesses as to the meaning. I?ve looked up the dictionary but this hasn?t helped much, in fact I?m left even more confused especially since I can?t recognize the straw men in the above. Regardless of this, I?d like to make a few general statements: Whenever I write my posts, if there is any kusala intentions involved, these must be very few. I?ll also admit that in this particular case while I was writing, I had Phil in mind and hoped that he would be reading in. And yes, I did in fact recognize some moments of aversion in this regard. And if there was any misrepresentation of your position, the intention behind this was not known to me. Perhaps my constant reference to meditators and such is meant as cover for this kind of activity, or there could be some other explanation. Maybe I see what I like to see just so that I can then make my point in an attempt to be right, as you suggest later in this post. Or it could be that I?m so muddle headed when reading, that this causes me to continually miss the point. There is also the possibility that all these things are involved even in trying to get one point across. I don?t know. I am glad that you got something positive out of the above. For now what I will do is limit my reference only to you and what you do and not bring other ?meditators? in. I mean, I can?t avoid conceiving of the idea, since it appears that you do come in to defend the concept, even though you try at the same time to point out to me that we should think this in terms of paramattha dhammas?? =========== > > Suk: In the same way, my argument with you is not about frequency of akusala > > and kusala, but something else. I am not arguing against meditation > > because I believe that it involves little kusala or none at all, but > > that conceiving of the idea and believing in it is *wrong view*, period. > > And this is regardless of whether one is doing so-called samatha or > > vipassana. > > pt: Hm, well we keep talking past each other, as I'm trying to stress a related, but different, point - I'll try putting it in more ultimate terms which might be more familiar to you: > Let's start with how Sarah defined bhavana before - a moment of citta arising with panna (and other kusala dhammas). This is pretty much the clearest definition of meditation there is imo on a moment to moment level - and it's clear it's kusala when it happens. Now in a similar sense, I agree that "conceiving" the idea of meditation as something that will make panna (or wahtever else) arise is wrong view, or akusala basically. But this is also on a moment to moment basis, is it not? Sukin: Yes. ========== Pt: > So, then what I'm trying to argue against is the reasoning that the conventional activity of "meditation" that takes place over a stretch of time will necessarily be comprised of only kusala, or only akusala moments, as defined above. I mean, if we say there are only conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing, then it seems imprecise/pointless to talk about activities being kusala or akusala. Sukin: So what you are saying is that sometimes what comes across to me as being a defense of ?meditation? on your part, is actually an instance of your trying to point out this error to me? OK. ========== Pt: > I mean, regardless of whether conventionally speaking the person is meditating, or reading, or whatever, there'll still be conditioned kusala and akusala cittas arising and ceasing regardless of the activity. Thus, to imply that meditation as an activity is "wrong view", or akusala, seems imprecise because "meditating", or whatever other activity, is simply not a dhamma. Thus, to even stress a distinction between "meditation" and some other activity, seems a bit pointless, because they are not dhammas. Even more pointless is if we start insisting that this or that activity is always a/kusala. Sukin: Perhaps it?s just my accumulations to always refer to some conventional expressions of what happens on the ultimate level, in which case I don?t think it pointless to state then for example, that meditation is wrong per se. Indeed what I mean to point out is the fact of wrong understanding at the intellectual level leading to wrong practice. I do not at those times need to refer to the fact of kusala and akusala both arising in any extended period, because it has no connection to the point I?m trying to make. It seems to me that you make the kind of reference in part because you think in terms of your own past experience. Having judged your activities on and off the cushion as being more or less equal in terms of frequency of kusala vs. akusala, you use this to justify doing what you do. Of course you also speak generally about all activities, but it appears that you come in from a direction I still not see any point in coming in from. You go on to then argue in defense of meditation, by placing it against some other activity, but again I don?t agree with the reasoning behind this. When it is pointed out such things as the need to read and discuss the Dhamma, the point made is of the need for the development of right understanding at the Pariyatti level and not some conventional activity to follow. What do you have to say with reference to meditation in this regard? And when it is suggested that right understanding can arise during any and every activity and there is hence no need to do anything special, the point exactly is that at any given moment there are only paramattha dhammas, conditioned and beyond control. And again, this is different to saying that kusala and akusala both arise and fall away in more or less same frequency and therefore why not meditate. You are promoting the particular practice to which I object and you turn this around and say that I shouldn?t be objecting since I do not believe in objecting to any activity. But my objection is in fact to the wrong understanding and wrong practice associated, manifested conventionally as the belief in and the practice of meditation. Besides when it is said that what we do is conditioned and because of accumulations, hence the need to be ?natural?, this clearly stands in contrast to when one thinks in terms of better time and place etc. isn?t it? So in conclusion, you could say that it is not ?meditation? vs. reading or any other activity, but the difference in understanding leading to the two different conclusions about how the Path manifests in daily life. ============= > > Suk: Besides even if I allowed for the possibility that you or any particular > > meditator at some point is able to distinguish kusala from akusala when > > you sit, to claim that ?the difference between control and no control? > > is also seen to some extent sounds more like being confused about the > > whole thing. > > pt: Sure, always a possibility. Sukin: I don?t get it. You say that you practice samatha. The panna of samatha as you know does not understand anatta. So what I need explained is what was going on when ?control and no control was understood? while you were meditating? ============ > Suk: After all you do insist that what you practice is samatha, > > so how can panna of vipassana come in to know anatta to any degree?!! > > pt: Not sure I understand what you are trying to ask? Sukin: See above. ============ > > Suk: Besides, if no control is really understood, what of the attempt at > > going back to the meditation object, maintain a particular posture, keep > > the eyes shut or half open and whatever else that is included in the > > program? Why the need for this continues when the object of the > > development of understanding are paramattha dhammas? > > pt: Accumulations, no? Sukin: And the question is, accumulated wrong view expressing itself or was it some other dhamma? ============ > > Suk: As I tried to point out in an earlier post, I think it is unwise to > > refer to one?s experience as means to judge whether one?s practice is > > right or wrong. A moment of understanding after all must necessarily be > > accompanied with a corresponding degree of detachment such that when > > this happens, this would most particularly be towards having the > > understanding itself arise again. In other words, if you genuinely > > understood anatta to any extent while meditating, you?d see no reason to > > continue with it. > > pt: Okay, but I don't see how this conclusion is not according to your previous experiences? Sukin: If I see no need to think of a better time place and posture, ideally this would be due to having some understanding about the present moment arise. Thinking about what happened once and reasoning thence that I don?t need to repeat the activity, is *not* understanding. End of part 1 Metta, Sukinder #106255 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Part 2 Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Pt, Part 2 =========== Pt: Besides, I don't think I can agree with the last statement - imo, if you genuinely understood anatta to any extent while meditating, you'd see no reason to continue with it or stop it, because it'll be clear that meditation is a concept, not a dhamma. I mean, you'd be concerned with dhammas, not with concepts at that moment. Sukin: It is in the nature of citta to think, in other words, thinking invariably arises. The difference is in the associations, such that one moment you may think in terms of dhammas and another in terms of conventional situation. Wouldn?t it be expected that if one sat because of the particular ideas associated, there?d continue to be the kind of associations made even with the arising of panna? Knowing hardness when touching a table does not stop the concept of ?touching table? from arising. So while it is true that meditation is concept and one may understand this to be so, this isn?t exactly the basis for panna to reject the conventional activity. It could be anything, after all you aren?t fixed on the idea of meditation when meditating are you? Besides there are also the concepts of sitting, back erect, returning to breath and so on, isn?t view likely to be involved in thoughts about these for the one who has decided to take upon the practice? And so isn?t view in fact the likely object which causes one to reject the practice? =========== > Suk: But since you bring up personal experience, and even > > though I don?t see any value in referring to hindsight, what if I told > > you that, not long after I joined DSG, one day while meditating I saw > > what I otherwise would have taken for sati to actually be lobha, and > > this caused me to drop meditation completely? > > pt: I think I know what you are saying re sati and lobha. And I've heard it from others. So, I guess it's a common thing to come across so to speak. Some then seem to stop, some continue to see what other things they've been confusing all along. Some would even say that's the whole point of meditation. I find it hard to agree that one approach can be said to be better than the other, I mean, people have different accumulations so to speak. Sukin: Perhaps one problem is the insistence that these are ?approaches? to begin with? What about the understanding that there are in reality only paramattha dhammas and no person approaching anything? And isn?t this the whole point; I mean the difference is in this particular understanding? =========== > > > pt: Agreed, though this would have to do with vipassana bhavana. Not > > with samatha. > > > > S Now: But still, this is the nature of all dhammas and it?s about the > > understanding of the individual involved. One can?t suddenly talk as if > > one has never heard about anatta when wanting to justify practicing > > samatha. Besides even though the panna associated with samatha does not > > see the danger of ignorance, it is still however panna and therefore > > self view would not be involved. > > pt: Well, this has been said many times here, is there a particular point you are trying to make? Sukin: My point is this: While you agree that there is no such thing as formal vipassana practice, you do believe that samatha practice as you picture it, is a valid activity. I think as I know you also agree, that samatha in the ultimate sense refers to kusala citta and the development of this involves panna which recognizes the difference between this and any akusala which may arise. What you may not agree with is that this development takes place very gradually and is reflected in the ability to understand or not the citta now, at this very moment. It is therefore not about something which will happen more easily in a special setting with some chosen object of concentration. The very suggestion is reflection of values misplaced as far as I can see. In other words, the person who really knows the difference between kusala and akusala cittas, for him the interest would be in its development in daily life. This would be so even if his accumulations were so great as to make him eligible for Jhana. The suggestion to find a quite place and try to concentrate in order to develop samatha sounds therefore empty and without base. For the Buddhist it reflects also the lack of understanding about conditionality and anatta, which makes the situation even more difficult. ============ > > S Now: Now means now and this has nothing to do with any decision to > > observe. It is more that either there is sati or there isn?t. It is > > about recognizing any desire to have sati whether here at this very > > moment or there at another time and place. Yes, yes, it is easy to talk > > and miss the point. One gets the point when panna does arise to know a > > paramattha. The one who continues to think in terms of concepts of > > better time, place and posture, does this not appear to you like > > decreasing the chance for such an understanding to arise? > And that which > > constantly points to the present moment, is this not one that allows for > > better recognition of obstacles such as this? > > pt: Again... You start beautifully, and then choke it to death... Sukin: Sorry, but I can?t promise any change soon considering what I said in the beginning of this post. ;-) ============ > > S Now: Or if you didn?t so easily jump the gun each time, you?d > > recognize something else in these statements. ;-) > > In the above I was loudly making the point that the idea of meditation > > is wrong per se, therefore in all cases with no exception. Not only > > this, but also to point out one common symptom, which is that of the > > lack of appreciation regarding the reality / concept distinction. > > pt: Yes, on a moment to moment basis. On a conventional level though, meditation as a conventional activity is simply not a dhamma, and thus claiming that meditation is a/kusala or right/wrong view is also mistaking concepts for realities, is it not? Sukin: Again, it could be a matter of conventional expression of what in reality is wrong understanding at the intellectual level leading to wrong practice. With regard to the moment to moment phenomena, as I tried to point out earlier, the thought to maintain a particular posture, keep the eyes closed, coming back to the meditation object repeatedly, what motivates these, right or wrong understanding? ============ > > Suk: Tell me Pt, the whole idea of meditation, what is the rationale behind > > it? If you restrict to samatha only, keep in mind that you are coming in > > with the knowledge about Buddhadhamma. > > pt: It seems right when it happens. Sukin: I know that at the root of this assertion is something more than say, someone who follows another religion and is convinced by the result of his practice. But do try to explain, since others are also trying to explain their understanding based on what is taught. As a first step perhaps you could cite something in the texts, that suggests the Buddha to actually have *taught* meditation, the kind you follow? ============ > > Suk: While what I have been saying all along could be said to be proclaiming > > and insisting on the fact of there being only One Path namely the Noble > > Eightfold Path, the defense you take and the arguments made, appear to > > be suggesting otherwise. Certainly, while I continue to perceive that > > the view behind my conclusion about the Path is one thing, I see yours > > and those of all meditators as being of something else altogether, but > > you have been trying to tell me that I must allow for all being possibly > > right! Can you please clarify here? > > pt: Again... > > Please, let's be constructive rather than trying to be right. Sukin: How much this is due to any cheating dhammas from me and how much it is an insistence on your part that I conform to certain values set by you, I don?t know. Perhaps you do not want to continue with this. And I know that I am very far behind in my reading and therefore not read the relevant post. But as far as I can recall, I?ve not seen answers to the question above. Do you think it is not necessary to answer them for whatever reason? Sorry for the very long post. If you?d like to discontinue with this discussion, this tendency of mine to write long response would no doubt be a good reason for it. End. Metta, Sukin #106256 From: Ken O Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Part 2 Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ashkenn2k Dear Sukin Sukin: Perhaps one problem is the insistence that these are “approaches” to begin with? What about the understanding that there are in reality only paramattha dhammas and no person approaching anything? And isn’t this the whole point; I mean the difference is in this particular understanding? KO: In the reality of paramatha dhamma, there is on approach, no rules and no method. No dispute on this. So now can you tell me is reading and listening a paramatha dhamma or not. If you advocate paramatha level, why do you read and listen to dhamma since they are not at paramatha level and listening to dhamma words is not a paramatha. Why do you approach to understand dhamma to use reading and listening of dhamma since they are not paramatha. Also can you show me any Buddha text that refute samantha bhavana. There are two approaches to one way, the one way is the attainment of vipassana nana for delimiting nama and rupas. I have been saying, developing understanding is definitely based on paramatha dhamma, no doubts about it. Developing understanding has to be reading and listening and these activities are not paramatha. There is nothing wrong about such activities. It is wrong when self view arise if we think that is an I who listens. The problem is the I in these activites or there is a self purposedly do these activites, and not the activities. Without such activities, it is impossible for us to learn dhamma unless we are Buddha or paccekaBuddha. I have replace action with activities so there is less argument over this word. Cheers Ken O #106257 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Kens, Regarding: KO:? "At utlimate level, definitely there is no self as all dhamma is not self...When you hear a dhamma talk, there is a conventional action, that does mean there is a self.?? When hearing citta hears, it hears only?sound rupa, it does not hear words, it is only through many process of hearing and mind process, then we are able to understand words.? that is no longer at paramatha level.? when we listen to words, that is already conventional...Conventional actions can be wrong also that is when miccha ditthi arise to conditon the wrong view of self which is one purposely intent to do an action for development of panna.? Until one is able to listening to words and the?direct understanding of?the sense door and mind door processing at the paramatha level and accumulate to the?understanding of these words, all our actions now?are just conventional." Scott: This is a worthwhile discussion yet the polarities continue to be expressed. I've expressed dissatisfaction with Ken H's uber-paramattha stance and I'm dissatisfied with Ken O's notion of 'conventional action.' I'd be interested in a more explicit explanation of the notion of 'conventional action.' I take it that the 'conventional' refers to the construed - the culmination of multiple mind-door processes which construct thoughts and creates wholes. Is this 'conventional action' meant as a bridge to paramattha, as if such things occur on a continuum from 'conventional' to 'paramattha?' If one accepts that action is cetanaa-cetasika and this alone, in the moment, then when one begins to discuss 'conventional action' one does so as a way of conceptualizing things. That there is action is not in doubt. That cetanaa-cetasika - in tandem with other dhammas of course - can serve as condition for its own repeated arising such that a set of conventionally construed interconnected moments of mind-produced matter can run a course is also clear. It seems to me that the way in which this whole is considered is a matter of thought. 'Conventional action' might be misleading. Sincerely, Scott. #106258 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:05 pm Subject: not enough panna? truth_aerator Dear Kevin, Robert, all, >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Farrell > I think it might be very helpful for you if you read Realities and >Concepts by Sujin so that you can understand the difference between >realities and concepts and how that whole thing functions. I've skimmed through the pdf. To tell you the truth it doesn't sound very much like what the Buddha did teach. >Kevin: I doubt there is any room for development in this day and age >because our wisdom faculty is low. How do you know? Maybe the problem is that smart people started to have wrong idea of what wisdom is and over complicate (papanca) what shouldn't be. ===== "And what, bhikkhus, is the faculty of wisdom? Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is wise; he possesses wisdom directed to arising and passing away, which is noble and penetrative, leading to the complete destruction of suffering. He understands as it really is: `This is suffering.' He understands as it really is: `This is the origin of suffering.' He 5 understands as it really is: `This is the cessation of suffering.' He understands as it really is: `This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.' This is called the faculty of wisdom. - SN 48.10 BB translation. ""Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." "And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming ? accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there ? i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. "And what is the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress? Just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view." "And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, & from illicit sex. This is called right action. "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself ? ardent, alert, & mindful ? putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves ? ardent, alert, & mindful ? putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk ? quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities ? enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation ? internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain ? as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress ? he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. "This is called the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html === Looking over these and other suttas what they hammer is that craving is the origin of suffering (2nd NT), cessation of craving is cessation of suffering. Right view is knowing and seeing these NT and following the rest of N8P. So the insight doesn't really mean that one can write big long books read and debated by scholars. Insight is not some secret ultra secret knowledge. It is cessation of all craving & ignorance (of 4NT). With metta, Alex #106259 From: Kevin Farrell Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] not enough panna? farrellkevin80 To Alex, Alex wrote: " Dear Kevin, Robert, all, >dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, Kevin Farrell > I think it might be very helpful for you if you read Realities and >Concepts by Sujin so that you can understand the difference between >realities and concepts and how that whole thing functions. I've skimmed through the pdf. To tell you the truth it doesn't sound very much like what the Buddha did teach." Kevin: Hi Alex. I was going to respond to your other message but then I saw this and I noticed that my response to this was largely the same as it was to the other one, so to save time and energy, I will just respond here to both messages. What I was going to say in that message was that you responded point by point and that it would take some time for me to respond to all of them.. I noticed that many of the points you made seem to arise because of your apparent misunderstanding of realities and concepts. Therefore, I was going to suggest that you read Realities and Concepts to clear this up and then respond to me, so that you could at least understand where you were misunderstanding my (and other peoples) points but not understanding what we are referring to when we talk about realities and concepts. You say that you have skimmed the book. That is quite good; however, skimming won't do if you want to penetrate the dhamma, frankly. There needs to be a firm understanding of what is inside it. If there had been a firm understanding of this in past lives, you would not need lengthy explanations now. If you have respect for the Dhamma, you should read the whole booklet. It, in fact, is only a very short excerpt from a much larger book by Ajahn. Should you wish to continue this conversation with me, I suggest that you read the book, which is only a mere few pages. This will allow us to understand what each other are talking about much better and cause the discussion to move along. It is much appreciated by me. At present, I feel that I am not even really discussing anything with you because your not keen on what I mean when I talk about the difference between panna knowing a reality and citta knowing a reality, and other things. The book can be found here: http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Thank you. Yours truly, Kevin P.S. you quoted me and wrote that I said: >Kevin: "I doubt there is any room for development in this day and age >because our wisdom faculty is low", but what the full quotation of what I said read "Lest someone understands about realities and concepts very clearly on the conceptual level, I doubt there is any room for development in this day and age because our wisdom faculty is low." This refers to the development of panna on the level of pariyatti. Thanks again. Look forward to discussing this again with you soon. Kevin F. __._,_ #106260 From: Kevin Farrell Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] not enough panna? farrellkevin80 To Alex, Kevin: Please forgive me. I rushed to quote and reply to the second part of your message and I never said "please". Please read the short booklet, as it will help our discussion be much more fruitful. Thank you, Kevin The Lost Trailers: http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 ________________________________ #106261 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg nilovg Dear Alex, Op 24-mrt-2010, om 17:44 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > The thing is that one cannot be consistently aware of "ultimate > only" reality in daily life. This is why retreats and daily > secluded sittings are a good idea. > > You cannot ignore traffic lights ...(snipped) > When one sits in sitting meditation, then one can and should > totally disregard conventional world and observe, understand and > learn about the ultimates. ------ N: No need to disregard conventional truth. When you touch the keybord of your computer now, hardness appears naturally, and when there is awareness just for a moment the characteristic of hardness can be known as just hardness, no keybord. There is no need to think about it or to name it. This does not disturb your work, you can just go on with all that you are used to doing. There may not be many moments of awareness but gradually there can be more understanding of naama and ruupa and that is what matters. This is a test: do you mind whethere there are many moments of sati or only a few? If one minds it shows attachment. One can and should find out whether there is lobha when seeking another scenario which is not daily life. Nobody else can answer that question for you. You are wondering whethere there should not be hard work. If you see the value of kusala, no matter what kind, no matter how slight, you will engage with any form of kusala that is on your way: helping, respect, observing siila, studying the teachings, giving usefull things to others, expressing appreciation of others' kusala, kind speech, developing perfections such as patience, mettaa, and so on. There is enough work to do. ------- Nina. #106262 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was:Nama vs Citta nilovg Dear Han and Nori, Op 25-mrt-2010, om 14:40 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Nori (and I also) wanted to know what do you think about these 3 > consecutive lives or the three periods? > > Your explanation by three rounds, i.e. the rounds of kamma-va.t.ta, > vipaaka-va.t.ta, kilesa-va.t.ta, is very useful. > > It will even be more useful if we can know your views in terms of > three periods as well. ------- N: I quote from my Visuddhimagga studies, and we see that there is no simple explanation. It is all very intricate and many ways of viewing D.O. are possible. <:As we have seen, the Dependent Origination has been taught by way of twelve links: ignorance, formations, consciousness, naama-ruupa, the sixfold base, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and the twelfth link consisting of old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. In the following section it is explained that the cycle of birth and death can be seen under two aspects, that is as two parts: one part going back to the past, beginning with ignorance and ending with feeling, and one part continuing into the future, beginning with craving and ending with sorrow, etc. It is said that there are two roots of the cycle, namely ignorance and craving. --------- Text Visuddhimagga: [(ii) The Three Times] 284. After knowing this, again: Its roots are ignorance and craving; Its times are three as past and so on, To which there properly belong Two, eight, and two, from its [twelve] factors. Text Vis. 285: The two things, ignorance and craving, should be understood as the root of this Wheel of Becoming. Of the derivation from the past, ignorance is the root and feeling the end. -------- N: The Tiika adds: as to the division that goes back to the past, this produces vipaaka at the present time. This is one Wheel of Becoming with the delimitation of feeling as the ending. ------------ Text Vis.: And of the continuation into the future, craving is the root and ageing-and-death the end. It is twofold in this way. ------- N: Feeling conditions craving. When we take the second part of the Wheel that continues into the future, this begins with craving, and craving is always associated with ignorance. Thus, also this link that is craving is not without ignorance. The Tiika states that because of feeling there is ignorance that is associated with craving and that kamma-formations are bound up with ignorance. Thus, the Wheel of Becoming is complete with feeling as ending. Ignorance and craving can be taken as the roots of the Wheel of Becoming, there is no contradiction. The Tiika adds that because of kamma-formations there is becoming, because of consciousness etc, there are ageing and death. When sorrow etc. are considered there is also feeling as ending and thus the Wheel of Becoming has been applied with craving as root. N: Sorrow is actually unhappy feeling, and in this way feeling can also be seen as the ending. ------- Conclusion: Craving is one of the roots, and craving is always accompanied by ignorance. Ignorance conceals the danger of akusala. We read about craving: Text Vis. 235: When visible-data craving occurs, enjoying with sense-desire enjoyment a visible datum as object that has come into the focus of the eye, it is called craving for sense desires. But when [that same visible-data craving] occurs along with the eternity view that assumes that same object to be lasting and eternal, it is called craving for becoming; for it is the greed accompanying the eternity view that is called craving for becoming. When it occurs along with the annihilation view that assumes that same object to break up and be destroyed, it is called craving for non-becoming. The Wheel ends with sorrow: As we read: ? Sorrow, grief and despair are inseparable from ignorance?. Whenever sorrow arises, the citta is akusala citta and each akusala citta is accompanied by ignorance. The canker of sense desire leads to sorrow and since sorrow is accompanied by ignorance, ignorance is established, it is accumulated. We are reminded of the extent of our defilements, we learn that ignorance is very powerful, that it permeates our whole life. It arises with each akusala citta, even now. We have craving for all objects that can be experienced through the six doors and thus we accumulate craving and ignorance time and again. It is urgent to develop wisdom, vijjaa, so that ignorance, avijjaa, can be eliminated. ----------- In the previous sections it was explained that the cycle of birth and death can be seen under two aspects, that is, as two parts. One part going back to the past, beginning with ignorance, formations, consciousness, naama-ruupa, the sixfold base, contact and ending with feeling. The second part continuing into the future, beginning with craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and the twelfth link consisting of old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. --------- Nina. #106263 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:51 pm Subject: concepts and craving. truth_aerator > To Alex, > > Kevin: Please forgive me. I rushed to quote and reply to the second part of your message and I never said "please". Please read the short booklet, as it will help our discussion be much more fruitful. > > Thank you, > > Kevin Dear Kevin, Nina, all, I'll read it again soon. Anyhow what I've read a bit about concepts in Abhidhammasangaha is interesting, although I do have a question, "so what does one do about it? How does learning about ultimate non-existence of trees, mountains and so on, removes craving?" We don't always crave because we believe in ontological existence of those things. We crave because we don't realize with all one's heart the significance of 4NT. Didn't the Buddha say that it is improper to talk about whether "things exist or not"? - AN 10.69 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html Isn't analysis of whole into its parts itself a sort of conceptual activity itself? The wholes have a function that is not found in its parts, so the emergent function of the whole does exist! ===Pannatti in CMA=== ? 4. Therein the material states are just the aggregates of matter. Consciousness and mental states, which comprise the four immaterial aggregates, and Nibbana are the five kinds of the immaterial. They are also called `name' (Nama). The remainder Pannatti (39), is twofold, insamuch as it is made known, or as it makes known. How? There are such terms as `land', `mountain' and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as `house', `chariot', `cart' and the like, so named on account of the mode of formation of materials; such terms as `person' `individual' and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates; such terms as `direction', `time,' and the like, named according to the revolution of the moon and so forth; such terms as `well', `cave' and the like, so named on account of the mode of non-impact and so forth; such terms as Kasina-objects and the like, so named on account of respective elements and different mental culture. All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. They are called `pannatti' because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This `Pannatti' is so called because it is made known. As it makes known it is called `pannatti'. It is described as `name', `name-made', etc. It is sixfold (40):? 1. A real concept, 2. an unreal concept, 3. an unreal concept by means of real concept, 4. a real concept by means of an unreal concept, 5. a real concept by means of a real concept, 6. an unreal concept by means of an unreal concept. As, for instance, when they make known by a term, such as `matter', `feeling', and so forth that exist in reality, it is called a `real concept'. When they make known by a term, such as `land', `mountain' and so forth that do not exist in reality, it is called an `unreal concept.' The rest should respectively be understood by combining both as, for instance, `possessor of sixfold supernormal vision', `woman's voice', `visual cognition', `king's son'. Land, mountain, etc. are called `santhanapannatti,' formal concepts, since they correspond to the form of things. Chariot, village, etc., are called `samuha-pannatti', collective concepts, since they correspond to a collection or group of things. East, West, etc. are called `disa-pannatti', local concepts, since they correspond to locality. Morning, noon, etc. are called `kala-pannatti', time concepts, since they correspond to time. Well, cave etc. are called `akasa-pannatti', space concepts, since they correspond to open space. Visualized image, conceptualised image, etc. are called `nimitta-pannatti', since they correspond to mental signs gained by mental development. Six kinds of Pannatti? 1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense. 2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things that do not exist in an ultimate sense. 3. `Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision'. Here the former does not exist in an ultimate sense, but the latter does. 4. Woman's voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate sense, but not the woman. 5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness dependent on it. 6. King's son. Here neither the son nor the king exists in an ultimate sense. ==================== By Ven. Narada Mahathera ========= The above is interesting, but it does seem to be like asking about: ""It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. "In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata." "And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html With metta, Alex #106264 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) nilovg Dear pt, Op 25-mrt-2010, om 5:48 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Would it be correct then to say that a "moment" (as in cittakkhana) > refers not to some specific duration of conceptual time, but to an > instance of certain dhammas coming together and falling apart (or > more precisely, arising, presence and dissolving) that can be seen > to happen through insight? -------- N: Moment is not a duration of conceptual time. The three submoments of citta indicate the nature of citta that arises, is present very briefly and falls away. Also: kha.na is a comparative notion to show that the duration of ruupa is seventeen moments of citta. ------- > pt:In addition, another thing I find really hard here is when it's > said that dhammas arise and then fall away completely. I mean, I > don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that every single > citta will be accompanied by the same cetasika, like manasikara for > example which has the function of attention. So, the same function > every time, even though cittas and jati might succesively change. ------- N: No citta, no cetasika, no ruupa that arises after the previous one has fallen away is ever the same, even when they are called by the same name. Citta and cetasika condition each other, thus, manasikaara accompanying kusala citta is quite different from manasikaara accompanying akusala citta. Its function is the same, but it exerts its function in a kusala way or in an akusala way. It is conditioned by the other accompanying cetasikas, so there is an immense variety. -------- > pt: So, while I can understand that saying "dhammas fall away > completely" can be useful in order to stress the anatta > acharacteristic of dhammas, at the same time, it doesn't seem to be > very precise, because the same function is evident from one citta > to another. I'm curious how you and others resolve this logical > problem. ------- N: Citta and accompanying cetasikas arise together at the same base, experience the same object and fall away together, it cannot be otherwise. Each citta is succeeded by a following one and it depends on conditions by what types of cetasikas and what amount of cetasikas it will be accompanied. ------- Nina. #106265 From: han tun Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta hantun1 Dear Nina (Sarah, Nori), Thank you very much for your elaborate explanation. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/106262 I really appreciate it. It is indeed very useful. > Nina: I quote from my Visuddhimagga studies, and we see that there is no simple explanation. It is all very intricate and many ways of viewing D.O. are possible. Han; Yes, there are many ways of considering the Dependent Origination. In CMA on page 299, para 4 Categories of Analysis, it is stated that [It should be understood that there are three periods, twelve factors, twenty modes, three connections, four groups, three rounds, and two roots.] I have read the explanations on the above categories given in the CMA, and in The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon. I have no difficulty in understanding them, but I wish to gather more information from Sarah, and now, you have kindly provided excellent explanations. ---------- > Nina: In the previous sections it was explained that the cycle of birth and death can be seen under two aspects, that is, as two parts. One part going back to the past, beginning with ignorance, formations, consciousness, naama-ruupa, the sixfold base, contact and ending with feeling. The second part continuing into the future, beginning with craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and the twelfth link consisting of old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. Han: I am grateful to you for bringing up this two-part analysis. In the book on D.O. by Nyaunglebin Sayadaw (who was well-known in Burma, but not so much out-side of the country), it is mentioned that the main cycle of twelve factors can be broken up into two smaller cycles. (1) Pubbantabhava cycle starting from avijjaa and ending in vedanaa; and (2) Aparantabhava cycle starting from ta.nhaa and ending in jaraa-mara.na. Sayadaw also explained how vedanaa can go back to avijjaa in Pubbantabhava cycle, and how jaraa-mara.na can go back to ta.nhaa in Aparantabhava cycle; and also how jaraa-mara.na can go back to avijjaa in the main cycle of twelve factors. The explanations given by Sayadaw are more or less the same as you have explained. Thank you very much, once again. Respectfully, Han #106266 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:59 pm Subject: Was Buddha a philosopher? Realities & Concepts truth_aerator Hello Kevin, Nina, all, I am stuck in the begining of KS's work of Concepts & Realities: "What is real and what is only concept? Or is anything real? We might think these perennial questions are the irrelevant musings of philosophers. In fact, as the following pages make clear, they are pertinent to every moment of our lives. More than 2500 years ago, Siddhattha Gotama, the Buddha, comprehended the answers to them; and with unlimited patience and compassion explained how to develop that same knowledge. We are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a period where his complete teachings are still available. " http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm And the sutta: "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. ...From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html Now, some say that D.O. is a middle-way ontology of how the world out there is - it is neither statically existent nor statically non-existent. However in AN3.61 it says that DO in arising mode is the truth of suffering. DO in cessation mode is cessation of suffering (3rd NT). "Ignorance is deeply rooted and very persistent. It conditions us to cling to conventional truth and to take realities for things, beings, and people." - KS on Concepts & Realities. I agree with first sentence, but not the 2nd, The suttas: "Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering ? this is called ignorance. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html Note: No mention of non-existent of beings. That is actually a "clinging" link, not ignorance. "There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving there is the cessation of clinging." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ""It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored...until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. "In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata." "And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html Any comments? With metta, Alex #106267 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ---------- <. . .> KO:?> without reading will you able to reach your goal.? That is the reason why sometimes DSG people get carried away by paramatha dhamma.? Understanding paramattha dhamma does not mean there is no conventional action.? ---------- Yes it does. When there is satipatthana (right understanding of a conditioned dhamma) panna knows "this is all there is." --------------------------------------------- KO: > Understanding paramattha dhamma does not mean there is no conventional action.? You should not listen or read dhamma, because they are all conventional actions since ulimately there is on reading.?? ---------------------------------------------- I agree it doesn't mean that. Notions of 'should' and 'should not' do not play a role in satipatthana. They don't play a role because there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment. -------------------------- <. . .> KO:? > Does that mean there is no conventional action?? Can you quote me which Buddha disciple who do not do conventional action like listening to dhamma.? --------------------------- The term 'Buddhist disciple' is merely a conventional designation. Ultimately, there are just the presently arisen namas and rupas. Ultimate reality is the only reality taught by the Buddha. People (even Abhidhamma scholars) sometimes make the mistake of believing there were two realities taught by the Buddha, a conventional one and an ultimate one. But there was only one. When the Buddha uses the conventional designation "walking" (for example) we are to understand it in the ultimate sense - just namas and rupas. When he talks about going to find a teacher, sitting respectfully to one side, and listening to the Dhamma we are to understand it in the ultimate sense - namas and rupas. Which particular namas and rupas? You could try to see walking as the dhammas that think about walking and the bodily intimations that accompany them (etc). But, better still, just understand the dhammas that are arising here and now. They are all the same. They all have the same basic three characteristics. ------------------------------------- KO: > Citta cannot understand word until citta experience the?words?of dhamma.??Words are pannati.??You are saying you could understand more paramatha dhamma without such conventional actions to listen to dhamma ------------------------------------- Yes. The presently arisen dhammas are the ones that must be understood. There is no time for opening books and looking for "presently arisen dhammas" in the index. It's too late for that. Right understanding or no right understanding, whatever happens now will depend on conditions that have already been put in place. ------------- <. . .> KO:? If there is no conventional exist, pse do not read dhamma books since it is wrong view.? On one hand you said there are concepts without ignorance and on the other you are saying it is wrong view when we believe conventional action really exist.? -------------- Yes, but there is no contradiction in what I said. Thoughts of book-reading can, and often do, arise without any views on the the ultimate reality of books, or readers, or acts of book reading. Ken H #106268 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, --------------- <. . .> KO: > At utlimate level, definitely there is no self as all dhamma is not self.?The development of understanding must start conventionally.? --------------- Without wanting to be pedantic, I would say the development of understanding must start now (with a presently arisen dhamma as its object). Now is the only time there is. -------------------------- KO: > No worldlings could expect to penetrate the meaning of not self in dhammas without conventional?language and actions like listening.? ------------------------ A worldling is just a citta. Just like the one that has arisen now. ------------------------- KO: > When you hear a dhamma talk, there is a conventional action, that does mean there is a self.?? ------------------------- If there can be a conventional action - in addition to conditioned dhammas - then there can be a self in addition to conditioned dhammas. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. ------------------------------ KO: > When hearing citta hears, it hears only?sound rupa, it does not hear words, it is only through many process of hearing and mind process, then we are able to understand words.? that is no longer at paramatha level.? when we listen to words, that is already conventional. ------------------------------ "Conventional" is just a term, or designation. The only right way of understanding it is as a shorthand way of saying "the five khandhas" or "the presently arisen namas and rupas." Don't fall into the trap of thinking the conventional really exists - as some kind of alternative reality. There is only one reality. --------------------------- KO: > Conventional action does not mean a self, if everytime there is a conventional action and?equate it as?a self then there is no salvation?as all our listening will be full of self .? Then we cannot practise vipassana bhavana.? Conventional actions can be wrong also that is when miccha ditthi arise to conditon the wrong view of self which is one purposely intent to do an action for development of panna.? Until one is able to listening to words and the?direct understanding of?the sense door and mind door processing at the paramatha level and accumulate to the?understanding of these words, all our actions now?are just conventional. --------------------------- Never! :-) There are always only dhammas. Whether we know it or not, that's all there ever are. Ken H #106269 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part 2 Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hello Ken, ========== Sukin: Perhaps one problem is the insistence that these are “approaches” to begin with? What about the understanding that there are in reality only paramattha dhammas and no person approaching anything? And isn’t this the whole point; I mean the difference is in this particular understanding? KO: In the reality of paramatha dhamma, there is on approach, no rules and no method. No dispute on this. So now can you tell me is reading and listening a paramatha dhamma or not. S: You are thinking about the concept, so the answer is concept. ;-) ========== KO: If you advocate paramatha level, why do you read and listen to dhamma since they are not at paramatha level and listening to dhamma words is not a paramatha. S: Knowing you, I expect that there is something deeper behind your question which I can’t figure out yet. But I’ll give you my superficial answer so that you will then elaborate. Or say, why do I watch football or eat or write this email? Conditions. But I think I know what you are getting at. What you are trying to tell me is that without concepts there would not be any action through body, speech or thinking, right? I agree! ========== KO: Why do you approach to understand dhamma to use reading and listening of dhamma since they are not paramatha. S: Here you’ve introduced the words “approach” and “use”, which sounds like ‘method’ and ‘control’. But again you may simply be pointing out the role of concepts in getting things done…….. ========== KO: Also can you show me any Buddha text that refute samantha bhavana. S: No of course the Buddha did not refute samatha bhavana. He saw value in it and in fact encouraged it all the time. But where does it stand in the context of his Teachings? Here is what I think: All kusala is to be encouraged and all akusala discouraged. Samatha bhavana is to be encouraged over occasional instances of mere kusala. Jhana is the highest level of such kusala and therefore the best of these. Of the kusala dhammas, there are some which is part of the development of Parami and these in fact, need particularly to be developed if there is ever going to be the development of wisdom. The development of wisdom, namely the Noble Eightfold Path is the highest of kusala being the one Path able to deal with ignorance and all the kilesas. Supramundane dhammas are the highest of all. One can see from the above, that the Buddha would encourage the development of the Path over every other kusala since none of those can ever lead to the kilesas being lessened. As you know, he did this in the case of the busy householder as he did with the Jhana expert. You also know that an ariyan householder is worthy of veneration many times more than say, a puthujana bhikkhu who has mastered the Jhanas. So why encourage samatha bhavana, when one should instead be encouraging the development of wisdom? You would note that the objections I make in my posts are when faced with such situations. Indeed it is even more dire, namely when samatha bhavana itself is being misunderstood. Why would I encourage samatha bhavana otherwise, when I would never say no to even a small instance of kindness? ========== KO: There are two approaches to one way, the one way is the attainment of vipassana nana for delimiting nama and rupas. S: You mean the other so-called approach need not understand the distinction between nama and rupa and experience the other vipassanannanas? ========== KO: I have been saying, developing understanding is definitely based on paramatha dhamma, no doubts about it. Developing understanding has to be reading and listening and these activities are not paramatha. There is nothing wrong about such activities. It is wrong when self view arise if we think that is an I who listens. The problem is the I in these activites or there is a self purposedly do these activites, and not the activities. Without such activities, it is impossible for us to learn dhamma unless we are Buddha or paccekaBuddha. I have replace action with activities so there is less argument over this word. S: So I guess your point is to prove that since concepts are needed for actions such as reading the Dhamma to happen, objections to ‘doings’ should be restricted to whether self-view is involved or not. You have read my arguments in the post you responded to, so I won’t repeat them here. But let me just ask you this: If I were to say that every morning I sat on the ground in front of my house with my left hand touching the ground and right hand up with the index finger pointing to the sky and said that this enables me to have more kusala in a day, would you need to first find out whether there was self-view involved? I am in a rush and have no time to give this post a review. Metta, Sukinder #106270 From: "nori" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:50 am Subject: Re: Nama vs Citta norakat147 Hi Sarah & All, Thank you for your comments on Citta. --- N:"So do you think in the sequence - Avijjaapaccayaa - ignorance sa.nkhaaraa vi~n~naa.na / Citta naamaruupa sa.laayatana. m ... ... all of these things can occur sequentially, or non-sequentially in a 'single' given 'lifetime'? ... and if so then what (phenomenon) is actually ignorant, and what (phenomenon) is actually giving birth? ---end quote---" S: "Let's start with avijja. Avijja arises with all unwholesome (akusala) cittas. So now, ..." So to apply what you said specifically to the question, I think what you mean is that Avijja can refer over and over again to any citta's that arise in one given life; while Jati always refers to a birth in the next life... is this correct? I think I understand your other comments on D.O.; thank you for the explanations. With Metta, Nori S: So glad you got to Sri Lanka.... I forget if you were originally from Asia or not? My family came from Japan including my two brothers; I was the only one born here in the States. S: Jon and I live in Hong Kong - we have done so for the last 25 yrs or so. Originally he's from Australia and we're now spending more and more time here in semi-retirement. I'm from England. Oh that's right; what a change from England, though, I guess it was British... must speak fluent Chinese by now. Actually, nowadays, every major city around the world is becoming similar. Have you ever been up north/NW into the mountains or countryside of China? I hope to go visit sometime... #106271 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:34 am Subject: Re: concepts and craving. szmicio Dear Alex, > I'll read it again soon. Anyhow what I've read a bit about concepts in Abhidhammasangaha is interesting, although I do have a question, "so what does one do about it? L: Do what? >How does learning about ultimate non-existence of trees, mountains and so on, removes craving?" We don't always crave because we believe in ontological existence of those things. We crave because we don't realize with all one's heart the significance of 4NT. L: And this is exactly why we craving, because we dont understand 4NT. That there is not Self who craves but the mental reality that do this. Because of ingnorance of 4NT, there is craving. > > Didn't the Buddha say that it is improper to talk about whether "things exist or not"? - AN 10.69 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html > > Isn't analysis of whole into its parts itself a sort of conceptual activity itself? L: Yes, But no one do this. No Self anywhere, just activity. Best wishes Lukas #106272 From: "nori" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: D.O. was:Nama vs Citta norakat147 Dear Nina, (Sarah, Han & All), Nina: "In the following section it is explained that the cycle of birth and death can be seen under two aspects, that is as two parts: one part going back to the past, beginning with ignorance and ending with feeling, and one part continuing into the future, beginning with craving and ending with sorrow, etc." Thank you for pointing this out. It seems like a clear way of viewing it; and is also in accord with the comments by Bhikku Bohdi in CMA which Han pointed out. --- I would also like to express my appreciation for your contributions to Buddhism you have made on the internet which I run into from time to time. --- Just a few questions (also for anyone else to answer) if you don't mind: If citta is to be understood as (only) a (passing) witness/observing-entity. What entity/phenomenon do we hold to have understanding, or a lack of it (i.e. Avidya)? ----- In my personal observation, I view 'memory' to exist in support by 'physical' formations/sankharas (e.g. formations in the physical brain, or other parts of the body) or is it possible that 'memory' exists otherwise? (Such as in the case where the Buddha has the ability to recall past lives.) Also, is 'memory' a necessary support for 'knowing'/understanding - that is 'science' (defined as: "possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance (nescience)) ? ----- When we say *that* which is ignorant, do we mean *that* which is a conglomerate entity - 'self' (defined as: ever arising and passing - cittas, naamaruupas with its formations) or can we reduce it to some entity more specific? ----- Also last question: Can Jati possibly also refer to the birth of a single citta (in the abhidammic view of many arising and passing cittas) (in which case many jati's can occur in a single life); or is it definitely referring to the conglomerate entity of 'self' (defined as: cittas, naamaruupas with its formations)? (I believe it must refer to the jati of a conglomerate entity of 'self' (defined as: cittas, naamaruupas with its formations) since following jati in Maha-nidana Sutta is jaraamara.na.m - aging & death, sorrow, lament. A single passing citta does not experience jaraamara.na.m, so I reason that it must be referring to the conglomerate subject.) Thoughts are appreciated. Please forgive me if any of these questions are based on wrong views. With Metta, Nori #106273 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:57 pm Subject: Doubt and Uncertainty creates Hesitation! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: How to cure hesitant Doubt and Uncertainty! Noticing Doubt-&-Uncertainty (vicikicch a) emerge can make it fade away: Herein, Bhikkhus, when Doubt-&-Uncertainty is present in him, the bhikkhu notes & understands: "There is Doubt-&-Uncertainty in me", and when this Doubt-&-Uncertainty is absent, he similarly notices and understands: "Now no Doubt-&-Uncertainty is in me". He also fully understands how unarisen Doubt-&-Uncertainty arises. He also understands how to leave behind any arisen Doubt-&-Uncertainty, and he understands how left and eliminated Doubt-&-Uncertainty will not arise again in the future. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes Doubt-&-Uncertainty arise? There are doubtful, unclear, indeterminable, and inconclusive ambiguities! Often giving irrational and unwise attention to such matters, is the feeding cause of the arising of yet absent Doubt-&-Uncertainty, and the feeding cause of worsening and aggravation of Doubt-&-Uncertainty, that already emerged. SN 46:51 What is the starving cause that makes Doubt-&-Uncertainty cease? There are advantageous & detrimental states, blameable and blameless, average and excellent states, and dark and bright states, frequently giving rational and wise attention to these, is the starving cause for prevention of unarisen Doubt-&-Uncertainty, and the starving cause for the elimination of Doubt-&-Uncertainty, that has already appeared. SN 46:51 Some advantageous reflections regarding Doubt-&-Uncertainty: There are these 6 things, which help to throw out doubt: 1: The state of being learned in the Buddha-Dhamma. 2: Examining the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. 3: Understanding the advantageousness of Moral Discipline. 4: Being decided and convinced about the 3 Jewels. 5: Sympathetic, clever and helpful friends, who knows directly. 6: Explaining talk and teachings that can dispel doubt. Doubt-&-Uncertainty is like a Desert: Doubt-&-Uncertainty is just as when a rich man travels through a desolate desert where there is no food and much danger. Freedom from Doubt-&-Uncertainty is like when he has crossed the desert, and gradually reaches safety near a village, a secure place, free from danger. There he is relieved. DN 2 So is it when doubts about one of the 8 objects of doubt has arisen. See # Doubting whether the Master really is a perfectly Enlightened One or not, one cannot become assured of it with confidence. Unconvinced one remains unable to attain to the paths and fruits of Nobility. Thus, as the traveller in the desert is uncertain whether robbers are there or not, he produces in his mind, again & again, a state of wavering & vacillation, a lack of decision, a state of anxiety, and thus he creates in himself an obstacle for reaching the safe ground of the Noble Ones (ariya-bhumi). In that way, is sceptical doubt like travelling in a barren and dry desert! #: They are, according to the Vibhanga: doubt in regard to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the (threefold) training, the past, the future, and the conditionality of dependently arisen phenomena. Doubt and uncertainty can only be indecisive about which action to choose and thus paralyzes the skeptic by hesitancy leaving the problem unsettled! Doubt can only be eliminated by examining and scrutinizing the object much. Once elderly yet undecided brahman Dhotaka asked the Buddha: I see here in the world of beings divine & human, good ones, who lives simply by possessing nothing. I thus bow for you All-around Eye. Please Sakyan, release me from my doubts! The Buddha answered: No one in this world, Dhotaka, can I ever release from doubting. But knowing the most excellent Dhamma, you will cross the raving ocean of vacillating uncertainty. Dhotaka now more confident: I admire, Great Seer, that peace supreme, all stilled, knowing which, living aware and detached, I'll go beyond the imprisoning entanglement of this world. Then I will teach you that peace even right here, not just hearsay words, understanding which, living aware and detached, you will go beyond the incarcerating entanglement of this world. Teach me as your friend, O best one, the Dhamma of detachment so that I may know directly, so that I, as unaffected as space, may live right here, at ease in peace, calmed, stilled and not dependent on anything... Whatever you are aware of, Dhotaka , above, below, across, or in between; know this as a chain to this world! Thus, do not create any craving for any form of being in existence, any form of new becoming or any non-becoming! Sutta Nipata V 6 Entering the jungle of views and opinions, one will never reach certainty! <..> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #106274 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Scott, I am disappointed in myself that I can't fully follow your line of reasoning here. It looks like the sort of discussion I would like. ------- <. . .> S: > That cetanaa-cetasika - in tandem with other dhammas of course - can serve as condition for its own repeated arising such that a set of conventionally construed interconnected moments of mind-produced matter can run a course is also clear. ------- I suppose that is so, but I really don't know. ------------ S: > It seems to me that the way in which this whole is considered is a matter of thought. 'Conventional action' might be misleading. ------------ I suppose it is conventional action because it is the counterpart of paramattha action. In some ways it must be a shadow - or an indicator - of cetana. That and the notion of "repeated arisings of cetana," must be relevant somehow to satipatthana, but I just can't see it. I am willing to keep trying. So if you have any further thoughts on the matter I'll be glad to see them. Ken H #106275 From: "colette" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:43 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg ksheri3 Hi Ken H., > Yes, exactly! It is the same trap that everyone falls into occasionally. We have to help each other out. Remember there are only dhammas. At that moment of right remembering we are safely out of the trap. From there we can see how it got complicated - see how we fell into the trap. > That was very kind of you to re-assure me that I'm on the right track, it just takes time, exposure, to get as knowledgable as some of you people are to the massive amount of data and materials concerning the path in the Buddhist context. There's always a bit of hesitation when trying new techniques for the first time but I'm very confident that I have the support system to help me out when I get a little hesitant about some procedures. Thanx for the acceptance and well wishes. toodles, colette #106276 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Buddha a philosopher? Realities & Concepts nilovg Dear Alex, just a few remarks. Op 26-mrt-2010, om 0:59 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > "Ignorance is deeply rooted and very persistent. It conditions us > to cling to conventional truth and to take realities for things, > beings, and people." - KS on Concepts & Realities. > > I agree with first sentence, but not the 2nd, ------- N: What are only conditioned naama and ruupa we take for things, beings, and people. Through eyesense seeing sees visible object, but we are inclined to believe that we see people and things. ------- > A: The suttas: > "Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of > suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not > knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering ? this > is called ignorance. " > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html > > Note: No mention of non-existent of beings. That is actually a > "clinging" link, not ignorance. -------- N: In several texts it is stated that ignorance is not knowing the four noble truths. At enlightenment pa~n~naa realizes the four noble truths. In your previous post you wrote: A: ------- N: Understanding more about concepts helps to distinguish between concepts and paramattha dhammas. This is very essential because insight is developed of paramattha dhammas, not of concepts. Wrong view which takes concepts for realities goes together with lobha- muulacitta, thus, with clinging. ------ Nina. #106277 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:03 am Subject: rules and rituals sukin pt rjkjp1 Dear Sukinder and Pt Today I was having lunch with Sukinder in bangkok and we briefly discussed the recent exchange between you two. Pt correctly (I think) suggested that even if one was doing some meditation technique with self view , this doesn't necessarily stop kusala cittas arising because after all they are conditioned to arise at times, no one to stop them. Perhaps we can look from another perspective. In the suttas there are examples of extreme types of silabattaparamasa ? dog duty ascetics; or niganthas who stand in one place for very long periods enduring `equanimosly' thinking that by this they are somehow using up their past kamma; or even the Bodhisatta who fasted thinking this was the way . So the above are obviously rule and ritual connected with wrong view and a wrong path. And the different ways of wrong practice are legion , it would take books to list them all. If I understand correctly in the discussion PT and Sukin both see dangers in silabattaparamsa but where you each draw the line from right practice and silabattaparamasa is different. PT would agree that the above examples, and no doubt the one I gave last month about the Dhammakaya, as being Silabata, but not with other popular techniques. On the other hand Sukinder has no qualms about putting any techniques as being more or less within this grouping? I think a complication is that most of the popular techniques also teach Dhamma and even Abhidhamma- hence one going on these camps would be hearing some correct Dhamma that can/must condition some understanding. Hence it is difficult to separate out the technique from the other conditions.. Robert #106278 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:43 am Subject: Abhidhamma Series, no 5. nilovg > Dear friends, > > Abhidhamma Series, no 5. > > Citta. > > The truth is different from what we always assumed. What we take > for a person are only namas, mental phenomena, and ruupas, physical > phenomena, that arise and fall away. Naama and ruupa are real in > the ultimate sense, they are different from concepts such as person > or animal. Citta, consciousness, and cetasika, mental factors > arising with the citta, are both naama. They experience different > objects. > It is not a self or a person who experiences something, it is citta > that cognizes an object. Citta experiences only one object and then > it falls away to be succeeded by the next citta. We may have > thought that there is one consciousness that lasts, that can see, > hear and think, but this is not so. Only one citta arises at a > time: at one moment a citta that sees arises, at another moment a > citta that hears arises. Each citta lasts only for an extremely > short time and then it falls away. > > The five senses and the mind are the doorways through which citta > can cognize the different objects which present themselves. Each > citta experiences an object, in Paali: aaramma.na. Knowing or > experiencing an object does not necessarily mean thinking about it. > The citta which sees has what is visible as object; it is different > from the cittas which arise afterwards, such as the cittas which > know what it is that was perceived and which think about it. The > citta which hears (hearing-consciousness) has sound as its object. > Even when we are sound asleep and not dreaming, citta experiences > an object. There isn't any citta without an object. > > There are many different types of citta which can be classified in > different ways. Some cittas are kusala (wholesome), some are > akusala (unwholesome). Kusala cittas and akusala cittas are cittas > which are cause; they can motivate wholesome or unwholesome deeds > through body, speech or mind which are able to bring about their > appropriate results. Some cittas are the result of wholesome or > unwholesome deeds, they are vipaakacittas. Some cittas are neither > cause nor result; they are kiriyacittas (sometimes translated as > ?inoperative''). > Cittas can be classified by way of jaati (jaati literally means > ``birth'' or ``nature''). There are four jaatis: > > kusala > akusala > vip?ka > kiriya > > Both kusala vipaaka (the result of a wholesome deed) and akusala > vipaaka (the result of an unwholesome deed) are one jaati, the > jaati of vipaaka. > It is important to know which jaati a citta is. We cannot develop > wholesomeness in our life if we take akusala for kusala or if we > take akusala for vipaaka. For instance, when someone speaks > unpleasant words to us, the moment of experiencing the sound > (hearing-consciousness) is akusala vipaaka, the result of an > unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. But the aversion which may > arise very shortly afterwards is not vipaaka, but it arises with > akusala citta. Aversion or anger, dosa, can motivate unwholesome > action or speech. We can learn to distinguish these moments from > each other by realizing their different characteristics. > When we have understood that cittas both of ourselves and others > arise because of conditions we shall be less inclined to dwell for > a long time on someone else?s behaviour. In the ultimate sense > there is no person to be blamed and no person who receives > unpleasant results. In reality there are only citta, cetasika and > ruupa that arise because of their own conditions. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------- > Nina. #106279 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > Hi Scott, > > I am disappointed in myself that I can't fully follow your line of reasoning here. It looks like the sort of discussion I would like. > > ------- > <. . .> > S: > That cetanaa-cetasika - in tandem with other dhammas of course - can serve as condition for its own repeated arising such that a set of conventionally construed interconnected moments of mind-produced matter can run a course is also clear. > ------- > > I suppose that is so, but I really don't know. > > ------------ > S: > It seems to me that the way in which this whole is considered is a matter of thought. 'Conventional action' might be misleading. > ------------ > > I suppose it is conventional action because it is the counterpart of paramattha action. In some ways it must be a shadow - or an indicator - of cetana. > > That and the notion of "repeated arisings of cetana," must be relevant somehow to satipatthana, but I just can't see it. > >__________ Dear Ken how about this: The Dhammapada 371 : QUOTE "Meditate, o bhikkhu and be not heedless. The atthakatha says "o bhikkhus meditate by the two kinds of meditative absorptions" And the tika notes that this is twofold in "the sense of meditative absorption that arises depending on an object and meditative absorption that arises dependent on characteristics" The tika later explains this by saying that the first is (p506 note 6 of carter and palihawadana) QUOTE "the eight attainments (jhanas) to be obtained by training the mind in concentrating on one of the thirty eight objects such as kasina [or metta, or Buddha or Dhamma or breath etc] and the second means 'insight wisdom, path and fruit'..to be obtained by reflecting on the three characteristics'" Now when it says 'reflecting' this is a wide term that can mean pondering deeply or it can mean direct insight into the actual characteristics and conditions of the present moment right up to the vipassana nanas and magga and phala. THe Dhammapada pradipaya (see p457 of carter) says QUOTE "to consider the coming into being of rupa on account of ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition, and also to see the mere characteristics of its instantaneous coming into being, without looking for causative aspect; thus one should consider the rise of rupa in five ways. Likewise to consider the rise of the other 4 khandas in the same way...Thus the rise of the pancakkhanda (five aggregates )is seen in 25 ways. To see that the rise of the khandas is stopped by abolishing the causes:ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition..in this way the cessation of the agregates should be seen" robert #106280 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part 2 Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ashkenn2k Dear Sukin >S: You are thinking about the concept, so the answer is concept. ;-). > >S: Knowing you, I expect that there is something deeper behind your >question which I can’t figure out yet. But I’ll give you my superficial >answer so that you will then elaborate. > >Or say, why do I watch football or eat or write this email? >Conditions. >But I think I know what you are getting at. What you are trying to tell >me is that without concepts there would not be any action through body, >speech or thinking, right? >I agree! KO: You mean you can listen at paramatha level. I am very interested to know how does one sense process able to listen to words. Secondly, we must separate what is conventional and conceptual. Conceptual is not real and only be understood by the mind door. Conventional are condition by the paramatha dhamma. Actions are not conceptual because conceptual means not real. If actions are conceptual, you will not be able to walk. Actions like walking are conventional condition by countless streams of nama and rupa. Conventional actions does not mean one does not know it is just nama and rupa. Conventional action does not mean there is wrong view of self. Wrong view of self only arise with miccha ditthi when it arise with our conventional actions like I am now walking. Commentarian text has shown that one who practise walking forward and backward, has no wrong idea that there is a no self that is walking, he comprehen clearly it is nama and rupa. But he is walking. When he lost the concentraton on the object, he will go back and start from his initial position again where he start walking. He understand concepts (like distance) and convention well or not he will not have gone back to the starting point. > >All kusala is to be encouraged and all akusala discouraged. Samatha >bhavana is to be encouraged over occasional instances of mere kusala. >Jhana is the highest level of such kusala and therefore the best of >these. Of the kusala dhammas, there are some which is part of the >development of Parami and these in fact, need particularly to be >developed if there is ever going to be the development of wisdom. The >development of wisdom, namely the Noble Eightfold Path is the highest of >kusala being the one Path able to deal with ignorance and all the >kilesas. Supramundane dhammas are the highest of all. > KO: Please read the commentary to anapasati, even Visud. It is samantha bhavana, it reach jhanas then use jhanas as a basis of insight to develop delimitation of nama and rupa. Are you saying those who practise samantha bhavana cannot enter supramundane path. Please show the text to me. There is a lack of understanding of samantha for both DSG and those who practise jhanas. DSG think there is no samantha bhavana to reach vipassana nana while jhanas practitioners think they could just go and meditate. Honestly, these are wrong ideas of samantha bhavana. I dont claim I know samatha but the text is very clear about it. >One can see from the above, that the Buddha would encourage the >development of the Path over every other kusala since none of those can >ever lead to the kilesas being lessened. As you know, he did this in the >case of the busy householder as he did with the Jhana expert. You also >know that an ariyan householder is worthy of veneration many times more >than say, a puthujana bhikkhu who has mastered the Jhanas. So why >encourage samatha bhavana, when one should instead be encouraging the >development of wisdom? >You would note that the objections I make in my posts are when faced >with such situations. Indeed it is even more dire, namely when samatha >bhavana itself is being misunderstood. Why would I encourage samatha >bhavana otherwise, when I would never say no to even a small instance of >kindness? KO: I never encourage jhanas, I in fact, I said that in another email to Mike that ordinary people should not practise meditations. I also said that panna is needed for samantha bhavana. >S: So I guess your point is to prove that since concepts are needed for >actions such as reading the Dhamma to happen, objections to ‘doings’ >should be restricted to whether self-view is involved or not. You have >read my arguments in the post you responded to, so I won’t repeat them >here. But let me just ask you this: > >If I were to say that every morning I sat on the ground in front of my >house with my left hand touching the ground and right hand up with the >index finger pointing to the sky and said that this enables me to have >more kusala in a day, would you need to first find out whether there was >self-view involved? > KO: So you could attain enlightment without listening, are you trying to tell me this? You are saying while you listen to dhamma discussions, you dont sit or stand. Is listening conventional actions? It is not the conventional actions that matters as long as there is correct understanding, that is development of the path. That understanding must base on paramatha dhammas. Cheers Ken O #106281 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >---------- > >Yes it does. When there is satipatthana (right understanding of a conditioned dhamma) panna knows "this is all there is." > >I agree it doesn't mean that. Notions of 'should' and 'should not' do not play a role in satipatthana. > >They don't play a role because there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment. >------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ KO: since you put it this way, why are you still reading and listening to dhamma.? Since these are conventional actions, you should stop doing it as it does not condition satipathanna as you think it is against satipatthana.? Also?if there is no time for doing it, you should not?read and listen to dhamma. >------------ --------- ------ > >The term 'Buddhist disciple' is merely a conventional designation. Ultimately, there are just the presently arisen namas and rupas. > >Ultimate reality is the only reality taught by the Buddha. People (even Abhidhamma scholars) sometimes make the mistake of believing there were two realities taught by the Buddha, a conventional one and an ultimate one. But there was only one. > >When the Buddha uses the conventional designation "walking" (for example) we are to understand it in the ultimate sense - just namas and rupas. When he talks about going to find a teacher, sitting respectfully to one side, and listening to the Dhamma we are to understand it in the ultimate sense - namas and rupas. > >Which particular namas and rupas? You could try to see walking as the dhammas that think about walking and the bodily intimations that accompany them (etc). But, better still, just understand the dhammas that are arising here and now. They are all the same. They all have the same basic three characteristics. -------------------------------------------> KO:??I always said that?understanding of nama and?rupa is fundamental to development of understanding.? The disciple clearly understands nama and rupas and the process for it to become concepts or doing convention actions.? They know this because they have develop this understanding through listening of the dhamma.? Even Ven Sariputta also listen to dhamma before developing understanding.? I always said dont misunderstand?paramatha dhamma and assume there is no conventional actions.?? Paramatha dhamma?help us to develop understanding.? There are conventional actions but one knows this clearly as nama and rupa, one does not have?wrong view in listening or walking.? It is not the listening or walking that is wrong, it is the wrong view or wrong?understanding of?such actions?that is wrong. >------------ --------- --------- ------- > >Yes. The presently arisen dhammas are the ones that must be understood. There is no time for opening books and looking for "presently arisen dhammas" in the index. It's too late for that. Right understanding or no right understanding, whatever happens now will depend on conditions that have already been put in place. > >------------ - KO:? pse dont read?dhamma books then, why bother?:-). > >Yes, but there is no contradiction in what I said. Thoughts of book-reading can, and often do, arise without any views on the the ultimate reality of books, or readers, or acts of book reading. > KO:? but you said in the above, there is no time for opening of books, so why bother.? So you are saying those people who walks and does breathing,??meditation and reciting?in the ancient times as describe in Visud have wrong view of these actions and yet they became Arahants?? So an act of reading books,?is that a conventional action? ?if it is paramatha dhamma, you should not read books or acts of it since there is no book. No existence of book so why read.? Why bother. Cheers Ken H #106282 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H oops correction and commnercial break. it should be Ken O and not Ken H at the bottom of the email :-)))) cheers Ken O > #106283 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] rules and rituals sukin pt ashkenn2k Dear Sukin and pt if there are no rules, then there should not?be any vinaya baskets?in the tipitika.? It should only be two. cheers Ken O #106284 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Ken H (and Ken O) - In a message dated 3/25/2010 9:21:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Ken O, ---------- <. . .> KO: > without reading will you able to reach your goal. That is the reason why sometimes DSG people get carried away by paramatha dhamma. Understanding paramattha dhamma does not mean there is no conventional action. ---------- Yes it does. When there is satipatthana (right understanding of a conditioned dhamma) panna knows "this is all there is." --------------------------------------------- KO: > Understanding paramattha dhamma does not mean there is no conventional action. You should not listen or read dhamma, because they are all conventional actions since ulimately there is on reading. ---------------------------------------------- I agree it doesn't mean that. Notions of 'should' and 'should not' do not play a role in satipatthana. They don't play a role because there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment. ---------------------------------------------------------- If there is no time, then the first of the tilakkhana, anicca, is entirely unreal. Nothing can arise, cease, or change if there is no time. Time and impermanence are interdependent if not in fact identical. =============================== With metta, Howard Conditionality /"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that."/ (From the Bodhi Sutta, Udana 1.1) #106285 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >I'll read it again soon. Anyhow what I've read a bit about concepts in Abhidhammasangaha is interesting, although I do have a question, "so what does one do about it? How does learning about ultimate non-existence of trees, mountains and so on, removes craving?" We don't always crave because we believe in ontological existence of those things. We crave because we don't realize with all one's heart the significance of 4NT. > >Didn't the Buddha say that it is improper to talk about whether "things exist or not"? - AN 10.69 >http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an10/an10. 069.than. html > >Isn't analysis of whole into its parts itself a sort of conceptual activity itself? The wholes have a function that is not found in its parts, so the emergent function of the whole does exist! KO:? it is difficult for many of us when we first learn there is concepts and utlimate reality because we are so conditioned to think in terms of concepts.?? The understanding of this difference is the 1st step towards the understanding of nama and rupa or in more common terms the five aggregates.? Concepts itself is nothing wrong, it is just thinking, it is the wrong view of concepts and not understanding??nama and rupa,?that make us continue to go round in samasara.? The study of Abhidhamma allows us to understand the meanings of what is dhamma and what is not dhamma, or what is real and what is not real.?When it is?real we could experience its characteristics. With the understanding of this characterisitics, then?we could develop the understanding of?conditions, the anatta of?dhammas.??? For eg we like eating an apple.?? Craving is dhamma, apple is not.? Colour of apple is dhamma, but apple is not.? When we see what is real and what is not real, we could develop the understanding that craving is condition.? lobha arise because of our accumulated tendency of craving over that mental object of apple.? The craving arise not because we ask them to arise, it arise because of a thinking object that has a strong paccaya for it to arise.? It is just conditions at work, it is just anatta, even?craving is anatta.?? It would take some time to understand this difference, not easy I would say but continue to ponder over it, question it and investigate it.? Be courageous and patient. Cheers Ken O #106286 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: K: "...They don't play a role because there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment." H: "If there is no time, then the first of the tilakkhana, anicca, is entirely unreal. Nothing can arise, cease, or change if there is no time. Time and impermanence are interdependent if not in fact identical." Scott: The statement was not 'there is no time,' the statement was 'there is no time for doing anything.' You're arguing about something that wasn't stated. Sincerely, Scott. #106287 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Buddha a philosopher? Realities & Concepts ashkenn2k Dear Alex >Now, some say that D.O. is a middle-way ontology of how the world out there is - it is neither statically existent nor statically non-existent. However in AN3.61 it says that DO in arising mode is the truth of suffering. DO in cessation mode is cessation of suffering (3rd NT). > >"Ignorance is deeply rooted and very persistent. It conditions us to cling to conventional truth and to take realities for things, beings, and people." - KS on Concepts & Realities. > >I agree with first sentence, but not the 2nd, KO:? When you like a person, the person is the object conditioning of craving.?If we understand the person is colour in what we see, sound is what we heard from the voice, basically it is just nama and rupa.? And understand its characteristics and it is just conditions at work or D.O at work.? ?Craving has no footing to arise, because craving usually arise due to clinging to sensual pleasure of the world, thinking the world is real, we keep wanting to be in the world, to be with this persons or having this thing. I hope this help.? Cheers Ken O #106288 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Ken H & Ken O) - In a message dated 3/26/2010 9:34:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: K: "...They don't play a role because there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment." H: "If there is no time, then the first of the tilakkhana, anicca, is entirely unreal. Nothing can arise, cease, or change if there is no time. Time and impermanence are interdependent if not in fact identical." Scott: The statement was not 'there is no time,' the statement was 'there is no time for doing anything.' You're arguing about something that wasn't stated. Sincerely, Scott. =============================== The emphasis of Ken's statement is the unreality of time, there being "only the present moment." That is the reason given by Ken in that particular post for it being impossible to do anything. Elsewhere one might say there is no doing of anything because there is no doer or actor or willer, and there is no control etc. But here the point being made is that "there is no *time* for doing anything" [emphasis mine]. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106289 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was:Nama vs Citta nilovg Dear Nori, Appreciating your good points, but I just go into one point at a time. Op 26-mrt-2010, om 6:33 heeft nori het volgende geschreven: > If citta is to be understood as (only) a (passing) witness/ > observing-entity. What entity/phenomenon do we hold to have > understanding, or a lack of it (i.e. Avidya)? -------- N: Citta clearly cognizes the object that presents itself, it is the leader or principle in knowing the object. The accompanying cetasikas perform each their own function. Citta may be kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya, as Sarah explained to you. Kusala citta may or may not be accompanied by pa~n~naa, understanding. Understanding is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factor) which is a wholesome root. It arises and falls away with the citta but it is not lost, it is accumulated in the citta so that there are conditions for its arising again later on. Since each citta is succeeded by a following one, and the last citta of this life by the first citta of the next life, wholesome and unwholesome qualities are accumulated from life to life. Each akusala citta is accompanied by avijjaa, ignorance. This is the root of all evil. Avijjaa or moha is a cetasika that is an unwholesome root. We have so much ignorance because it has been accumulated from life to life. But by the development of understanding ignorance is eliminated until it is finally eradicated. Pa~n~naa has many degrees. First it is intellectual understanding, and then it can become direct understanding of realities. This is accomplished by the development of satipa.t.thaana, mindfulness and understanding of all phenomena of our life as they appear one at a time through the six doorways of the senses and the mind. Nina. #106290 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding Past H: "If there is no time, then the first of the tilakkhana, anicca, is entirely unreal. Nothing can arise, cease, or change if there is no time. Time and impermanence are interdependent if not in fact identical." Latest H: "The emphasis of Ken's statement is the unreality of time, there being 'only the present moment.' That is the reason given by Ken in that particular post for it being impossible to do anything. Elsewhere one might say there is no doing of anything because there is no doer or actor or willer, and there is no control etc. But here the point being made is that 'there is no *time* for doing anything' [emphasis mine]." Scott: Yeah, I got your emphasis, Howard. I still think you've missed the point. 'No time to do anything' doesn't mock time it mocks 'doing.' And 'doing' as imagined with a self as actor. I'll agree that Ken's tendency towards, shall we say, strong statements, leads to some difficulty with the message. Here, though, in your focus on 'the unreality of time', I think you return to your favourite theme of 'no duration' - it's always implicit for you, right? I fail to see how time and impermanence are 'identical.' The former is a concept and the latter is a characteristic of conditioned realities. I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate. Sincerely, Scott. #106291 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Part 2 Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Ken O, I am confused by some of your comments. Please help clarify. ============= >Or say, why do I watch football or eat or write this email? >Conditions. >But I think I know what you are getting at. What you are trying to tell >me is that without concepts there would not be any action through body, >speech or thinking, right? >I agree! KO: You mean you can listen at paramatha level. I am very interested to know how does one sense process able to listen to words. Suk: I thought I was agreeing with you about the necessity of concepts in getting things done! What did I miss? ============= KO: Secondly, we must separate what is conventional and conceptual. Conceptual is not real and only be understood by the mind door. Conventional are condition by the paramatha dhamma. Suk: Ken, this sounds a lot like those that refer to “interrelated dhammas” and think that the act of thinking kind of sums up different sense and mind door process, hence revealing what otherwise can’t be known by any one sense door process. Apart from concept and paramattha dhammas, are you now introducing a third category which lies somewhere in between? ============== KO: Actions are not conceptual because conceptual means not real. If actions are conceptual, you will not be able to walk. Suk: Where did this come from? ‘Throwing a ball’ is concept. And I don’t see a problem with this being object condition for many mind door processes in between others which have different objects leading to a ball being thrown or not being thrown. I see no reason to posit a third category apart from reality and concept. =============== KO: Actions like walking are conventional condition by countless streams of nama and rupa. Suk: “Countless streams”? That’s new. ;-) Again I have no problem with concepts such as feet, leg, here, there and walking being object condition for many mind door processes among others which include body intimation, leading to the conventional act of walking being done. But then I don’t need to give this conventional action any special status….? ============== KO: Conventional actions does not mean one does not know it is just nama and rupa. Conventional action does not mean there is wrong view of self. Suk: I agree. ============== KO: Wrong view of self only arise with miccha ditthi when it arise with our conventional actions like I am now walking. Suk: Wrong View arises not only with concept as object, but also with realities as object. ============== KO: Commentarian text has shown that one who practise walking forward and backward, has no wrong idea that there is a no self that is walking, he comprehen clearly it is nama and rupa. But he is walking. Suk: As I was telling Pt, knowing hardness when touching a table does not stop thinking about ‘touching the table’ from arising. The Buddha talked to people and walked towards them. But unlike you, he did not give any special status to the conventional reality / activities. Indeed he said that these were just worldly conventions which he wasn’t fooled by. ============= KO: When he lost the concentraton on the object, he will go back and start from his initial position again where he start walking. He understand concepts (like distance) and convention well or not he will not have gone back to the starting point. Suk: Are you saying now also, that such conventional reality as distance can be the object of panna of some level? ============= >All kusala is to be encouraged and all akusala discouraged. Samatha >bhavana is to be encouraged over occasional instances of mere kusala. >Jhana is the highest level of such kusala and therefore the best of >these. Of the kusala dhammas, there are some which is part of the >development of Parami and these in fact, need particularly to be >developed if there is ever going to be the development of wisdom. The >development of wisdom, namely the Noble Eightfold Path is the highest of >kusala being the one Path able to deal with ignorance and all the >kilesas. Supramundane dhammas are the highest of all. > KO: Please read the commentary to anapasati, even Visud. It is samantha bhavana, it reach jhanas then use jhanas as a basis of insight to develop delimitation of nama and rupa. Are you saying those who practise samantha bhavana cannot enter supramundane path. Suk: No, I am not saying that, i.e. if you refer to persons. What I am saying is that samatha bhavana is not the Path by which Pativedha is achieved. Rather it is Patipatti which in turn is conditioned by Pariyatti. ========== KO: Please show the text to me. Suk: Not before you show me a text which states that the text you refer to should be interpreted the way you do. ;-) ========== KO: There is a lack of understanding of samantha for both DSG and those who practise jhanas. DSG think there is no samantha bhavana to reach vipassana nana while jhanas practitioners think they could just go and meditate. Honestly, these are wrong ideas of samantha bhavana. I dont claim I know samatha but the text is very clear about it. Suk: Different people interpret the same text differently and they all insist that it clearly states what they think it states. ========== >One can see from the above, that the Buddha would encourage the >development of the Path over every other kusala since none of those can >ever lead to the kilesas being lessened. As you know, he did this in the >case of the busy householder as he did with the Jhana expert. You also >know that an ariyan householder is worthy of veneration many times more >than say, a puthujana bhikkhu who has mastered the Jhanas. So why >encourage samatha bhavana, when one should instead be encouraging the >development of wisdom? >You would note that the objections I make in my posts are when faced >with such situations. Indeed it is even more dire, namely when samatha >bhavana itself is being misunderstood. Why would I encourage samatha >bhavana otherwise, when I would never say no to even a small instance of >kindness? KO: I never encourage jhanas, I in fact, I said that in another email to Mike that ordinary people should not practise meditations. Suk: So you do this sometimes, and not just talk about Dhamma / dhammas? Just kidding. ;-) ============= >S: So I guess your point is to prove that since concepts are needed for >actions such as reading the Dhamma to happen, objections to ‘doings’ >should be restricted to whether self-view is involved or not. You have >read my arguments in the post you responded to, so I won’t repeat them >here. But let me just ask you this: > >If I were to say that every morning I sat on the ground in front of my >house with my left hand touching the ground and right hand up with the >index finger pointing to the sky and said that this enables me to have >more kusala in a day, would you need to first find out whether there was >self-view involved? KO: So you could attain enlightment without listening, are you trying to tell me this? You are saying while you listen to dhamma discussions, you dont sit or stand. Is listening conventional actions? It is not the conventional actions that matters as long as there is correct understanding, that is development of the path. That understanding must base on paramatha dhammas. Suk: I guess these comments are again the result of you having not understood that I was actually agreeing with you about the necessity of concepts in getting things done. But then, I may be missing something still…..? Metta, Sukinder #106292 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rules and rituals sukin pt sukinderpal Hello Ken, > > if there are no rules, then there should not be any vinaya baskets in > the tipitika. It should only be two. > But there is a difference between Patimokkha orVinaya and Silabbataparamasa isn't there? Metta, Sukinder #106293 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/26/2010 12:10:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: I fail to see how time and impermanence are 'identical.' The former is a concept and the latter is a characteristic of conditioned realities. --------------------------------------------------- Any proposed phenomenon, according to Abhidhamma as I have been led to understand it, is either pa~n~natti or paramattha dhamma, and anicca is not a paramattha dhamma. As for time & impermanence being identical, they may only be mutually dependent - I don't know. Non- remaining presupposes time. And there can be no (noticeable) passage of time without change. From the Abhidhammic perspective of cittas, one following another, the passage of cittas seems to be as good a candidate for what time is as anything, I suppose. The stream of experience, whether proceeding by discrete cittas or continuously, is, if not the same as the flow of time, then at least related to it. -------------------------------------------------- I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate. ------------------------------------------------- Well, that is interesting, Scott. ========================== With metta, Howard Impermanence /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #106294 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Any proposed phenomenon, according to Abhidhamma as I have been led to understand it, is either pa~n~natti or paramattha dhamma, and anicca is not a paramattha dhamma." Scott: That is correct, Howard. Anicca is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas. No one would say that anicca itself was a dhamma. Perhaps you misunderstood. H: "As for time & impermanence being identical, they may only be mutually dependent - I don't know." Scott: The concept of time is measured against the reality of the rise and fall of dhammas - their impermanence. H: "Non-remaining presupposes time." Scott: Why do you use the term 'non-remaining?' Is this synonymous with 'falling away?' If so then this is, I think, why it is reasonable to suggest that the concept of time is a function of the actual arising, presence, and falling away of real dhammas. On the other hand, you may choose to use 'non-remaining' because that allows for the fudging of the whole notion of dhammas with characteristics (i.e. beyond those had by all conditioned dhammas - you know, like seeing consciousness sees) and here we get back into already examined differences of opinion. H: "And there can be no (noticeable) passage of time without change. From the Abhidhammic perspective of cittas, one following another, the passage of cittas seems to be as good a candidate for what time is as anything, I suppose. The stream of experience, whether proceeding by discrete cittas or continuously, is, if not the same as the flow of time, then at least related to it." Scott: Again, to stay well clear of old, irreconcilable differences, I'll provisionally accept that time can be thought of only because each moment of consciousness is discrete, that is, as you put it, the concept of time is 'related to' the rising and fall of dhammas (but not equal to it). Terms such as 'flow' and 'stream' are only conceptual, and as you know, suggest to me the quasi-Mahayana aspect of your view - which is neither here nor there. Each dhamma has it's own characteristic, right? ;-) I'm not sure about your need to include the term 'noticeable' but I'd hazard to suggest that this reflects your phenomenological approach and to that I suggest that this gives far too much credence to one's own so-called 'experience' as a reliable measure of reality. It's like saying, 'Time is real because I can experience its passing.' Well, hold on a minute... Me: "I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate." H: "Well, that is interesting, Scott." Scott: Isn't it though. You don't know what I mean, do you? Sincerely, Scott. #106295 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/26/2010 2:37:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Any proposed phenomenon, according to Abhidhamma as I have been led to understand it, is either pa~n~natti or paramattha dhamma, and anicca is not a paramattha dhamma." Scott: That is correct, Howard. Anicca is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas. No one would say that anicca itself was a dhamma. Perhaps you misunderstood. H: "As for time & impermanence being identical, they may only be mutually dependent - I don't know." Scott: The concept of time is measured against the reality of the rise and fall of dhammas - their impermanence. H: "Non-remaining presupposes time." Scott: Why do you use the term 'non-remaining?' Is this synonymous with 'falling away?' ---------------------------------------- Yes, I mean just that. -------------------------------------- If so then this is, I think, why it is reasonable to suggest that the concept of time is a function of the actual arising, presence, and falling away of real dhammas. On the other hand, you may choose to use 'non-remaining' because that allows for the fudging of the whole notion of dhammas with characteristics (i.e. beyond those had by all conditioned dhammas - you know, like seeing consciousness sees) and here we get back into already examined differences of opinion. H: "And there can be no (noticeable) passage of time without change. From the Abhidhammic perspective of cittas, one following another, the passage of cittas seems to be as good a candidate for what time is as anything, I suppose. The stream of experience, whether proceeding by discrete cittas or continuously, is, if not the same as the flow of time, then at least related to it." Scott: Again, to stay well clear of old, irreconcilable differences, I'll provisionally accept that time can be thought of only because each moment of consciousness is discrete, that is, as you put it, the concept of time is 'related to' the rising and fall of dhammas (but not equal to it). -------------------------------------------- I don't assert the identity either. As for the discrete/continuous debate, I don't wish to engage in it. ---------------------------------------- Terms such as 'flow' and 'stream' are only conceptual, and as you know, suggest to me the quasi-Mahayana aspect of your view - which is neither here nor there. Each dhamma has it's own characteristic, right? ;-) --------------------------------------- I'll pass on that conversation. :-) -------------------------------------- I'm not sure about your need to include the term 'noticeable' but I'd hazard to suggest that this reflects your phenomenological approach --------------------------------------- No, that wasn't the basis. My point was, in fact, allowing for a non-phenomenalist perspective. My emphasis was that our *consciousness* of the passage of time depends on the passage of cittas, but the passage of time might not. ----------------------------------------- and to that I suggest that this gives far too much credence to one's own so-called 'experience' as a reliable measure of reality. It's like saying, 'Time is real because I can experience its passing.' Well, hold on a minute... ---------------------------------------- Not the point I was making. -------------------------------------- Me: "I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate." H: "Well, that is interesting, Scott." Scott: Isn't it though. You don't know what I mean, do you? ------------------------------------------ Well, I don't know whether I do or not. You seem to be saying that activity occurs. Why don't you just explain what you mean and how it moves debate beyond a stalemate? Then perhaps I will know what you mean. --------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106296 From: "Mike" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Dear Ken, Ken, Robert, etc, I've been a little busy to reply to the various interesting discussions of the last couple of days. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Scott: "I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no > action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's > long-standing stalemate." > > H: "Well, that is interesting, Scott." > > Scott: Isn't it though. You don't know what I mean, do you? > ------------------------------------------ > H: Well, I don't know whether I do or not. You seem to be saying that > activity occurs. Why don't you just explain what you mean and how it moves > debate beyond a stalemate? Then perhaps I will know what you mean. > --------------------------------------- Mike: I'm a little confused how anyone could argue that there is no "action". It doesn't make sense to me, or my reading of the Dhamma: [From one of the helpful DSG collections...] Visuddhimagga XVI,90-91): 90. "...in the ultimate sense all the truths should be understood as void because of the absence of (i) any experiencer, (ii) any doer, (iii) anyone who is extinguished, and (iv) any goer. Hence it is said 'For there is suffering, but none who suffers; Doing exists although there is no doer; Extinction is but no extinguished person; Although there is a path, there is no goer'. Mike: In fact, to answer some of the queries that KenH raised a couple of days ago, I don't think that it makes sense to assert that because ultimately all there are are paramattha dhammas that "nothing else exists". Such statements seem to me to be similar to saying that a rock doesn't exist because ultimately it is made of atoms (or atoms don't exist because they are ultimately made of electrons, protons, and neutrons...). Mike: Perhaps we are using a different definition of "exists". This is why I keep asking for definitions of terms. I suspect we are taking quite different meanings from many of the words that are used in these discussions. Mike: The way I would put it is that all phenomena can be ultimately seen to be composed of paramattha dhammas. The question of whether any of those things (including that paramattha dhammas) are "real" is not, in my opinion, the point. The analysis of the processes is the point. Metta Mike #106298 From: han tun Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta hantun1 Dear Nina (Nori), > Nina: Understanding is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factor) which is a wholesome root. It arises and falls away with the citta but it is not lost, it is accumulated in the citta so that there are conditions for its arising again later on. Han: May I ask you a question, please? You said understanding is accumulated in the citta. May I ask which citta? The citta that has fallen away or the citta that is to arise later? Respectfully, Han #106299 From: Vince Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:47 am Subject: Re[2]: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) cerovzt@... Dear Sukinder you wrote: > S: You mean once it is memorized, there would never be a need to read > these texts ever again? it depends. One person can read one time understanding the real meaning but later he can forget these terms. Another person can use these terms every day without real understanding. As in example, a musician who ignore the scores language of Music, he can know the sense and application of some harmonic just by hearing some melody one time. Then he can build a beauty song. Another musician can be an expert in reading and writing music in the scores, while his production is vulgar or ugly. Even his acquired knowledge can become a serious interference to appreciate the song as it is. Our skills quickly can become a trap. For this reason many Buddhist masters says the mind of beginners is the best to learn. Such disposition is a land to inhabit, instead the acquire of endless objects for our intellect. > Pariyatti is not knowledge acquired > through reading, it refers to a necessary level of *understanding* > without which no Patipatti can ever arise. This understanding grows with > more Patipatti and does not stop when Pativedha happens but would arise > and develop also after one has become an ariyan. on my side I think there are not levels of understanding. There is understanding or there is not. Accumulation is delusion arising in the present moment. Nibbana is a natural element of the mind. We all are ready for nibbana, at any instant. I found the approach about many time, lifes, etc... quite deceptive. It has sense to become an arhant but not regarding nibbana. Inside the Suttas we check how the Buddha teaching was imparted in his times. Buddha disciples attained nibbana quickly, in the same life. Many of them become arhants before death. Buddha never teached nibbana for a next life or for another year. Teaching of Buddha was for the here and now, then one must be aware it is in the potential reach of any human being. I don't believe in accumulations. By the way, neither Sujin believes. Sujin told me accumulation only exist in the present moment. Understanding never grows. What grows is the clean of wrong views. All this doesn't have to do with be seated or not. One should know his nature and circumstances and practicing according that. > The motivation to read and discuss is understanding and there is no end > to this; so clearly, it is not what you are judging all this to be. understanding it's grasping objects. End of understanding starts when the -self leaves. > S: Yes, every person is different, but this is no reason to justify > downplaying the importance of reading and discussing the Dhamma. reading and studying is very important in order to understand its lack of importance regarding the truth. For this reason is important. There is the case when somebody understand the goal of Dhamma and he knows enough about practice but he can feel some paralyzation. I understand it is because one must find the right disposition instead more knowledge. Knowledge is acquiring more objects. As we are not arhants for sure we need to acquire objects but I mean it's the other thing which should start to gain weight. > Why would anyone who appreciates the Teachings, ever think to do without it > at some point? Is it because he sees something else as being more > valuable, such as ?meditation practice? or some other personal view > regarding what needs to be done? Should he not realize what he is doing > at those times, namely that he is giving priority to some set of ideas > personally held over the Buddhadhamma? also we fall in the same view when denying other practices in order to claim the own. There are 1.500 billion Buddhists, so we can imagine the variety of people, circumstances and unsuspected things. > Ok, so do you really want to discuss, ?how to use that knowledge, and > what can be the right position to do it?? > I?d be very happy to discuss this with you. so this is my point: arising of panna must be understood as a right movement instead the acquisition of more objects, which is the "understanding". In another way, citta experience an object. We understand the object can be anatta but we don't understand how citta can be anatta. And then it is the case in where one understand that there is seeing instead the seer but there is not nibbana, the unconditioned. There is the conditioned because in this point citta is atta, and she condition the next citta, and so on. And in this way there is understanding instead panna. It is what happens when we practice using realities in front concepts; it is useful but at least I understand maybe not enough (or not in all cases). As panna arise only when both citta and nama&rupa are anatta, then it only happens when there is awareness of the co-arising of both consciousness and nama&rupa in the present moment as the dependent origination teaches. In practical terms, it means that one must be focused not only in the seeing and the seen but also in the arising of both in the here and now. Because "I" and "the world" arises at this same instant, and then quickly there is "to me". In that moment of co-arising there is not "I" neither understanding or accumulation. Things are what they are. We can read or seat more times in order to acquire more objects but it can be another manifestation of dukkha. I don't say it cannot be good, just I say what it can be. My point is, we can think our wrong view can exist because some object still not grasped and understood by us. However, many times it is because our wrong position to consider what is knowledge and what we are doing: when we know we acquire objects to grasp them. My point is that there is a need to investigate what is knowledge, what knows, and if there is accordance with anatta. best, Vince, #106300 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. truth_aerator Dear KenO, Nina all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > > >I'll read it again soon. Anyhow what I've read a bit about concepts in Abhidhammasangaha is interesting, although I do have a question, "so what does one do about it? How does learning about ultimate non-existence of trees, mountains and so on, removes craving?" We don't always crave because we believe in ontological existence of those things. We crave because we don't realize with all one's heart the significance of 4NT. > > > >Didn't the Buddha say that it is improper to talk about whether "things exist or not"? - AN 10.69 > >http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an10/an10. 069.than. html > > > >Isn't analysis of whole into its parts itself a sort of conceptual activity itself? The wholes have a function that is not found in its parts, so the emergent function of the whole does exist! > > KO:? it is difficult for many of us when we first learn there is >concepts and utlimate reality because we are so conditioned to think >in terms of concepts.? Well, the suttas do not make such a big distinction between "ultimate realities that exist" vs "conventional realities don't exist". I understand the basic analysis, but it appears to me to venture into philosophical not Dhammic category. It seems to me that analysis IS mental activity, just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). The wholes do have functions that are not found in its parts. To me this proves that functions of the wholes DO exist. A whole isn't always a mere sum of its parts. IMHO. Thank you all for your replies, With metta Alex #106301 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: Scott: "I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate." H: "Well, that is interesting, Scott." Scott: "Isn't it though. You don't know what I mean, do you?" H: "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. You seem to be saying that activity occurs. Why don't you just explain what you mean and how it moves debate beyond a stalemate? Then perhaps I will know what you mean." Mike: I'm a little confused how anyone could argue that there is no 'action'. It doesn't make sense to me..." Scott: Were you addressing me, Mike? Sincerely, Scott. #106302 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:35 pm Subject: Lethargy and Laziness Lays Life in Ruins! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: How to cure Heavy Lethargy and Laziness! Lethargy-&-Laziness may often be induced by self-destructive behaviour such as: Alcohol, drugs, dope, pills, marihuana, sniffing, over-eating, excessive masturbation and night-living. Such often life-long chemical or behavioural causes of Lethargy-&-Laziness should be eradicated... As long as this is not achieved one remains a phlegmatic & apathetic zombie, drifting downwards due to inability to initiate advantageous behaviour. Noticing Lethargy-&-Laziness (thina-middha) emerge can make it evaporate: Herein, Bhikkhus, when Lethargy-&-Laziness is present in him, the bhikkhu notes & understands: There is Lethargy-&-Laziness in me, and when this Lethargy-&-Laziness is absent, he notes & understands: Now there is no Lethargy-&-Laziness in me. He indeed also understands how yet unarisen Lethargy-&-Laziness arises. He understands how to leave behind any arisen Lethargy-&-Laziness, and he understands how left Lethargy-&-Laziness will not arise again in the future. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes Lethargy-&-Laziness arise? There are boredom, apathy, tiredness, lazy stretching of the body, heavy drowsiness after too big meals, and mental sluggishness. Frequently giving irrational and unwise attention to these mental states, this is the feeding cause of the arising of yet unarisen Lethargy-&-Laziness, and the feeding cause of worsening and deepening of already present Lethargy-&-Laziness. SN 46:51 What is the starving cause that makes Lethargy-&-Laziness cease? There is the quality of initiative. There is the quality of launching action. There is the quality of tenaciously enduring persistence. Frequently giving rational & wise attention to these three mental elements, is the starving cause for the non-arising of unarisen Lethargy-&-Laziness, and the starving cause for the arousing and stirring of already present Lethargy-&-Laziness. SN 46:51 The Supreme Ideal: Before the Buddha sat down to meditate in order to attain enlightenment, he made this determination: May just all flesh and blood of this body dry up into a stiff frame of only bones, tendons and skin... Not a second before having achieved, what can be achieved by male strength, power, and energy, will I rise from this seat... MN 70 How to stimulate the mind: How does one stimulate the mind at a time when it needs stimulation? If due to slowness of understanding or due to not having yet reached the happiness of tranquillity, one's mind is dull, then one should rouse it through reflecting on the eight objects stirring urgency. These 8 objects are: birth, decay, disease & death; the suffering in hell, demon, ghost & animal world! The suffering in the past and the future rooted in this Samsara. The suffering of the present rooted in the pursuit for food and living. Vism. IV,63 Perceiving the suffering in impermanence: In a Bhikkhu, who is used to see the suffering in impermanence and who frequently reflects on this, there will be established in him such an acute sense of the danger in laziness, apathy, inactivity and lethargy, just as if he was threatened by a mad murderer with drawn sword! AN 7:46 Lethargy-&-Laziness is an inner mental Prison: Just as when a man has been forced into prison is Lethargy-&-Laziness, but later when he gets released from this (inner) prison, then he is safe, fearing no loss of property. And at that good he rejoices glad at heart... Such is the breaking out of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Another person has been kept in jail during a festival day, and so could see none of the shows. When people say: Oh, how fun was this festival! He will remain shy, mute and silent because he did not enjoy any festival himself... Similarly is prison of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Another person that once had been in jail on a festival day. But when freed and celebrating the festival on a later occasion, he looks back: Before due to my own careless laziness, I was in prison on that day & could not enjoy this fine festival. Now I shall therefore be alert and careful. Since he remains thus alert and careful no detrimental state can overcome his mind. Having fully enjoyed the festival, he exclaims: What a fun festival! Good is absence of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Whoever lives in search & urge only or pleasure and beauty, unguarded in senses, immoderately indulging in eating, lazy, lethargic, inactive, dulled into apathy; Such ones Mara sweeps away like breaking a branch of a tiny bush ... Dhammapada 7 Even if one should live a hundred years, if lazy and idle, better it would be to live but just a single day striving with all one got. Dhammapada 112 Easy is the shameless life now. Easy is it to be bold, retaliating, lazy, uninformed and wrong-viewed. Dhammapada 244 Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace. Do not let the king of death, seeing you lazy, lead you astray and dominate you. Sutta Nipata II, 10 <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #106303 From: Kevin Farrell Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Buddha a philosopher? Realities & Concepts farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, this is not to invalidate your question in any way. But what you ask is about a passage from the introduction, not even the actual text and then a short bit from the beginning of the text. And you quote many suttas to try and explain your side and prove that it is different from what the passage you quote explains. Please try to simply read the whole text before you present any questions. Thank you, Kevin Alex wrote: "Hello Kevin, Nina, all, I am stuck in the begining of KS's work of Concepts & Realities: ... cut ... #106304 From: "nori" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: D.O. was:Nama vs Citta norakat147 Dear Nina, Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Nina: "Understanding is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factor) which is a wholesome root. It arises and falls away with the citta but it is not lost, it is accumulated in the citta so that there are conditions for its arising again later on. ... First it is intellectual understanding, and then it can become direct understanding of realities." Is there any way to further characterize or describe this process of "understanding"? (such as how citta/sobhana cetasika retains it?) Is it a sort of 'gathering of information' or facts stored as formations to condition intention/action? The conventional (scientific) understanding is that 'facts/information', 'processes', 'conditions', 'nature' is somehow stored in the physical brain as formations, reflecting the outside reality/conditions/nature, and 'it' (the being) uses it to accomplish and condition it's will. Is it different from this? Kind Regards, Nori #106305 From: "Mike" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Scott, I was commenting based on what I thought you were saying. Metta Mike --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > Regarding: > > Scott: "I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate." > > H: "Well, that is interesting, Scott." > > Scott: "Isn't it though. You don't know what I mean, do you?" > > H: "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. You seem to be saying that activity occurs. Why don't you just explain what you mean and how it moves debate beyond a stalemate? Then perhaps I will know what you mean." > > Mike: I'm a little confused how anyone could argue that there is no 'action'. It doesn't make sense to me..." > > > Scott: Were you addressing me, Mike? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #106306 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "I was commenting based on what I thought you were saying." Scott: I'll leave you to it, then. If you wish a comment from me, you can ask. Sincerely, Scott. #106307 From: Ken O Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] rules and rituals sukin pt ashkenn2k Dear Sukin My apology. At times I cannot express myself very well until I have many rounds of thinking. Are they all rules? So it is not the rules that differentiate, it is the samma ditthi that differentiate the rules. Not because there are no rules. Similarily, I explain my discussion with you about the email here. It is not the convention actions that make an action wrong, it is the miccha ditthi that make the action wrong. Conventional action is just a mean to an end. That does not mean one does not understand this convention action is just nama and rupa Understanding nama and rupa does not mean we do not do convention actions or there are no rules, we understand the conditions behind these convention actions or the reasons behind these rules why Buddha impose such rules. We understand it is citta that hears, it is through the accumulation of all sense door and mind door processes, that one listens. Separately, not impt, I want to separate what is meant by conventional thinking of conceptual and conventonal thinking. What we learn now is just conventional truth and not conventional concepts. What we walk now is conventional action but not conceptual actions. Conceptual actions only happen when our mind see a moving object, a conventional actions is the accumulations of cittas that condition the movement of the body intimations that cause us to walk. I think I dont use it anymore, because it will add more confusion to the dicussion in the forum. Cheers Ken O > >Hello Ken, > >> >> if there are no rules, then there should not be any vinaya baskets in >> the tipitika. It should only be two. >> > >But there is a difference between Patimokkha orVinaya and >Silabbataparamasa isn't there? > >Metta, > >Sukinder > > #106308 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ------------ <. . .> KH: > > . . . there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment. > > KO: > since you put it this way, why are you still reading and listening to dhamma.? Since these are conventional actions, you should stop doing it as it does not condition satipathanna as you think it is against satipatthana.? ------------ When you say I am reading and listening to Dhamma, what do you mean by I? -------------------- KO: > Also?if there is no time for doing it, you should not?read and listen to dhamma. -------------------- Same question again: what is the nature of this reader and listener? Is it immortal? If not, for how long will it continue to exist? ------------------------------------------- <. . .> KO:?>?I always said that?understanding of nama and?rupa is fundamental to development of understanding.? ------------------------------------------- Development of understanding of what? --------------------- KO: > The disciple clearly understands nama and rupas and the process for it to become concepts or doing convention actions.? --------------------- Are you saying the understanding of nama and rupas is fundamental to the development of understanding concepts and conventional actions? -------------- <. . .> KH: > > Right understanding or no right understanding, whatever happens now will depend on conditions that have already been put in place. > > KO:?> pse dont read?dhamma books then, why bother?:-). -------------- I wasn't talking about me. I wasn't talking about books either. I was talking about conditioned dhammas. Whatever conditioned dhamma arises now will depend on conditions that have already been put in place, won't it? If dhammas are conditioned right now to create concepts of books, or book-readers, or book-reading, that will be purely because of conditions that were already in place, won't it? Ken H #106309 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------ <. . .> H: > If there is no time, then the first of the tilakkhana, anicca, is entirely unreal. Nothing can arise, cease, or change if there is no time. Time and impermanence are interdependent if not in fact identical. ------------ I agree with Scott; anicca is a characteristic of conditioned dhammas, it is not something that depends on the passage of time. Nibbana is not impermanent, but I don't think that means nibbana remains the same over time, do you? I don't think time is a factor. Ken H #106310 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Robert, -------- KH: > > I suppose it is conventional action because it is the counterpart of paramattha action. In some ways it must be a shadow - or an indicator - of cetana. > > > > That and the notion of "repeated arisings of cetana," must be relevant somehow to satipatthana, but I just can't see it. > > R: > how about this: > The Dhammapada 371 : > QUOTE > "Meditate, o bhikkhu and be not heedless., > THe Dhammapada pradipaya (see p457 of carter) says > > QUOTE > "to consider the coming into being of rupa on account of > ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition, and also to see the > mere characteristics of its instantaneous coming into being, > without looking for causative aspect; thus one should consider > the rise of rupa in five ways. Likewise to consider the rise > of the other 4 khandas in the same way...Thus the rise of the > pancakkhanda (five aggregates )is seen in 25 ways. To see that > the rise of the khandas is stopped by abolishing the > causes:ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition..in this way > the cessation of the agregates should be seen" ---------- Thanks Robert, your quotes seem to support my position. (I don't know if that was your intention.) They seem to agree that we don't need to know, for satipatthana purposes, precisely how dhammas create concepts. Ken H #106311 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:45 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Mike, --------------- <. . .> Mike: > I'm a little confused how anyone could argue that there is no "action". It doesn't make sense to me, or my reading of the Dhamma: [From one of the helpful DSG collections...] Visuddhimagga XVI,90-91): 90. "...in the ultimate sense all the truths should be understood as void because of the absence of (i) any experiencer, (ii) any doer, (iii) anyone who is extinguished, and (iv) any goer. Hence it is said 'For there is suffering, but none who suffers; Doing exists although there is no doer; Extinction is but no extinguished person; Although there is a path, there is no goer'. ---------------- Doesn't that answer your question? If there is doing, but no doer, then what would be the nature of "doing"? Consider, for example, a game of tennis. If there is no "doer" that means there is no one hitting the tennis ball with a racket, doesn't it? So is the Visuddhimagga saying there is really just a ball and racket moving about in mid air of their own accord? No, of course not, the Vismis saying there is really no tennis player, no ball, no racket . . . no tennis. ---------------------------- Mike: > In fact, to answer some of the queries that KenH raised a couple of days ago, I don't think that it makes sense to assert that because ultimately all there are are paramattha dhammas that "nothing else exists". Such statements seem to me to be similar to saying that a rock doesn't exist because ultimately it is made of atoms (or atoms don't exist because they are ultimately made of electrons, protons, and neutrons...). ----------------------------- If something else does exist, then we should know what it is. The Buddha should have told us. It could be an immortal soul! ------------------------------------------ Mike: > Perhaps we are using a different definition of "exists". This is why I keep asking for definitions of terms. I suspect we are taking quite different meanings from many of the words that are used in these discussions. ----------------------------------------- Isn't that just a delaying tactic? :-) Exists means exists. ------------------------------------------------- Mike: > The way I would put it is that all phenomena can be ultimately seen to be composed of paramattha dhammas. The question of whether any of those things (including that paramattha dhammas) are "real" is not, in my opinion, the point. The analysis of the processes is the point. ---------------------------------------------------- How long do these "phenomena composed of paramattha dhammas" exist? Are you and I examples of them? What happens when they cease to exist? Ken H #106312 From: Ken O Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >------------ > >When you say I am reading and listening to Dhamma, what do you mean by I? >Same question again: what is the nature of this reader and listener? > >Is it immortal? If not, for how long will it continue to exist? >Development of understanding of what? > >------------ -------- KO:? When I?is type in the computer,?I is already gone as micchia ditthi that condition it has fallen away.? Miccha ditthi?has already?condition the?countless body intimation process through the different paccaya?that do the typing of I.? Could you?ask me a more difficult questions rather than what do you mean by I or the nature of reader and listener or understanding of what??? Maybe i should add more like latency condtion miccha ditthi to arise and?miccha ditthi must arise with lobha.? All akusala must?arise with?moha.??Do you want me to go more?like describing the cetasikas that arise with miccha ditthi, the feelings, the objects, the functions.? Wait, the arisen of miccha dittthi again strengthen the latency of miccha ditthi. I forget to tell you, without miccha ditthi there is no wrong view of self.? Self is used without any problem with Arahants because they know self is a?concept while wrong view of self is miccha ditthi.? So you are now concern with I which is a concept?and not miccha ditthi :-) Can citta read at just one mind door process, I will like to know if it can.? Words are concepts, so you could read concepts?at paramatha level, I would be very happy to hear about it.??? >Are you saying the understanding of nama and rupas is fundamental to the development of understanding concepts and conventional actions? KO:? Nope.? I said conventional actions are the means for the understanding of the development of nama and rupa.? You like to quote me which text that there is no need for conventional actions that one could magically become enlighted.? > >If dhammas are conditioned right now to create concepts of books, or book-readers, or book-reading, that will be purely because of conditions that were already in place, won't it? KO:?? Definitely there are conditions in place, if not you would be typing this email to me.? But is it a single process? or countless? sense door or mind process?? Cheers Ken O #106313 From: Ken O Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H oops, better do a correction, Arahant has eradicated miccha ditthi so there is no micchi ditthi cheers Ken O Dear Ken H > >>----------- - >> >>When you say I am reading and listening to Dhamma, what do you mean by I? > >>Same question again: what is the nature of this reader and listener? >> >>Is it immortal? If not, for how long will it continue to exist? > >>Development of understanding of what? >> > >>----------- - -------- >KO: When I is type in the computer, I is already gone as micchia ditthi that condition it has fallen away. Miccha ditthi has already condition the countless body intimation process through the different paccaya that do the typing of I. Could you ask me a more difficult questions rather than what do you mean by I or the nature of reader and listener or understanding of what? Maybe i should add more like latency condtion miccha ditthi to arise and miccha ditthi must arise with lobha. All akusala must arise with moha. Do you want me to go more like describing the cetasikas that arise with miccha ditthi, the feelings, the objects, the functions. Wait, the arisen of miccha dittthi again strengthen the latency of miccha ditthi. > >I forget to tell you, without miccha ditthi there is no wrong view of self. Self is used without any problem with Arahants because they know self is a concept while wrong view of self is miccha ditthi. So you are now concern with I which is a concept and not miccha ditthi :-) > >Can citta read at just one mind door process, I will like to know if it can. Words are concepts, so you could read concepts at paramatha level, I would be very happy to hear about it. > >>Are you saying the understanding of nama and rupas is fundamental to the development of understanding concepts and conventional actions? > >KO: Nope. I said conventional actions are the means for the understanding of the development of nama and rupa. You like to quote me which text that there is no need for conventional actions that one could magically become enlighted. > >> >>If dhammas are conditioned right now to create concepts of books, or book-readers, or book-reading, that will be purely because of conditions that were already in place, won't it? > >KO: Definitely there are conditions in place, if not you would be typing this email to me. But is it a single process? or countless sense door or mind process? > >Cheers >Ken O > #106314 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "...No, that wasn't the basis. My point was, in fact, allowing for a non-phenomenalist perspective. My emphasis was that our *consciousness* of the passage of time depends on the passage of cittas, but the passage of time might not..." Scott: If by consciousness you mean awareness, and if by awareness you mean to refer to some conventional notion of common, ordinary thinking about this and that based on everyday experience then this isn't saying much except to note that people think about time. People think about all sorts of things but not all the objects of thinking are realities. Since time is a concept, then the passage of time is just construed and thought about. Yeah, though, such thoughts would have to be based on the ongoing reality of dhammas (naama and ruupa) arising and falling away but it is only imputed, construed, thought about - and commonly misunderstood - based on avijjaa. Me: "I also happen to think that it is nonsense to say that there is no action. This debate may be in the process of moving beyond it's long-standing stalemate." H: "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. You seem to be saying that activity occurs. Why don't you just explain what you mean and how it moves debate beyond a stalemate? Then perhaps I will know what you mean." Scott: I said 'may be in the process of moving beyond...' I'm not counting my chickens. ;-) My statement was hastily and poorly worded. 'Meditators' continue to misconstrue and mis-state the so-called 'DSG view' to mean there is no doing or no action; it was to this I was referring. The 'DSG view' also becomes a caricature of itself in response, referring to 'only satipa.t.thaana.' I don't find this useful either - one dogmatic, nonsensical side of a debate confronted by another and 'round and 'round... As you know, I have no interest in this whole industry of self-help and self-righteousness known as 'meditation' and all the Centres and Teachers and Rhetoric that goes along with it. Nor do I have an interest in the tedious discussions that amount to cheering for teams and dogmatic boosterism. If the discussion can get beyond this unproductive level, perhaps there can be some exploration of the finer points of what the Buddha did teach by way of instructions and what 'instructions' actually mean. So 'activity occurs' might be what I was saying - or one way of saying it. Of what does this 'activity' consist? What 'directs' it? What does it mean to follow an instruction? Meditators, it seems to me, don't find it useful to consider that reality consists of paramattha dhammas with unalterable characteristics since they seem to need to believe in a 'doing' that is not like 'activity occurs.' Meditators do believe in 'instructions' and 'rules' and the like. Of what do these actually consist? DSGers also believe in rules. There are a lot of 'shoulds' written about as well. What is behind it all? Sincerely, Scott. #106315 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg nilovg Hi Howard, Your remark to Ken H is useful to me, helping me to consider more the processes of cittas. Op 26-mrt-2010, om 14:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Elsewhere one might say > there is no doing of anything because there is no doer or actor or > willer, and > there is no control etc. But here the point being made is that > "there is > no *time* for doing anything" [emphasis mine]. ------- N: Cittas perform their functions and those cittas that arise in sense-door processes and mind-door process do so according to a fixed order, niyama, nobody can change. The votthapana-citta, determining- consciousness, in a sense-door process and the mind-door adverting- consciousness are followed by the javanacittas that may be kusala or akusala. As you know all these cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly, indeed, there is no time to ponder over them or to stop them in order to decide what to do, or make a choice. However, the situation is not hopeless. Since each citta is succeeded by the following citta in the long series of cittas in our life, arising and falling away, kusala that has fallen away is still 'carried on' from moment to moment. During the moments of javana new kusala or new akusala is being accumulated and this conditions future moments of the same. Thus, the determining-consciousness and mind-door-adverting- consciousness which are just one moment of kiriyacitta (neither kusala nor akusala) cannot do anything about the following javana- cittas, but it depends entirely on accumulated conditions what types they will be, kusala or akusala. The Buddha exhorted people to abstain from akusala, to perform kusala, and his impressive words were a real support for people to follow his advice. We just dealt with the sutta in the Pali list: A.N. Book of the Twos, I, 58: "Monks, do you abandon evil. It can be done, If it were impossible to abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. ...Monks, do cultivate the good. It can be done, If it were impossible to abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. ... " Through the teachings we see more and more the value of kusala, and especially of understanding. We know that kusala can be accumulated so that it can arise again. We should not underestimate the power of accumulated conditions. ***** Nina. #106316 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thank you for your reply. In a message dated 3/27/2010 10:34:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: We just dealt with the sutta in the Pali list: A.N. Book of the Twos, I, 58: "Monks, do you abandon evil. It can be done, If it were impossible to abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. ...Monks, do cultivate the good. It can be done, If it were impossible to abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. ... " Through the teachings we see more and more the value of kusala, and especially of understanding. We know that kusala can be accumulated so that it can arise again. We should not underestimate the power of accumulated conditions. ============================= Yes, I agree with that, Nina, and consider it important. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106317 From: Ken O Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:45 pm Subject: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue ashkenn2k Dear Alex As promised, we will discuss the factors leading to jhanas. Virtue, Restraint of the Sense Faculties, Mindfulness and Clear Comprehension and Contentment. Now in the suttas like DN 1 Brahmajala Sutta DN 2 Sammannaphala Suttaa and DN 11 Kevaddhaa Sutta have good details on morality. I just give the short section from DN 1 http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Digha-Nikaya/dn-1.htm <> Comy to Sammannaphala Suttas: Sees no danger anyhwere CY: He does not see any danger anywhere from dangers which might arise rooted in nonrestraint. Why? Because, due to his restraint, he does not face any danger rooted in nonrestaraint he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. CY: He experiences within himself a blameless, faultless, wholesome bodily and mental happiness accompanied by such pheonomena as non-remorse, gladness, rapture and tranquility which are based on moral discipline as their proximate cause. KO: Now the word I like to highlight is tranquility. Tranquility is samatha and not samadhi. We could see that these virtures are kuasala and condition the development of samatha. So we should be aware of this difference and not taking samadhi as tranquility. KO: Any comments. thanks Cheers Ken O #106318 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg nilovg Hi Howard, Scott, Ken H, Yes, more interpretations possible of there is no time (for doing anything). I had not followed the whole discussion, so I was not sure I answered the point Howard was making. I thought that was meant: how can one do anything, cittas are too fast, no time. I cannot read all posts, I spend too much time in the kitchen to make Lodewijk eat. He is not well, and I must help him, beginning with soup, starting at five fifteen in the morning. (Grandma's recepy, three or four hours simmering). Such is life. So, I have no "time" to read all of your posts, you forgive me please when I make gaffes. Nina. Op 26-mrt-2010, om 14:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The emphasis of Ken's statement is the unreality of time, there being > "only the present moment." That is the reason given by Ken in that > particular post for it being impossible to do anything. Elsewhere > one might say > there is no doing of anything because there is no doer or actor or > willer, and > there is no control etc. But here the point being made is that > "there is > no *time* for doing anything" [emphasis mine]. #106319 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/27/2010 3:12:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Scott, Ken H, Yes, more interpretations possible of there is no time (for doing anything). I had not followed the whole discussion, so I was not sure I answered the point Howard was making. I thought that was meant: how can one do anything, cittas are too fast, no time. I cannot read all posts, I spend too much time in the kitchen to make Lodewijk eat. He is not well, and I must help him, beginning with soup, starting at five fifteen in the morning. (Grandma's recepy, three or four hours simmering). Such is life. -------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry to hear this, Nina. Please send Lodewijk my very best. (And my best to you as well!) --------------------------------------------- So, I have no "time" to read all of your posts, you forgive me please when I make gaffes. Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106320 From: "colette" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ksheri3 Dear Nina, Indeed, highly "supportive", thanx for sharing that with us, at least with me ;). toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > Your remark to Ken H is useful to me, helping me to consider more the > processes of cittas. > > Op 26-mrt-2010, om 14:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > Elsewhere one might say > > there is no doing of anything because there is no doer or actor or > > willer, and > > there is no control etc. But here the point being made is that > > "there is > > no *time* for doing anything" [emphasis mine]. > ------- > N: Cittas perform their functions and those cittas that arise in > sense-door processes and mind-door process do so according to a fixed > order, niyama, nobody can change. The votthapana-citta, determining- > consciousness, in a sense-door process and the mind-door adverting- > consciousness are followed by the javanacittas that may be kusala or > akusala. > As you know all these cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly, > indeed, there is no time to ponder over them or to stop them in order > to decide what to do, or make a choice. > > However, the situation is not hopeless. Since each citta is succeeded > by the following citta in the long series of cittas in our life, > arising and falling away, kusala that has fallen away is still > 'carried on' from moment to moment. During the moments of javana new > kusala or new akusala is being accumulated and this conditions future > moments of the same. > Thus, the determining-consciousness and mind-door-adverting- > consciousness which are just one moment of kiriyacitta (neither > kusala nor akusala) cannot do anything about the following javana- > cittas, but it depends entirely on accumulated conditions what types > they will be, kusala or akusala. > The Buddha exhorted people to abstain from akusala, to perform > kusala, and his impressive words were a real support for people to > follow his advice. > > We just dealt with the sutta in the Pali list: A.N. Book of the Twos, > I, 58: "Monks, do you abandon evil. It can be done, If it were > impossible to abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. ...Monks, > do cultivate the good. It can be done, If it were impossible to > abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. ... " > Through the teachings we see more and more the value of kusala, and > especially of understanding. We know that kusala can be accumulated > so that it can arise again. We should not underestimate the power of > accumulated conditions. > > ***** > Nina. > #106321 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Ken H., Regarding: K: "I am disappointed in myself that I can't fully follow your line of reasoning here. It looks like the sort of discussion I would like." Scott: Please be disappointed in me instead. I'm the muddiest thinker I know of. > > ------- > <. . .> > S: > That cetanaa-cetasika - in tandem with other dhammas of course - can serve as condition for its own repeated arising such that a set of conventionally construed interconnected moments of mind-produced matter can run a course is also clear. > ------- > > I suppose that is so, but I really don't know. > > ------------ > S: > It seems to me that the way in which this whole is considered is a matter of thought. 'Conventional action' might be misleading. > ------------ > K: "I suppose it is conventional action because it is the counterpart of paramattha action. In some ways it must be a shadow - or an indicator - of cetana." Scott: I don't know. It would be good to really pin down the way to understand this whole conventional/paramattha thing. I mean, I rule out the meditators on this since, to me, they haven't got a clue. But amongst 'ourselves' I think there are differences we can meaningfully clarify - in the interest of discussing Dhamma, not just in the interest of keeping sides. The hopeless mutually counteracting dogmatism that comes from discussing this with meditators bent on justifying their precious practice to themselves will lead nowhere. K: "That and the notion of 'repeated arisings of cetana,' must be relevant somehow to satipatthana, but I just can't see it." Scott: Let's just say, between ourselves and ignoring the meditators, that there might be a way to see it as other than 'there is only satipa.t.thaana' while remaining consistent with what it really means for their to be paramattha dhammas. Let's see if it is possible to loosen up on 'satipa.t.thaana only' and, again meditators aside, see what else there might be. I think it is a safe bet that you and I do really see it differently than the meditators. We can ignore all the attempts to say, 'See, I told you so,' right? ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #106322 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ------------- <. . .> KO:?> Could you?ask me a more difficult questions rather than what do you mean by I or the nature of reader and listener or understanding of what??? --------------- They were simple questions, weren't they? :-) That's because I thought you needed to go back to the beginning: you had missed something fundamental. I hope you won't mind my saying this, Ken, but after all your years at DSG, in which you seemingly got the point of anatta, it is now becoming evident that you haven't got the point at all! Consider the following exchange: ----------- <. . .> KH: > > . . . there is no time for doing anything; there is only the present moment. > > KO: > since you put it this way, why are you still reading and listening to dhamma.? Since these are conventional actions, you should stop doing it as it does not condition satipathanna as you think it is against satipatthana.? ------------ That has always been the classic response at DSG whenever someone has failed to see the point. So what has been the classic answer to it? Or haven't you been listening? :-) -------------------- KO: > Maybe i should add more like latency condtion miccha ditthi <. . .> -------------------- Why not go back to the beginning: "there is only the present moment." That might be where you didn't listen. All of these technical explanations as to how one dhamma conditioned another are of no use if we have forgotten there is only the present moment. ------------- <. . .> KO: > Self is used without any problem with Arahants because they know self is a?concept while wrong view of self is miccha ditthi.? So you are now concern with I which is a concept?and not miccha ditthi :-) -------------- An Arahant would know that "computer" (for example) was atta. Belief in the ultimate existence of computers is atta-ditthi. There are no computers in the present-moment world. There is no dhamma called computer. There may be dhammas that are thinking about computers, but that's as close as you'll get to an actual computer. ------------------------ KO: > Can citta read at just one mind door process, I will like to know if it can.?Words are concepts, so you could read concepts?at paramatha level, I would be very happy to hear about it.??? ------------------------ Doesn't this remind you of other DSG conversations where someone has said (for example), "If you believe people, cars and trees don't exist, try driving your car into a tree and see what happens to you!"? ----------------------------- <. . .> KH: > >Are you saying the understanding of nama and rupas is fundamental to the development of understanding concepts and conventional actions? > > KO:?> Nope.? I said conventional actions are the means for the understanding of the development of nama and rupa.? You like to quote me which text that there is no need for conventional actions that one could magically become enlighted.? ---------------------------- I would have agreed with that. I agree concepts are necessary for teaching and learning Dhamma. But what you actually wrote was: < I always said that?understanding of nama and?rupa is fundamental to development of understanding.?> So I had to wonder, "Does Ken O realise that understanding of nama and rupa *is* satipatthana?" But now I can see that you may have been saying that theoretical (conceptual) understanding of nama and rupa was fundamental to the development of real (direct) understanding of nama and rupa. In which case, I apologise. :-) -------------------- <. . .> KH: > > If dhammas are conditioned right now to create concepts of books, or book-readers, or book-reading, that will be purely because of conditions that were already in place, won't it? KO:?>? Definitely there are conditions in place, if not you would be typing this email to me.? But is it a single process? or countless? sense door or mind process?? -------------------- Or are you forgetting there is only the present moment? That's what the Dhamma is all about. Satipatthana is right understanding of the reality that is appearing now in the present moment. Ken H #106323 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. jonoabb Hi Alex (106300) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > Well, the suttas do not make such a big distinction between "ultimate realities that exist" vs "conventional realities don't exist". > =============== By and large, it is true to say that the suttas do not draw an *express* distinction between dhammas and concepts/"conventional realities". They do, however, talk an awful lot about dhammas, either as dhammas (in general) or as one of the classifications of dhammas such as the khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, etc. If there is no proper understanding of the distinction between dhammas and pannatti, the message of the suttas will be misunderstood (and wrong practice is likely to follow). > =============== > I understand the basic analysis, but it appears to me to venture into philosophical not Dhammic category. > =============== Analysing the meaning of the suttas is a very necessary (and worthwhile) exercise. There is not necessarily anything philosophical about doing that. The Buddha himself urged his listeners to listen to and reflect on the teachings frequently. > =============== > It seems to me that analysis IS mental activity, just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). > > The wholes do have functions that are not found in its parts. To me this proves that functions of the wholes DO exist. A whole isn't always a mere sum of its parts. > =============== Yes, but only dhammas can be object of insight (wholes cannot). Jon #106324 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg jonoabb Hi Mike Good to see you back again. (106296) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > ... > Mike: The way I would put it is that all phenomena can be ultimately seen to be composed of paramattha dhammas. > =============== I'm not sure about "composed of". I suppose it depends on what you mean by that (do you have a definition?:-)). "Composed of" could be taken as meaning that people and things can be broken down into paramattha dhammas; that is to say, taking people and things as the starting point, they can be analysed into smaller entities. That is not the effect of the teachings, as I understand them. I would put it this way: What are taken for people and things are, in the ultimate sense, only paramattha dhammas. That is to say, ideas of people and things are created out of the experiencing of paramattha dhammas. > =============== The question of whether any of those things (including that paramattha dhammas) are "real" is not, in my opinion, the point. The analysis of the processes is the point. > =============== To my understanding, the "reality" of dhammas is relevant in the sense that it conveys the meaning that (a) there is nothing that is "more ultimate" (as it were) and (b) each dhamma has a unique characteristic by which it is known. Jon #106325 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:19 pm Subject: Restlessness and Regret scatters the Mind! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Curing the agitated Restlessness and Regret! Noticing Restlessness-&-Regret arise can make it fade away: When Restlessness-&-Regret is present, the bhikkhu notes & understands: There is Restlessness-&-Regret in me, while when Restlessness-&-Regret is absent, then he notes & understands: No Restlessness-&-Regret is in me. He also understands well how unarisen Restlessness-&-Regret arises. He understands how to leave behind any arisen Restlessness-&-Regret, and he understands how left Restlessness-&-Regret will not arise again. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes Restlessness-&-Regret arise? There are unrest, unsettledness, nervous unease, agitation & anxiety, often giving irrational & unwise attention to such states, this is the feeding cause of the arising of unarisen Restlessness-&-Regret, & the feeding cause of worsening and exacerbation of already arisen Restlessness-&-Regret. SN 46:51 What is the starving cause that makes Restlessness-&-Regret cease? There is the mental state of serene tranquillity, calm, quietude, stillness, imperturbability, peace, frequently giving rational & wise attention to this exquisite mental state, is the starving cause for the non-arising of unarisen Restlessness-&-Regret, & the starving cause for the dampening and calming of Restlessness-&-Regret, that has already been stirred up. SN 46:51 Advantageous reflections whenever Restlessness-&-Regret is provoked: When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: Tranquillity , Concentration and Equanimity , because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them. SN 46:53 Restlessness-&-Regret is like Slavery: Just as when a man is a slave, not independent, but dependent on others, unable to go where he likes, exactly & even so is restlessness since it forces one into unwanted activity & destroys any ease & calm. Later he is set free from slavery, is now independent, no longer dependent, a freeman who can go where he wants. And at that he rejoices, is glad at heart... Such is also the blissful freedom from restlessness. DN 2 Deliberately Directing to a Conscious and Clever Centre of Concentration: Herein, Ananda, a Bhikkhu attends to this single Focus: This is Real, this is Supreme, namely: The Stilling of all mental Construction, The Calming of all Restless Activity, The Fading of all Concern and Anxiety, The Cooling of all Temptation and Urge, The Ending of all Longing and Craving, The Exhaustion of all Fuel of Becoming, Ceasing, Peace, Bliss, Freedom, Nibbana ? AN V 319 DOING GOOD = NO REGRET! Here and now the good-doer rejoices! :-) Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of good reaps only Joy & ease... So both here and beyond, the wise with merit well done, enjoys the purity of own prior good behaviour. Dhammapada 15 DOING BAD = MUCH REGRET! Here and now the bad-doer suffers... :-( Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of wrong reaps only pain and regret... So both here and beyond, the evil wrongdoing fool suffers the painful results of prior bad behaviour. Dhammapada 16 Restlessness-&-regret is followed by worry, anxiety, agitation and attention deficit! <...> Have a nice, noble and calm day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #106326 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, > "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > (106300) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > ... > > Well, the suttas do not make such a big distinction between "ultimate realities that exist" vs "conventional realities don't exist". > > =============== > > By and large, it is true to say that the suttas do not draw an >*express* distinction between dhammas and concepts/"conventional >realities". Here we may have a problem. ""Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.025.than.html >They do, however, talk an awful lot about dhammas, either as dhammas >(in general) or as one of the classifications of dhammas such as the >khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, etc. As you know, Dhamma can mean many things, some of which is "the teaching", or "The Law". So ofcourse the Buddha talked about the Teaching and The Law. Does He ever correlated khandha-ayatana-dhatu as dhamma (plural)? Did He ever directly say that "these are ultimate realities and these are conventional" in the Suttas? > Yes, but only dhammas can be object of insight (wholes cannot). > > Jon What about his statement that contemplation of "analysis of repulsiveness of edible food" (like a flesh of one's own son) leading up to Anagami level? What about all the references to anapanasati leading up to Arhatship? If Anapanasati can develop satipatthana (MN118), then how can so called "conceptual activity" lead to Arhatship? IMHO, 4NT is the key. With metta, Alex #106327 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:29 am Subject: Re: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > As promised, we will discuss the factors leading to jhanas. Virtue, Restraint of the Sense Faculties, Mindfulness and Clear Comprehension and Contentment. > > Now in the suttas like DN 1 Brahmajala Sutta DN 2 Sammannaphala Suttaa and DN 11 Kevaddhaa Sutta have good details on morality. I just give the short section from DN 1 > > http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Digha-Nikaya/dn-1.htm > > < “Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gotama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword, scrupulous, compassionate, trembling for the welfare of all living beings.” Thus the worldling would praise the Tathagata.9 “Abandoning the taking of what is not given, the ascetic Gotama dwells refraining from taking what is not given, living purely, accepting what is given, awaiting what is given, without stealing. Abandoning unchastely, the ascetic Gotama lives far from it, aloof from the village-practice of sex.” 10 > “Abandoning false speech, the ascetic Gotama dwells refraining from false speech, a truth-speaker, one to be relied on, trustworthy, dependable, not a deceiver of the world. Abandoning malicious speech, he does not repeat there what he has heard here to the detriment of these, or repeat here what he has heard there to the detriment of those. Thus he is a reconciler of those at variance and an encourager of those at one, rejoicing in peace, loving it, delighting in it, one who speaks up for peace. Abandoning harsh speech, he refrains from it. He speaks whatever is blameless, pleasing to the ear, agreeable, reaching the heart, urbane, pleasing and attractive to the multitude. Abandoning idle chatter, he speaks at the right time, what is correct and to the point,11 of Dhamma and discipline. He is a speaker whose words are to be treasured, seasonable, reasoned, well-defined and connected with the goal.” 12 Thus the worldling would > praise the Tathagata. > > “The ascetic Gotama is a refrainer from damaging seeds and crops. He eats once a day and not at night, refraining from eating at improper times.13 He avoids watching dancing, singing, music and shows. He abstains from using garlands, perfumes, cosmetics, ornaments and adornments. He avoids using high or wide beds. He avoids accepting gold and silver.14 He avoids accepting raw grain or raw flesh, he does not accept women and young girls, male or female slaves, sheep and goats, cocks and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses and mares, fields and plots,15 he refrains from running errands, from buying and selling, from cheating with false weights and measures, from bribery and corruption, deception, and insincerity, from wounding, killing, imprisoning, highway robbery, and taking food by force.” Thus the worldling would praise the Tathagata. > > this interesting text is found in this DN 2 Sammannaphala sutta.http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Digha-Nikaya/dn-2.htm > <<"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies, in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue. >> > > Comy to Sammannaphala Suttas: > Sees no danger anyhwere > CY: He does not see any danger anywhere from dangers which might >arise rooted in nonrestraint. Why? Because, due to his restraint, >he does not face any danger rooted in nonrestaraint The above is a great list om virtue, though for a layperson 5-10 precepts will do. One of the reasons to go on the retreats is that you are less currently busy with worldly affairs and have less chance of breaking some rule. Of course an unwise mismeditator may due to folly bring the past mental baggage with him to the retreat. This is wrong. But in any case one is more likely to be successful if the external environment is more suitable. > he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. > CY: He experiences within himself a blameless, faultless, wholesome bodily and mental happiness accompanied by such pheonomena as non-remorse, gladness, rapture and tranquility which are based on moral discipline as their proximate cause. > > > KO: Now the word I like to highlight is tranquility. Tranquility is samatha and not samadhi. We could see that these virtures are kuasala and condition the development of samatha. So we should be aware of this difference and not taking samadhi as tranquility. > > KO: Any comments. thanks > > > Cheers > Ken O Tranquillity is one of the factors of Samadhi, and samadhi is much more than mere tranquility. In my understanding, Samadhi includes sati and panna. IMHO. With metta, Alex #106328 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Mike > > Good to see you back again. > > (106296) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > ... > > Mike: The way I would put it is that all phenomena can be ultimately seen to be composed of paramattha dhammas. > > =============== > > J: I'm not sure about "composed of". I suppose it depends on what you mean by that (do you have a definition?:-)). Mike: Perhaps a poor choice of words. I was working from my simile of rocks and atoms. > J: "Composed of" could be taken as meaning that people and things can be broken down into paramattha dhammas; that is to say, taking people and things as the starting point, they can be analysed into smaller entities. That is not the effect of the teachings, as I understand them. Mike: I took the point of the teachings that it is necessary to understand that these conceptual things we experience are a result of a large number of paramattha dhammas. That's the sense in which I talked about analysis. Mike: You put it like this: --------- > J: I would put it this way: What are taken for people and things are, in the ultimate sense, only paramattha dhammas. That is to say, ideas of people and things are created out of the experiencing of paramattha dhammas. ---------- Mike: To me, that's just a matter of which way round you look at it. What appears to be a "self" can be analysed into dhammas because it is the stream of dhammas that create it. > > =============== > Mike: The question of whether any of those things (including that paramattha dhammas) are "real" is not, in my opinion, the point. The analysis of the processes is the point. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the "reality" of dhammas is relevant in the sense that it conveys the meaning that (a) there is nothing that is "more ultimate" (as it were) and (b) each dhamma has a unique characteristic by which it is known. Mike: Yes, but "reality" is a rather loaded concept in the English language, and I don't see it as crucial here. I don't see that "reality" is needed in your argument above, only "indivisibility". Mike #106329 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:44 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > --------------- > <. . .> > Mike: > I'm a little confused how anyone could argue that there is no "action". It doesn't make sense to me, or my reading of the Dhamma: > > [From one of the helpful DSG collections...] > Visuddhimagga XVI,90-91): > 90. "...in the ultimate sense all the truths should be understood as > void because of the absence of (i) any experiencer, (ii) any doer, > (iii) anyone who is extinguished, and (iv) any goer. Hence it is said > > 'For there is suffering, but none who suffers; > Doing exists although there is no doer; > Extinction is but no extinguished person; > Although there is a path, there is no goer'. > ---------------- > > KH: Doesn't that answer your question? > > KH: If there is doing, but no doer, then what would be the nature of "doing"? Mike: It doesn't say "there is no doing". Mike: As I see it there are phenomena happening that can be broken down into paramattha dhammas (or, as Jon preferred to put it, the phenomena we see are built up of paramattha dhammas). Mike: To me that divisibility (or indivisibility in the case of the paramattha dhammas) that is the point. Metta Mike #106330 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: 'Meditators' continue to misconstrue and mis-state the so-called 'DSG view' to mean there is no doing or no action; it was to this I was referring. The 'DSG view' also becomes a caricature of itself in response, referring to 'only satipa.t.thaana.' I don't find this useful either - one dogmatic, nonsensical side of a debate confronted by another and 'round and 'round... Mike: Those naughty "meditators". > > Scott: As you know, I have no interest in this whole industry of self-help and self-righteousness known as 'meditation' and all the Centres and Teachers and Rhetoric that goes along with it. Nor do I have an interest in the tedious discussions that amount to cheering for teams and dogmatic boosterism. Mike: Who does? > Scott: If the discussion can get beyond this unproductive level, perhaps there can be some exploration of the finer points of what the Buddha did teach by way of instructions and what 'instructions' actually mean. Mike: Yes, that would be interesting. > Scott: So 'activity occurs' might be what I was saying - or one way of saying it. Of what does this 'activity' consist? What 'directs' it? What does it mean to follow an instruction? Meditators, it seems to me, don't find it useful to consider that reality consists of paramattha dhammas with unalterable characteristics since they seem to need to believe in a 'doing' that is not like 'activity occurs.' Meditators do believe in 'instructions' and 'rules' and the like. Of what do these actually consist? DSGers also believe in rules. There are a lot of 'shoulds' written about as well. What is behind it all? Mike: Yes, it would be interesting to discuss this. However, if you want have a useful discussion then you'll have to drop the rhetoric that any expression of different possible interpretations is evidence of wrong understanding. Mike #106331 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: Mike: "Yes, it would be interesting to discuss this. However, if you want have a useful discussion then you'll have to drop the rhetoric that any expression of different possible interpretations is evidence of wrong understanding." Scott: Take me or leave me, Mike. Just moderate yourself. Let me read some of your rhetoric - show where you stand on something then we'll see if there's anything to discuss. Sincerely, Scott. #106332 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:14 am Subject: Part 1 of Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > S: Frankly I'm not so familiar with the expression. pt: Strawman is basically when you say A, and then I say "you said B and I disagree with B because...". So, although I might be correct in terms of B, all that has nothing to do with A. An even more hairy strawman is if I say for example "this other person/teacher said/does D and I disagree with D because...". The problem is that the person is not present to correct me if I'm misrepresenting him, while at least in the first case you are present and able to say "hey, I didn't say B, I said A!" Anyway, we all use strawman arguments from time to time, so it's good to be aware of it to keep the discussion constructive. > Sukin: So what you are saying is that sometimes what comes across to me > as being a defense of `meditation' on your part, is actually an instance > of your trying to point out this error to me? OK. pt: Maybe. What I'm basically saying is let's not conflate paramattha dhammas and concepts, so we need to be clear at what point we're using ultimate terminology (that points to paramattha dhammas) and at what point conventional one (that points to concepts). > Sukin: Perhaps it's just my accumulations to always refer to some > conventional expressions of what happens on the ultimate level, in which > case I don't think it pointless to state then for example, that > meditation is wrong per se. pt: Yes, I think that's what confuses me, because I don't know whether you are arguing momentary or conventional notions. > S: Indeed what I mean to point out is the fact > of wrong understanding at the intellectual level leading to wrong > practice. pt: This again is tricky - are you referring to a moment of wrong view arising accompanied by craving for the concept of a future result - similar to the idea of "I need more sati now"? This clearly is akusala. Or are you referring to just thinking and philosphying on this topic in a conventional sense, which might take a long time with many cittas of different kinds involved? I mean, is "practice" you refer to a momentary or a conventional (stretch-of-time thing) reference? > S: I do not at those times need to refer to the fact of kusala > and akusala both arising in any extended period, because it has no > connection to the point I'm trying to make. pt: I think this is where we differ, because imo if understanding the difference between kusala and akusala now matters, then, if I suddenly brand a conventional activity (basically a concept I'm imagining) as a/kusala, then I'm completely missing the reality of kusala and akusala cittas happening during some such activity. I.e. I'm imagining (clinging to an idea) that all the cittas involved in meditation or reading are a/kusala, and this will simply not be a true reflection of realities that are happening. In case you were not referring to conventional activity of meditation at all, then I don't quite see what's the point of discussing vipassana or samatha meditation, because we should only be discussing kusala or akusala cittas - and this we already defined before - a moment with panna, or a moment with craving for something. > S: It seems to me that you make > the kind of reference in part because you think in terms of your own > past experience. Having judged your activities on and off the cushion as > being more or less equal in terms of frequency of kusala vs. akusala, > you use this to justify doing what you do. pt: What you say above for example is a strawman. I'll try to reiterate below what I was saying before. > S: When it is pointed out such things as the need to read and discuss > the Dhamma, the point made is of the need for the development of right > understanding at the Pariyatti level and not some conventional activity > to follow. What do you have to say with reference to meditation in this > regard? pt: Well, exactly the same thing that you refer to with such things as the need to read and discuss Dhamma. Consider it in that light - when I'm in conventional sense reading and discussing, there will ultimately be kusala moments when there's understanding of the difference between a/kusala or deeper (tilakkhana, etc), but there will also be moments of akusala, or rather, ignorance, perhaps because there's craving for the idea of getting more wisdom, etc. Imo, exactly the same happens with meditation in conventional sense. There will be kusala moments when there's understanding of the difference between a/kusala, and there will be akusala moments with craving for the idea of more sati or whatever. Ultimately speaking, I see absolutely no difference between conventional activities of reading, meditation, or cooking for that matter, because it's still the same variety of cittas that will be happening. > S: And when it is suggested that right understanding can arise during any > and every activity and there is hence no need to do anything special, > the point exactly is that at any given moment there are only paramattha > dhammas, conditioned and beyond control. And again, this is different to > saying that kusala and akusala both arise and fall away in more or less > same frequency and therefore why not meditate. pt: Well, did I ever say that? I don't think so, so another strawman. What I did was give an example of me as a beginner meditating really hard, and despite all that sea of akusala there were still a few moments of kusala. The idea of this example was to illustrate that a conventional activity (like meditation which takes place over a stretch of time) cannot be made to be all a/kusala, otherwise we have to posit a self that can make cittas be this way or that. So, it's equal to wrong view to think that a certain conventional activity (ultimately just an imagined concept) is a/kusala. And it's also a conflation of ultimate and conventional terminology. If you want me to comment regarding the frequency of a/kusala, sure, I find that with time, kusala moments happen more and more often as the understanding of the difference between a/kusala deepens. In samatha, just as in reading, cooking, etc. However, if insight is to happen, then hearing Dhamma is indispensable, but that doesn't mean that it is limited to insight happening only while conventionally reading/hearing and not cooking or meditating, however you happen to conceptually define meditation and cooking - I mean paramattha dhammas will still be there regardless. > S: You are promoting the > particular practice to which I object and you turn this around and say > that I shouldn't be objecting since I do not believe in objecting to any > activity. pt: Strawman. I don't think I ever said what you should/n't do. > S: But my objection is in fact to the wrong understanding and > wrong practice associated, manifested conventionally as the belief in > and the practice of meditation. pt: On a momentary level, agreed. On a conventional level, it's no different to saying that people who only read do so out of a (wrong) belief it is a wholesome practice. I mean, both polarised statements regarding meditation and reading fail to account for the inevitability of both kusala and akusala cittas happening in either activity. > S: Besides when it is said that what we do > is conditioned and because of accumulations, hence the need to be > "natural", this clearly stands in contrast to when one thinks in terms > of better time and place etc. isn't it? pt: Well, this to me is again conflating conceptual with the ultimate. "Better time and place" as concepts can be considered with both kusala and akusala cittas. > S: So in conclusion, you could say that it is not `meditation' vs. reading > or any other activity, but the difference in understanding leading to > the two different conclusions about how the Path manifests in daily life. pt: Yes, if what you mean is understanding the difference between a kusala citta with panna, and an akusala citta with craving, both of which can manifest in any sort of conventional activity. > Sukin: I don't get it. > You say that you practice samatha. The panna of samatha as you know does > not understand anatta. So what I need explained is what was going on > when `control and no control was understood' while you were meditating? pt: When there's jhana, no chance for insight as the mind is fixed on the object (concept). When there's no jhana, the mind is not fixed on the object all the time, so (at least in theory) insight can happen any time, i.e. some other dhamma can become an object of citta. Most beings are incapable of being in jhana all the time. Unless they are reborn as brahmas I guess. > > pt: Accumulations, no? > > Sukin: And the question is, accumulated wrong view expressing itself or > was it some other dhamma? pt: Well, that's the function of panna to know, no? If it's there, it'll be accompanied with kusala dhammas, if not, it'll be akusala dhammas accompanied with wrong view. Not sure what's the confusion here? > > pt: Okay, but I don't see how this conclusion is not according to > your previous experiences? > > Sukin: If I see no need to think of a better time place and posture, > ideally this would be due to having some understanding about the present > moment arise. pt: So when that "some understanding" has arisen, are you in fact concerned at that moment with the concepts of "better time place and posture" or with something else like actual dhamma(s)? Best wishes pt #106333 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extracts from recent Bkk & KK discussions with K.Sujin (2) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Azita, Ken O & all, (An extract from the very informal discussion with K.Sujin just as we were leaving KK, contd.) **** KS: Dhamma was born and dhamma dies. No one. KO: One citta only KS: Only "once upon a time". S: Just alone with dhamma now. KS: Yeah. Even just the previous events or situations are "once upon a time", never come back. S: Lobha "once upon a time" and gone.... KO: This is a very powerful thing - when you know that it's gone and it's just one citta at a time - very powerful. You can understand that. A lot of things about life, you suddenly can just let it go, you can detach... KS: But when can pa~n~naa know that it's dhamma? KO: When everything is understood. KS: When there's not the moment of being forgetful. KO: Yeah. It's very powerful. Extremely, the effect is great. J: Can you say more about the moment of not being forgetful. KS: Whenever awareness arises, not at will, but by conditions, from not forgetting. J: Yes, that's the function of awareness... KS: Right, not being forgetful. What appears now is only a reality that can be seen. There are many realities, but only this one can be seen, no matter you call it visible object or you don't call it anything at all. It's that which can be seen. Only one characteristic of ruupa. The reality which cannot experience anything. And sound can be heard but it cannot be seen - only a reality which can be heard too. But when there is no hearing, who knows that there is sound? Even it's there, but without "the innermost" [S: i.e citta] which experiences it, it cannot be experienced at all. So whatever appears is the object of that which can experience it. **** Metta Sarah ======== #106334 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:45 am Subject: Part 2 Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > Sukin: It is in the nature of citta to think, in other words, thinking > invariably arises. The difference is in the associations, such that one > moment you may think in terms of dhammas and another in terms of > conventional situation. Wouldn't it be expected that if one sat because > of the particular ideas associated, there'd continue to be the kind of > associations made even with the arising of panna? Knowing hardness when > touching a table does not stop the concept of `touching table' from > arising. So while it is true that meditation is concept and one may > understand this to be so, this isn't exactly the basis for panna to > reject the conventional activity. It could be anything, after all you > aren't fixed on the idea of meditation when meditating are you? Besides > there are also the concepts of sitting, back erect, returning to breath > and so on, isn't view likely to be involved in thoughts about these for > the one who has decided to take upon the practice? pt: Well again, it depends, these things can be considered in akusala or kusala manner on a moment to moment basis. > Suk: And so isn't view in > fact the likely object which causes one to reject the practice? pt: Sure, if there's right view arising in the moment, conventional "rejection" is an expression of understanding. If there's no right view arising, then conventional "rejection" is an expression of craving (lobha or dosa). > Sukin: Perhaps one problem is the insistence that these are "approaches" > to begin with? What about the understanding that there are in reality > only paramattha dhammas and no person approaching anything? And isn't > this the whole point; I mean the difference is in this particular > understanding? pt: Well, I agree of course. Problems and approaches seem to happen when someone starts claiming "X is kusala and Y is akusala", and neither X nor Y are paramattha dhammas to begin with, and so the door is open for confusion galore, so I feel we need to be precise to avoid it. > Sukin: What you may not agree with is that this [samatha] > development takes place very gradually and is reflected in the ability > to understand or not the citta now, at this very moment. pt: I don't disagree here. > S: It is therefore > not about something which will happen more easily in a special setting > with some chosen object of concentration. The very suggestion is > reflection of values misplaced as far as I can see. pt: I'm not sure I see why the need for such polarised conclusion. I think recently someone mentioned that there are deciding (or some such term) conditions, and supportive conditions. The idea being that without deciding conditions, a dhamma could not arise, while supporting conditions only act as support for the arising, but on their own, they are not enough. So, panna for example would be a deciding condition for samatha, while a "special setting", the object, etc, are supportive conditions that are not enough on their own for samatha, and would change from person to person, or even situation to situation, so, depend on accumulations in particular circumstances. So, to me, sweeping generalisations don't seem like helpful conclusions. > S: In other words, the person who really knows the difference between > kusala and akusala cittas, for him the interest would be in its > development in daily life. This would be so even if his accumulations > were so great as to make him eligible for Jhana. pt: Agreed. > S: The suggestion to find > a quite place and try to concentrate in order to develop samatha sounds > therefore empty and without base. For the Buddhist it reflects also the > lack of understanding about conditionality and anatta, which makes the > situation even more difficult. pt: :) Sukin, you are the one who keeps bringing up the quiet place, the posture, etc, over and over. I have no idea why, other than as a strawman device to accuse some imaginary Buddhists. > Sukin: Again, it could be a matter of conventional expression of what in > reality is wrong understanding at the intellectual level leading to > wrong practice. With regard to the moment to moment phenomena, as I > tried to point out earlier, the thought to maintain a particular > posture, keep the eyes closed, coming back to the meditation object > repeatedly, what motivates these, right or wrong understanding? pt: See what I mean? ;) > Sukin: I know that at the root of this assertion is something more than > say, someone who follows another religion and is convinced by the result > of his practice. But do try to explain, since others are also trying to > explain their understanding based on what is taught. As a first step > perhaps you could cite something in the texts, that suggests the Buddha > to actually have *taught* meditation, the kind you follow? pt: Well, I'm not sure what to add, considering that I seem to agree with all your descriptions of what you seem to consider the right kind of samatha. Anything in particular you want to know? And if you feel like bringing up again the posture, special place, etc, to save you the trouble: i don't maintain a special posture, any is good. Special place - no, any is good, noisy ones too. Eyes - they do what they want, sometimes they close, sometimes they open, sometimes in-between. Object - usually settles on breath, though often can be metta and elements as well. That said, it does seem that kusala moments with calm condition moments with deeper calm, so the moments with deepest calm do happen when engagement with the outside world is not required for some time. This in my case is only possible when I'm in bed before I get up in the morning for work. But sometimes a ride on a train can be just as good. Ultimately, samatha happens when there's disengagement, or temporary dispassion towards craving for the outside stimulation through the six senses - so it's kind of a settling down, rather than taking up something for some reason - like taking up a special object like breath to get something out of it like calm - that's undetected akusala of course. This happens in a moment, and that moment can be anywhere - even in a very noisy place, like for example the aversion towards the noise is recognised as ineffective response (akusala basically) and relinquished for a moment. > > > > Suk: While what I have been saying all along could be said to be > proclaiming > > > and insisting on the fact of there being only One Path namely the > Noble > > > Eightfold Path, the defense you take and the arguments made, appear to > > > be suggesting otherwise. Certainly, while I continue to perceive that > > > the view behind my conclusion about the Path is one thing, I see yours > > > and those of all meditators as being of something else altogether, but > > > you have been trying to tell me that I must allow for all being > possibly > > > right! Can you please clarify here? > > > > pt: Again... > > > > Please, let's be constructive rather than trying to be right. > > Sukin: How much this is due to any cheating dhammas from me and how much > it is an insistence on your part that I conform to certain values set by > you, I don't know. Perhaps you do not want to continue with this. And I > know that I am very far behind in my reading and therefore not read the > relevant post. But as far as I can recall, I've not seen answers to the > question above. Do you think it is not necessary to answer them for > whatever reason? pt: I'm sorry, I think I lost patience there as it again seemed you are putting words into my mouth and making sweeping generalisations. Either way, I hope I've clarified somewhat my understanding of the topic in these two posts, please ask if there's anything else. > S: Sorry for the very long post. If you'd like to discontinue with this > discussion, this tendency of mine to write long response would no doubt > be a good reason for it. pt: Well, as I said before, I don't mind your long posts. Besides, I guess that when you write, it often helps you yourself to understand things better, because that's how it is in my case too. So, I guess the more you write, the better for both of us. As long of course as we don't take it as a some sort of a belief that has be practiced ;) Best wishes pt #106335 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extracts from recent Bkk & KK discussions with K.Sujin (3) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Azita, Ken O & all, (An extract from the very informal discussion with K.Sujin just as we were leaving KK, contd.) **** KS: Better not to have citta! KO: That's thinking! [Laughs!] KS: Until time comes to really know that it's useless to see, useless to like, useless to dislike, because it's just very temporary. What's the use of seeing? While one is fast asleep, many people like to sleep because it's the time that nothing appears at all. So it's like "disturbance", the object which conditions the seeing to arise. What for? Just appears and then completely gone. What is left is attachment to it. By learning to see the disadvantages of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking, the citta turns towards that which does not expereience anything at all, because it does not arise. Like the great rest, the greatest one, rest from working, experiencing all day, all night, from life to life. **** Metta Sarah ======== #106336 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: Take me or leave me, Mike. Just moderate yourself. Let me read some of your rhetoric - show where you stand on something then we'll see if there's anything to discuss. Mike: Sure, but as I've explained before, I see only small differences between what is said here and what I have learned from people I trust with respect to paramattha dhammas, (lack of) control, etc. No-one I respect teaches that paramattha dhammas can be controlled, though they may differ on the best approach to actually understanding that properly. Mike: You seemed to want to discuss what you consider the instructions to be. That's the only thing that interests me. Metta Mike #106337 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue ashkenn2k Dear Alex >The above is a great list om virtue, though for a layperson 5-10 precepts will do. ? > >One of the reasons to go on the retreats is that you are less currently busy with worldly affairs and have less chance of breaking some rule. Of course an unwise mismeditator may due to folly bring the past mental baggage with him to the retreat. This is wrong. But in any case one is more likely to be successful if the external environment is more suitable. KO:? We are talking about development of jhanas.? Budda taught virtue first for this development.? It sets the stage for necessary develeopment.? I will?talk about this in the next?email.? The viture are not just one off thing or because we go to retreat we could follow more rules, the virtue rules are apply in our development in our daily lifes.?? When we discuss about sense restraint, then you will know why it?is not just?go to retreat to be better or develop more virtue. As far as the sutta concern, those?who develop jhanas are?all recluse and not?lay people because of the necessary conditions.? We will talk about this in later emails. > >Tranquillity is one of the factors of Samadhi, and samadhi is much more than mere tranquility. In my understanding, Samadhi includes sati and panna. KO:? In the 8NP,?jhana?is refer?as samma samadhi, we must understand jhanas and not as ordinary concentration.? This jhanas either suppress hindrancs or eradicate hindrances.?? This would be known better in our later discussions on sati and panna and jhanas Cheers Ken O #106338 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Scott, -------- <. . .> Scott: > Please be disappointed in me instead. I'm the muddiest thinker I know of. -------- Time will tell which of us is the muddier. :-) ------------- S: > It would be good to really pin down the way to understand this whole conventional/paramattha thing. I mean, I rule out the meditators on this since, to me, they haven't got a clue. But amongst 'ourselves' I think there are differences we can meaningfully clarify - in the interest of discussing Dhamma, not just in the interest of keeping sides. -------------- It would be good, but I don't know if I will be of much help. As you have noticed, I have very strong opinions. You didn't name me the uber-paramattha for nothing. :-) One thing I would like to make clear is that I do not knowingly disagree with any of K Sujin's explanations on the Dhamma. I say what I understand her (and her students) to be saying, but in my own way. And, I must admit, my way can be tiresome and opinionated. --------------------- S: > The hopeless mutually counteracting dogmatism that comes from discussing this with meditators bent on justifying their precious practice to themselves will lead nowhere. --------------------- Sorry to be turning this conversation into "all about me" but I am aware that some DSG members (meditators and non-meditators alike) think I take my "there are only dhammas" stance too far. If anyone wants to explain how it goes too far, I will be happy to listen. ---------------------------- K: "That and the notion of 'repeated arisings of cetana,' must be relevant somehow to satipatthana, but I just can't see it." Scott: Let's just say, between ourselves and ignoring the meditators, that there might be a way to see it as other than 'there is only satipa.t.thaana' while remaining consistent with what it really means for their to be paramattha dhammas. Let's see if it is possible to loosen up on 'satipa.t.thaana only' and, again meditators aside, see what else there might be. ----------------------------- I would be especially interested to hear from non-meditators on this. To my mind, any compromise on the "dhammas only" stance is tantamount to formal meditation. ---------------------- S: > I think it is a safe bet that you and I do really see it differently than the meditators. We can ignore all the attempts to say, 'See, I told you so,' right? ;-) ---------------------- If any meditator says that, we can explain in a friendly manner that we aren't going so far as to agree with them. So I would urge and encourage everyone to join in. But where do we start? What is this "something else" that you are alluding to, Scott? Can you suggest a few possibilities? Ken H #106339 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:26 am Subject: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue (2) ashkenn2k Dear Alex While discussing this with you, I have also benefited as I went through the various text again.??thank you.? I dont have a written paper, it just unfolds when we discuss.? Visud chapter 1, pg 5 <<"When a wise man, established well in virture, Develops consciousness and understanding, Then as a bikkhu ardent and sagacious He succeeds in disentangling this tange" (S,i.13)>> KO:?In order to develop consciousness, first one must?establish virture and not establish concentration.? The later paragraph will describe why virtue is well established, concentration is then developed << 8.??? In the seventh dyad of all virtue subject to cankers is mundane; that not subject to cankers is supramundane.? Herein, the mundane brings about improvement in future becoming and is a pre-requsite for the escape from becoming, according as it is said: "Discipline is for the purpose of restraint, restraint is for the purpose of non-remorse, non-remorse is for the purpose of gladenning, gladenning is for the purpose of happiness, happiness is for the purpose of tranquility, tranquility is for the purpose of bliss, bliss is for the purpose of concentration, concentration is for the purpose of correct knowledge and vision.....>> KO:? Also in the suttas:? this sequence of gladness to concentration. MN 7, the Smile of the Cloth <<11. He considers thus: '[The imperfections of the mind] have in part have been given up, expelled, released, abandoned and relinquished by me,' and he gains inspiration in the meaning, gains inspiration of the Dhamma, gain gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is glad, rapture is born in him; in one who is rapturous, the body becomes tranquil; one whose body is tranquil feels pleasure; one who feels pleasure; in one who feels pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated.>> ? ? Cheers Ken O #106340 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:42 am Subject: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue (3) ashkenn2k Dear Alex Continuing the para 32 of Visud Chapter 1pg 5 <<...concentration is for the purpose of correct knowledge and vision, correct knowledge and vision is for the purpose do dispassion, dispassion is for the purpose of fading away, fading away is for the purpose of deliverance, deliverance is for the purpose of knowledge and vision of deliverance, the knowledge and vision of deliverance is for the purpose of complete extinction [of craving, etc] through not clinging.? Talk has that purpose, counsel has that purpose, support has that purpose, giving ear has that purpose, that is to say, the liberation of mind through not clinging (Vin, v, 164). ? ?MN 70 (Kitagiri Sutta) <> ? KO:? The development of dhamma starts from giving hear and listen, and without faith there is no giving of?ear and respect.? All development starts by having faith in the dhamma so does virtue.? Also all development starts gradually. ? http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Khuddaka-Nikaya/ud5.htm? Ud 5.5: Uposatha Sutta -- The Observance <<"In the same way, monks, there are eight amazing and astounding facts about this Doctrine and Discipline that, as they see them again and again, have the monks greatly pleased with the Doctrine and Discipline. Which eight? ? Cheers Ken O "[1] Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. The fact that this Doctrine and Discipline has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch: This is the first amazing and astounding fact about this Doctrine and Discipline that, as they see it again and again, has the monks greatly pleased with the Doctrine and Discipline.>> #106341 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:01 am Subject: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue (3) - additions ashkenn2k Dear Alex I like to add one more paragraph to this email Continuing the para 32 of Visud Chapter 1pg 5 <<...concentration is for the purpose of correct knowledge and vision, correct knowledge and vision is for the purpose do dispassion, dispassion is for the purpose of fading away, fading away is for the purpose of deliverance, deliverance is for the purpose of knowledge and vision of deliverance, the knowledge and vision of deliverance is for the purpose of complete extinction [of craving, etc] through not clinging.? Talk has that purpose, counsel has that purpose, support has that purpose, giving ear has that purpose, that is to say, the liberation of mind through not clinging (Vin, v, 164). ? ?MN 70 (Kitagiri Sutta) <> Visud Chapter 1, pg 22 para 49 <>? ? heers Ken O #106342 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:54 am Subject: Very slow replies.... sarahprocter... Dear Han, Nori, Ken O & all, I have lots and lots of messages marked for replies and had planned to catch up this weekend (after a rather busy time in Aus) before flying back to Hong Kong tomorrow. As it happens, I came down with a fever and flu on Friday afternoon and am just needing to rest these couple of days. I've been appreciating all the messages which Jon has been reading out to me and look forward to writing more once settled in HK. Metta Sarah ======= #106343 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >>------------ --- > >They were simple questions, weren't they? :-) That's because I thought you needed to go back to the beginning: you had missed something fundamental. > >I hope you won't mind my saying this, Ken, but after all your years at DSG, in which you seemingly got the point of anatta, it is now becoming evident that you haven't got the point at all! > >Consider the following exchange: > > >That has always been the classic response at DSG whenever someone has failed to see the point. > >So what has been the classic answer to it? Or haven't you been listening? :-) KO:??Could you tell me of one instances of Buddha disciple that dont need to listen to dhamma before they enlighted.? Is listening conventional?? But what is listening :-) Maybe I should explain more Even though the disciples engage in listening which is a?conventional actions who are yet enlighted, their understanding is clear, it is cittas and cetasikas and rupas.? So when they listen to dhamma, they know clearly it is the sound citta that hears and?it is the mind citta that understand words. They do not mistaken the conventional actions and understanding of dhammas.? It simply not possible to do conventional actions by one door mind or sense door processes.? So when one listen or walks or listen, they clearly comprehen the nature of cittas. Self is a concept, miccha ditthi is the wrong view of self.? It is?the mixing them together and equating the concept of self?is the as?the wrong view of self cause the misunderstanding that conventional actions are wrong.? Conventional actions must be clearly comprehen, it is only the missapprehension of thinking there is?self in this convention actions, that is wrong.? there is also a believe that all conventions actions should be wary of because it is concept.? It is not, because concepts are the one we have to use in order to understand the meaning of dhammas.? It is also the thinking that all actions is wrong.? There is action (cetana), even in body intimation, it is impossible to move without cetana (will) or?anything without actions. ? And cetana?arise with mind door process that orignate the movement.? So it is not about action vs non-action.? It is about action vs self-motivated actions.? Or actions vs delibrate actions.? So when we go and listen to dhamma talk, it is not a self-motivated action or deliberation action, it is?just an action(cetana) motivated by panna or faith that citta?listen > >Why not go back to the beginning: "there is only the present moment." That might be where you didn't listen. All of these technical explanations as to how one dhamma conditioned another are of no use if we have forgotten there is only the present moment. >Or are you forgetting there is only the present moment? That's what the Dhamma is all about. Satipatthana is right understanding of the reality that is appearing now in the present moment. > >------------ - KO:?? No one can uunderstand dhamma by just one moment of citta,?(except for Nibbana), it is impossible, it?needs the?completion of the mind door process in the javana stage.?? All development of undestanding is the present moment, even listening must be in the present moment.? But citta that listens at the present moment, is already conditioned by many processes of cittas.? It is not possible for one citta or one single door process to listen. So the present moment is conventional until vipassana nana arise?as our understanding of the?dhamma is?just?conventional nama and rupa. >------------ -- > >An Arahant would know that "computer" (for example) was atta. Belief in the ultimate existence of computers is atta-ditthi. > >There are no computers in the present-moment world. There is no dhamma called computer. There may be dhammas that are thinking about computers, but that's as close as you'll get to an actual computer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- KO:? Indeed there is no dhamma called computer, but there is a clinging to a mental object (computer).? ?It is the clinging?and arisen with miccha ditthi?of a mental object which is?a computer, that is attanuditthi.?? If miccha ditthi does not arise, there is no attanuddithi.?Similarly, self is a concept and?wrong view?of self is a cetasikas.??? Just like self does not feel, it is?vedana that feels.?? >------------ --------- --- >KO: > Can citta read at just one mind door process, I will like to know if it can.?Words are concepts, so you could read concepts?at paramatha level, I would be very happy to hear about it.??? >------------ --------- --- > >Doesn't this remind you of other DSG conversations where someone has said (for example), "If you believe people, cars and trees don't exist, try driving your car into a tree and see what happens to you!"? > >------------ --------- -------- KO:? Because I am stressing there is need for concepts of words for us to understand dhamma.? Cheers Ken O #106344 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:07 am Subject: Re: rules and rituals sukin pt ptaus1 Hi Robert, > R: If I understand correctly in the discussion PT and Sukin both see dangers in silabattaparamsa but where you each draw the line from right practice and silabattaparamasa is different. PT would agree that the above examples, and no doubt the one I gave last month about the Dhammakaya, as being Silabata, but not with other popular techniques. On the other hand Sukinder has no qualms about putting any techniques as being more or less within this grouping? > > I think a complication is that most of the popular techniques also teach Dhamma and even Abhidhamma- hence one going on these camps would be hearing some correct Dhamma that can/must condition some understanding. Hence it is difficult to separate out the technique from the other conditions.. pt: Thanks for your comments. Imo, it's almost impossible to talk about techniques and methods, because it requires sweeping generalisations, which just don't apply in most cases. I mean, each student will understand a teaching differently, and his understanding will keep chaniging with time. Conventionally speaking, I think methods are really just accounts/descriptions of teachers about what lessons they've learned along the way, so to speak. And then students would come and make something out of it, and then it would really depend from one moment to another and from one person to another. Most will approach it the only way they're familiar with - taking it as something to do and something to achieve. But as Dhamma slowly trickles through, understanding arises, and that same person would start edging closer to understanding "meditation" as a moment of kusala, when panna knows what's kusala, or when it sees the tilakkhana, etc. And it becomes evident that it can happen anytime anywhere. So the method or approach really just becomes a shell, no different to any other activity in which panna can arise or not. In fact, I think when some teachers purposefully give a method to a student, I think it's simply because that's the only way the student can approach the whole thing at the time - he's really after "give me something to do". But then the technique will be just the excuse for the person to get in touch with real Dhamma teachings about anatta, etc, which is what actually matters ultimately. And slowly it'll become clear to the person that it's not about the technique but about understanding. I mean, I've seen this happen, and you probably have too, like on e-sangha where it was possible to observe how beginners change with time - coming first only to find out about a method they could use to escape depression or some such thing, but that would give an opportunity to get in touch with the Dhamma, and that would gradually change things completely. E.g. I too remember reading/hearing initially "No, no, meditation is not about doing something but about understanding anatta, anicca and dukkha", and then I'd go "Yeah, yeah... Err, okay, so what do I do now? Give me something to do!" That's just how things are :) Hopefully there's a bit of Dhamma which comes in the package with the method, and that's what ultimately changes matters. Sorry for the rant. Best wishes pt #106345 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. Best wishes to you and Lodewijk > N: No citta, no cetasika, no ruupa that arises after the previous one > has fallen away is ever the same, even when they are called by the > same name. Citta and cetasika condition each other, thus, manasikaara > accompanying kusala citta is quite different from manasikaara > accompanying akusala citta. Its function is the same, but it exerts > its function in a kusala way or in an akusala way. It is conditioned > by the other accompanying cetasikas, so there is an immense variety. #106346 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extracts from recent Bkk & KK discussions with K.Sujin (2) nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you very much for the Extracts. Always useful. Nina. Op 28-mrt-2010, om 6:40 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > KS: Dhamma was born and dhamma dies. No one. #106347 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Well, the suttas do not make such a big distinction between "ultimate realities that exist" vs "conventional realities don't exist". KO:? You are right to say that. >I understand the basic analysis, but it appears to me to venture into philosophical not Dhammic category. > >It seems to me that analysis IS mental activity, just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). > >The wholes do have functions that are not found in its parts. To me this proves that functions of the wholes DO exist. A whole isn't always a mere sum of its parts. > >IMHO. KO:? But there are ultimate realities in the suttas.?The aggregates, bases, elements etc,? ? Why analysis? It is to set the correct view points.? You know that Buddha said there is no self in aggregates.? Since there is no self in aggregates?how could there be?persons.? Isn't he contradicting himself.??He said that all dhammas are not self yet he keep using the word "I" or Tatagatha.??? Because those things your mentions like tree, mountains, persons and self which are wholes,?are just mental constructs, designations given to mental objects.?? Then did he said like trees is one aggregate and mountain another aggregate into such dhammic category. ? Taking this setting, that is why we separate what is real and what is concepts.??For example, feeling feels.? When I am feeling unpleasant feelings, "I" cannot feel, it is feeling that feels.?? If there is no feeling that feels, then feeling should not be in the aggregate, it should not exist.? But it does exist and performs the function of feeling.? I cannot perform any function of feeling and all dhammas are not self. ? ? Why parts?? Without understanding the different parts, we take?the parts as a whole.?When we take the parts as?whole, that?is?where the idea of self arise. ?"I" am angry.? We will think we are angry because we think as?a whole part.?? Angry is dosa could condition the next mind doors series in the arising of miccha dittha hence there is a thinking of I am angry.? Understanding their parts allow us?to understand that there is no I in any of the aggregates, each of them?perform their function.??Feeling feels,?dosa angers.? ? Understanding their parts, it will prevent us from that the combination of these functions is a whole or an I.? ?When we watch a TV show, the experiences is so fast that we think it is an I that sees, we mixed and confuse these realities that is so fast that we think there is being in watching the show.? In reality, it is just seeing citta that?sees and hearing that hears, mental citta that?experience words and images.? If we able to understand their distinct parts and not mixed up with reality, we realise it is due to?visible rupa that?seeing arise etc.? That is no one cause it?to arise,? It arise because of seeing the colour from the TV show, ? ? Cheers Ken O #106348 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: Mike: "...as I've explained before, I see only small differences between what is said here and what I have learned from people I trust with respect to paramattha dhammas..." Scott: Yes, thanks, you have noted this on several occasions. Mike: "You seemed to want to discuss what you consider the instructions to be. That's the only thing that interests me." Scott: I would prefer to pursue this with non-meditators if you don't mind. Sorry. Sincerely, Scott. #106349 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Ken H., Regarding: K: "...Sorry to be turning this conversation into 'all about me' but I am aware that some DSG members (meditators and non-meditators alike) think I take my 'there are only dhammas' stance too far. If anyone wants to explain how it goes too far, I will be happy to listen." Scott: I don't mind the stance you take and am not wishing to address it in this way, Ken. I see where you are coming from, and think of it as more or less a 'political' one. ;-) We agree on certain key aspects, which, I think, makes for a more (potentially) fruitful exploration of the Dhamma. K: "...But where do we start? What is this 'something else' that you are alluding to, Scott? Can you suggest a few possibilities?" Scott: I don't have anything substantial in mind. I think we agree that there are only paramattha dhammas - that is, the world consists of naama (citta and cetasika) and ruupa, while Nibbaana is the exit, so to speak. I think we agree that it is the development of pa~n~naa that leads to the arising of the Path. I think we agree that, while each dhamma has it's own characteristic, all conditioned dhammas have the three characteristics of anatta, anicca, and dukkha. I think we agree that these three characteristics combine in a sense and, being part of the reality of paramattha dhammas, are the 'bottom-line' in terms of what can or cannot be 'done' by way of the development of pa~n~naa - 'done' by a person. This is the basis for rejecting the claims of the meditators. Ken O. is asserting that there are 'rules' and 'methods' and 'instructions' in the texts and one can see that this is the case. I mean the Vinaya pi.taka is a rule book, isn't it? There are many examples on the list of exhortations - not by meditators - that one 'should' do this or that. One should develop mettaa, pa~n~naa, whatever. This is why I've said that 'should' might be one of the most misunderstood words in any discussion here. In the light of the above listed parameters, how is one to understand a statement like 'one should do x or y?' I'm thinking now of an audio recording I've listened to (I'll have a hard time finding it again so if this sounds familiar to anyone let me know) in which K. Sujin was mentioning something about pausing to pay respects to a statue of the Buddha. What are the ways in which one can understand such an act? I'm not singling out K. Sujin, but this seems a good example. Why would one do this? Should one do this every time? Do you do this? I think I can imagine how she would respond, by the way. There are other examples. Should one keep Uposatha? Why? Personally, I don't find that I have a desire to do most of these, say, 'religious' things. I assume that there are certain dhammas that don't arise, that were they to arise, would find me doing these sorts of things. I'm certainly not going to just do things for the sake of it or to act like everyone else and look like a 'buddhist' - and by this I mean to state that a desire to enact such behaviour doesn't seem to arise for me. Again, I'm interested in discussing this with you since we seem to share a set of common assumptions about the Dhamma and don't have to continually bark up each other's tree about things. I'm just interested in a quiet, reasoned consideration of the meaning of instructions in the texts, free of meditator rhetoric. Sincerely, Scott. #106350 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta nilovg Dear Han, Op 26-mrt-2010, om 23:31 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Nina: Understanding is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factor) > which is a wholesome root. It arises and falls away with the citta > but it is not lost, it is accumulated in the citta so that there > are conditions for its arising again later on. > > Han: May I ask you a question, please? You said understanding is > accumulated in the citta. May I ask which citta? The citta that has > fallen away or the citta that is to arise later? -------- N: When kusala citta with understanding arises during the moments of javana in a process, it falls away, but it is not lost. There are the following cittas succeeding one another, and understanding is as it were carried on from citta to citta, so that understanding can arise again in the future. You remember the terms aasaya and anussaya. Anussaya refers only to the latent tendencies, and aasaya refers to both kusala and akusala that are accumulated. Perhaps one of the sayadaws writes about this? I find it always interesting to hear about the sayadaws who are not well known outside Birma. Nina. #106351 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was:Nama vs Citta nilovg Dear Nori, Op 27-mrt-2010, om 3:23 heeft nori het volgende geschreven: > Nina: "Understanding is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental > factor) which is a wholesome root. It arises and falls away with > the citta but it is not lost, it is accumulated in the citta so > that there are conditions for its arising again later on. ... First > it is intellectual understanding, and then it can become direct > understanding of realities." > > Nori: Is there any way to further characterize or describe this > process of "understanding"? (such as how citta/sobhana cetasika > retains it?) > > Is it a sort of 'gathering of information' or facts stored as > formations to condition intention/action? > > The conventional (scientific) understanding is that 'facts/ > information', 'processes', 'conditions', 'nature' is somehow stored > in the physical brain as formations, reflecting the outside reality/ > conditions/nature, and 'it' (the being) uses it to accomplish and > condition it's will. Is it different from this? ------ N: Yes, it is different. Citta does not retain understanding, see my post to Han. There are no facts stored. In the Abhidhamma there is no specific mention of a brain, what we call brain are mere ruupas. Nor is there question of a being that is using understanding to condition its will. What we call will or intention is a kind of cetasika arising with each citta. There is nobody who could control anything, all realities arise because of their own conditions. The human has been compared to a puppet in order to show that there is no self who could control anything. In the ?Kindred Sayings?(I, Sag?th?-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, ? 9), in the ?Sel?-sutta?, we read that at S?vatth? M?ra addressed Sister Sel?: ?Who was it that made the human puppet?s form? Where is the maker of the human doll? Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? Where will the puppet cease and pass away?? Sel? answered: ?Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. By reason of a cause it came to be, By rupture of a cause it dies away. Like a certain seed sown in the field, Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, And moisture likewise, by these two grows, So the five khandhas, the elements, And the six spheres of sense -- even all these, By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away. Then M?ra the evil one thought: ?Sister Sel? knows me?, and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then.? -------- Nina. #106352 From: Gemunu Rohana Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:33 pm Subject: Learn Abhidharma the easy way - Sith 89 - AKA Vinana Skanda gemunu.rohana This illustration contains all types of sith in Vinnana Skanda. Different categorization of them are also provided by the side textually. In the brief teaching there are 89 different sith. In the detail explanation there are 121 different sith. Both are covered in the illustration. A huge portion of most important parts of Abhidharma (Study of mind) can easily be grasped if one can remember this illustration. Most of my future posts will also need to refer back to this one to explain things more clearly. Do your best to grab everything in this one http://sinhaladharmastore.blogspot.com/2010/03/sith-89-or-121-also-known-as-vina\ na.html May the Triple Gem Bless You! May You Attain Sowan (Nirvana) in This Very Life! Visit http://sinhaladharmastore.blogspot.com/ for freely downloadable Dharma content. May you all Observe sil on Poya day (29th March 2010) #106353 From: "colette" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ksheri3 Hi Group, It figures, don't it? I'm in this great tantra and really making strives into consciousness and now I see, as I walk along the path, that I've been LABELED (see Name & Form. AAAAGGGHH, heaven forbid, somehow I've acquired a new label. Curse those vile orthdox monkeys. They've strewn karma before me cluttering my way on the path. I suppose I should also curse "the gods", now, shouldn't I? Scott, who are these melevolent beings called THE MEDITATORS? Doesn't that name seem more like an upcoming Hollyweird movie that'll sure to be the new blockbuster Summer best seller for the movie studios? Are you, Scott, insinuating that I'm one of those people, THE MEDITATORS? ;-) toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Ken H., > > Regarding: > > K: "I am disappointed in myself that I can't fully follow your line of reasoning here. It looks like the sort of discussion I would like." > > Scott: Please be disappointed in me instead. I'm the muddiest thinker I know of. > > > > ------- > > <. . .> > > S: > That cetanaa-cetasika - in tandem with other dhammas of course - can serve as condition for its own repeated arising such that a set of conventionally construed interconnected moments of mind-produced matter can run a course is also clear. > > ------- > > > > I suppose that is so, but I really don't know. > > > > ------------ > > S: > It seems to me that the way in which this whole is considered is a matter of thought. 'Conventional action' might be misleading. > > ------------ > > > K: "I suppose it is conventional action because it is the counterpart of paramattha action. In some ways it must be a shadow - or an indicator - of cetana." > > Scott: I don't know. It would be good to really pin down the way to understand this whole conventional/paramattha thing. I mean, I rule out the meditators on this since, to me, they haven't got a clue. But amongst 'ourselves' I think there are differences we can meaningfully clarify - in the interest of discussing Dhamma, not just in the interest of keeping sides. The hopeless mutually counteracting dogmatism that comes from discussing this with meditators bent on justifying their precious practice to themselves will lead nowhere. <...> #106354 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Scott, I fail to see any point of these meta-discussions that you seem to be creating. I'm only interested in actual issues. Best of luck. Mike --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > Regarding: > > Mike: "...as I've explained before, I see only small differences between what is said here and what I have learned from people I trust with respect to paramattha dhammas..." > > Scott: Yes, thanks, you have noted this on several occasions. > > Mike: "You seemed to want to discuss what you consider the instructions to be. That's the only thing that interests me." > > Scott: I would prefer to pursue this with non-meditators if you don't mind. Sorry. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #106355 From: han tun Date: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta hantun1 Dear Nina, I am really grateful to you for responding to my question despite the fact that you have to spend considerable amount of time looking after Lodewijk. I pray that Lodewijk will recover soonest. > > > Nina: Understanding is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factor) which is a wholesome root. It arises and falls away with the citta but it is not lost, it is accumulated in the citta so that there are conditions for its arising again later on. > > Han: May I ask you a question, please? You said understanding is accumulated in the citta. May I ask which citta? The citta that has fallen away or the citta that is to arise later? > Nina: When kusala citta with understanding arises during the moments of javana in a process, it falls away, but it is not lost. There are the following cittas succeeding one another, and understanding is as it were carried on from citta to citta, so that understanding can arise again in the future. You remember the terms aasaya and anussaya. Anussaya refers only to the latent tendencies, and aasaya refers to both kusala and akusala that are accumulated. Perhaps one of the sayadaws writes about this? I find it always interesting to hear about the sayadaws who are not well known outside Birma. ---------- Han: Thank you very much for your explanation. The trouble with me is to locate the dhamma in which understanding (or any other quality) is accumulated. If I say it is accumulated in the citta, the question arises which citta? When the citta with understanding falls away it is true that there are the following cittas succeeding one another. But if the succeeding citta is not accompanied by understanding (say, it is accompanied by lobha) what happens to the understanding that was accumulated in the citta with understanding that has fallen away? Therefore, I would just say that the understanding (or any other quality) is "accumulated", without saying in which dhamma it is accumulated. However, I have absolute faith in your Dhamma knowledge, and that you never make mistakes. So, I gladly accept your explanation. Respectfully, Han #106356 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "I fail to see any point of these meta-discussions that you seem to be creating. I'm only interested in actual issues." Scott: Okay, No worries. You mean actual issues like: Mike: "...as I've explained before, I see only small differences between what is said here and what I have learned from people I trust with respect to paramattha dhammas..." ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #106357 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Mike, ------- > KH: If there is doing, but no doer, then what would be the nature of "doing"? Mike: It doesn't say "there is no doing". ------- That's true, it says there *is* doing. But in what sense is there doing? In the ordinary sense known to ordinary people, or in some other sense known only to the wise? I tried to demonstrate that it was not the former, but I notice you have snipped that part. Did you agree there was ultimately no tennis game? ------------------------------- > Mike: As I see it there are phenomena happening that can be broken down into paramattha dhammas (or, as Jon preferred to put it, the phenomena we see are built up of paramattha dhammas). ------------------------------- A tennis player would be an example of such a phenomenon, wouldn't he? And so would a game of tennis. But they are the kind of phenomena known by ordinary people and by "dogs and jackals." ------------------------------------ > Mike: To me that divisibility (or indivisibility in the case of the paramattha dhammas) that is the point. ------------------------------------ There's an unfortunate typo in there. Just as you were getting to the part that was hard enough to explain without a typo. :-) Do you mean the divisibility of concepts into dhammas is the point of the Buddha's teaching? Just like scientists divide rocks into atoms? That hasn't got scientists any closer to nibbana, has it? And why would it? The "point" is that there are only dhammas, and those dhammas have been described by the Buddha so that panna can know them. Panna is the way out of suffering. Ken H #106358 From: "Mike" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Dear Scott, Yes, if you could actually discuss issues without resorting to rhetoric and sarcasm (as many people here seem to be quite capable of) that would be interesting. If not, I see no reason to take any of your pronouncements seriously. Best Wishes Mike --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > Regarding: > > M: "I fail to see any point of these meta-discussions that you seem to be creating. I'm only interested in actual issues." > > Scott: Okay, No worries. You mean actual issues like: > > Mike: "...as I've explained before, I see only small differences between what is said here and what I have learned from people I trust with respect to paramattha dhammas..." > > ;-) > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #106359 From: "Mike" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:57 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg mikenz66 Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > ------- > > KH: If there is doing, but no doer, then what would be the nature of "doing"? > > Mike: It doesn't say "there is no doing". > ------- > > KH: That's true, it says there *is* doing. But in what sense is there doing? In the ordinary sense known to ordinary people, or in some other sense known only to the wise? > KH: I tried to demonstrate that it was not the former, but I notice you have snipped that part. Did you agree there was ultimately no tennis game? Mike: Sorry, since the "doing" part seemed to be a stumbling block, I stopped there. I guess that what I am trying to understand is what is actually meant by there being "no tennis game". It's not that I necessarily disagree, and it's something I might actually say myself, but it seems to me that it needs a bit more precision. Mike: Perhaps I need to go back to your earlier message, but I didn't get an understanding from that about the difference between how the wise saw doing and how the worldlings saw it. > ------------------------------- > > Mike: As I see it there are phenomena happening that can be broken down into paramattha dhammas (or, as Jon preferred to put it, the phenomena we see are built up of paramattha dhammas). > ------------------------------- > > KH: A tennis player would be an example of such a phenomenon, wouldn't he? And so would a game of tennis. But they are the kind of phenomena known by ordinary people and by "dogs and jackals." > > ------------------------------------ > > Mike: To me that divisibility (or indivisibility in the case of the paramattha dhammas) that is the point. > ------------------------------------ > > KH There's an unfortunate typo in there. Just as you were getting to the part that was hard enough to explain without a typo. :-) > > KH: Do you mean the divisibility of concepts into dhammas is the point of the Buddha's teaching? Just like scientists divide rocks into atoms? Mike: Yes, that's what I was trying to say, though scientists don't study dhammas, so, when you say: ----------- > KH: That hasn't got scientists any closer to nibbana, has it? And why would it? The "point" is that there are only dhammas, and those dhammas have been described by the Buddha so that panna can know them. Panna is the way out of suffering. ------------ Mike: I don't necessarily completely agree. However, I'm starting to get a much clearer which direction you are coming from. I'll go back and look at your earlier post later, and see if it makes more sense in light of this discussion. Thanks. Mike #106360 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > > >Well, the suttas do not make such a big distinction between "ultimate realities that exist" vs "conventional realities don't exist". > > KO:? You are right to say that. > > > >I understand the basic analysis, but it appears to me to venture into philosophical not Dhammic category. > > > >It seems to me that analysis IS mental activity, just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). > > > >The wholes do have functions that are not found in its parts. To me this proves that functions of the wholes DO exist. A whole isn't always a mere sum of its parts. > > > >IMHO. > >KO:? But there are ultimate realities in the suttas.?The aggregates, >bases, elements etc,? Sure, one can and it is a good thing to analyse things into khandha/ayatana/dhatu DO categories. However all of this is to realize 4NT and get rid of all craving. It does seem to me that some enthusiastic people turn this analysis into metaphysics and say interesting things dealing with existence or non-existence (an issue that Buddha tried to avoid). IMHO one should never use "no one can control dhammas" as an excuse for unrestrained behavior. IMHO. Thank you for your other part of the post. I basically agree with it. With metta, Alex #106361 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > > Dear Alex > > > >The above is a great list om virtue, though for a layperson 5-10 precepts will do. ? > > > >One of the reasons to go on the retreats is that you are less currently busy with worldly affairs and have less chance of breaking some rule. Of course an unwise mismeditator may due to folly bring the past mental baggage with him to the retreat. This is wrong. But in any case one is more likely to be successful if the external environment is more suitable. > > KO:? We are talking about development of jhanas.? Budda taught virtue first for this development.? It sets the stage for necessary develeopment.? I will?talk about this in the next?email.? > > The viture are not just one off thing or because we go to retreat we could follow more rules, the virtue rules are apply in our development in our daily lifes.?? When we discuss about sense restraint, then you will know why it?is not just?go to retreat to be better or develop more virtue. > Right. > As far as the sutta concern, those?who develop jhanas are?all recluse and not?lay people because of the necessary conditions.? We will talk about this in later emails. > > > There were many lay non-returners in Buddha's time. Also Citta the householder WAS master of Jhanas. "Well, venerable sir, to whatever extent I wish, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jh?na, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. [299] Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jh?na?. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the fading away as well of rapture ? I enter and dwell in the third jh?na?. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain ? I enter and dwell in the fourth jh?na." BB transl. SN 41.8 ""The layman Kakudha, Ananda, through the destruction of the five lower fetters (that bind beings to the world of the senses), has arisen spontaneously (among the Suddhavasa deities), and will come to final cessation in that very place, not liable to return from that world. "So it is with Kalinga, Nikata, Katissabha, Tuttha, Santuttha, Bhadda, and Subhadda, and with more than fifty laymen in Nadika. " DN16 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html > > KO:? In the 8NP,?jhana?is refer?as samma samadhi, we must understand jhanas and not as ordinary concentration.? This jhanas either suppress hindrancs or eradicate hindrances.?? This would be known better in our later discussions on sati and panna and jhanas > Right, With metta, Alex #106362 From: "colette" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ksheri3 Hi Mike, > > Scott: I would prefer to pursue this with non-meditators if you don't mind. Sorry. > > colette: Mike, doesn't it start to become evident that issues are not what Scott wants to discuss and to live by/with/through. There is an endless line of teachers that only have one care in the world: to make sure that the book publishers and their books properly describe the manifestation of a reality which is built in the minds of some lunatics OR a reality which is manufactured through an industry and which can produce money to keep the drug habits of the aristocracy supplied with the drugs THAT THEY NEED TO LIVE. Scott is very focused on labeling two groups of people: THE MEDITATORS and THE NON-MEDITATORS. What makes the difference between a MEDITATOR and a NON-MEDITATOR? ;) If I see a person walking on the street, is there a way for me to tell if they are members of one of the two gangs Scott is speaking of here, the MEDITATORS and the NON-MEDITATORS? Is it a super-hero characteristic that comic book characters are drawn as having? Is it the words that the drawn character is handed for the drawn character to say, a script? I can use Queens song THE INVISIBLE MAN to discuss things but isn't there a movie called THE INVISIBLE MAN and that movie can then be a fatal chemical that discontinues a funny game that certain people enjoy playing through their meglamania. What happens when I apply Queen's song, in our discussions, and I cannot remove the seed that was planted in the other person's head concerning the chemical reaction to the movie THE INVISIBLE MAN? What about the book THE INVISIBLE MAN? Buddhist principles and values will probably disappear when one of the people cannot decide how to face this antidote called THE INVISIBLE MAN -- will the deciding factor grow from RELATIVE TRUTH or will it grow from ULTIMATE TRUTH? ;) toodles, colette toodles, colette > I fail to see any point of these meta-discussions that you seem to be creating. I'm only interested in actual issues. > > Best of luck. > > Mike > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > > Dear Mike, > > > > Regarding: > > > > Mike: "...as I've explained before, I see only small differences between what is said here and what I have learned from people I trust with respect to paramattha dhammas..." > > > > Scott: Yes, thanks, you have noted this on several occasions. > > > > Mike: "You seemed to want to discuss what you consider the instructions to be. That's the only thing that interests me." > > > > Scott: I would prefer to pursue this with non-meditators if you don't mind. Sorry. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Scott. > > > #106363 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:00 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: Sorry to be turning this conversation into "all about me" but > I am aware that some DSG members (meditators and non-meditators alike) think I take my "there are only dhammas" stance too far. If anyone wants to explain how it goes too far, I will be happy to listen. Not sure whether the following applies in your case nor whether I'm right, you'd need to judge for yourself I guess. Recently I was in a similar discussion elsewhere, arguing from the position that there are only paramattha dhammas, all else being an illusion. The problem that occurred to me in that connection is like this: There is no dispute that in moments of insight, panna takes up a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. However, it is also certain that in most other moments, even kusala moments without or with panna (when it is not of insight knowledge strength), the objects of cittas will likely be concepts, not paramattha dhammas, even if those are concepts about paramattha dhammas. So then it goes that if I'm arguing "there are only paramattha dhammas" and actual paramattha dhammas are not the object of panna at that moment, I could be arguing in two ways: - sharing Dhamma, in what case, cittas involved are hopefully kusala as I'm trying to use concepts about paramttha dhammas to hopefully point the listener towards the actual experience of paramattha dhammas. - attachment to a view, even if that view is that "there are only paramattha dhammas", so the cittas are akusala as I'm attached to certain concepts about paramattha dhammas, and averse to some other concepts that are being proposed by the opponent in the argument. Further, if I'm hopefully arguing from a kusala position - trying to point the listener towards insight by employing (talking by use of) concepts about paramattha dhammas, there is no reason why such explanation should take precedence over doing the same thing (point the listener towards insight) by employing conventional speech (like Scott's "you should develop metta, panna, etc"). I mean, according to the commentarial passage that Alex recently quoted - both ways of instructing by ultimate/conventional terminology are equally valid depending on what works for the listener. The main thing though is that my talk is kusala (sharing) and truly does point the listener towards experiencing paramattha dhammas, rather than us just arguing about paramattha dhammas by getting attached (lobha in my case and dosa in listener's case) to concepts (views) about paramattha dhammas. I guess the trouble is that it's so easy to mix these up - I start truly with the intention to share, and yet within a few moments, I'm already in the argument mode without even noticing... So I'd better stop now :) Best wishes pt #106364 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:20 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, I'll go straight to the end of your reply: -------------- KO:> Because I am stressing there is need for concepts of words for us to understand dhamma.> -------------- That's fine - no argument there. I hope I can assume that, when you open a Dhamma book, it is not with the intention of developing insight. That sort of intention would belong with a belief in self, wouldn't it? And the monks described in the Theravada texts didn't study Dhamma with an intention of developing insight either, did they? Nor did they count breaths with an intention of developing samatha. Just so long as we've got that straight! :-) Ken H #106365 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:14 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Scott, -------- S: > I think we agree that there are <. . .> -------- Yes, we agree on the basics, so I'll cut to something a little more contentious: -------- S: > Ken O. is asserting that there are 'rules' and 'methods' and 'instructions' in the texts and one can see that this is the case. I mean the Vinaya pi.taka is a rule book, isn't it? -------- Yes, it is a rule book. For there to be an order of monks there has to be a rule book. Otherwise, what makes it an order? How else can a monk be identified as a monk? But that doesn't mean rules and rituals have any efficacy. A monk who keeps strictly to the vinaya is just like a lay person who gives alms: he may or may not have kusala consciousness at the time. ------------------ S: > There are many examples on the list of exhortations - not by meditators - that one 'should' do this or that. One should develop mettaa, pa~n~naa, whatever. This is why I've said that 'should' might be one of the most misunderstood words in any discussion here. In the light of the above listed parameters, how is one to understand a statement like 'one should do x or y?' ------------------ Yes, a sense of urgency is a good thing, provided it comes from right understanding and not wrong understanding. ---------------------------- S: > I'm thinking now of an audio recording I've listened to (I'll have a hard time finding it again so if this sounds familiar to anyone let me know) in which K. Sujin was mentioning something about pausing to pay respects to a statue of the Buddha. What are the ways in which one can understand such an act? I'm not singling out K. Sujin, but this seems a good example. Why would one do this? Should one do this every time? Do you do this? I think I can imagine how she would respond, by the way. There are other examples. Should one keep Uposatha? Why? ---------------------------- Sometimes I feel enormously grateful to know that there are only dhammas. (And to know what that means, not just to know it as a slogan.) I am sure you do too. If you were living in a society where it was commonplace to show gratitude in a demonstrative way, I am sure you wouldn't hesitate to bow before a Buddha relic (such as the one they have at the Foundation). ---------------------------------------- S: > Personally, I don't find that I have a desire to do most of these, say, 'religious' things. I assume that there are certain dhammas that don't arise, that were they to arise, would find me doing these sorts of things. I'm certainly not going to just do things for the sake of it or to act like everyone else and look like a 'buddhist' - and by this I mean to state that a desire to enact such behaviour doesn't seem to arise for me. ----------------------------------------- I am the least religious person I know. And yet, offering a garland of flowers at the relic shrine was one of the highlights of my trip to Thailand. Probably a lot of lobha was involved. But at such a place there are certain conditions for kusala that aren't present at other places. ---------------- S: > Again, I'm interested in discussing this with you since we seem to share a set of common assumptions about the Dhamma and don't have to continually bark up each other's tree about things. I'm just interested in a quiet, reasoned consideration of the meaning of instructions in the texts, free of meditator rhetoric. ---------------- I hope you will attend one of the Bangkok/Kang-Krajan meetings some time, they have idyllic conditions for Dhamma discussion. And there's always a contingent of meditators there. They add to the occasion. 'It takes all kinds to make the world go round.' :-) Ken H #106366 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:36 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi pt, ----- <. . .> KH: > > . . . If anyone wants to explain how it goes too far, I will be happy to listen. > > pt: > Not sure whether the following applies in your case nor whether I'm right, you'd need to judge for yourself I guess. Recently I was in a similar discussion elsewhere, arguing from the position that there are only paramattha dhammas, all else being an illusion. The problem that occurred to me in that connection is like this: There is no dispute that in moments of insight, panna takes up a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. However, it is also certain that in most other moments, even kusala moments without or with panna (when it is not of insight knowledge strength), the objects of cittas will likely be concepts, not paramattha dhammas, even if those are concepts about paramattha dhammas. > ------- That sounds right to me. Mind-door cittas can have concepts as object, but those concepts don't really exist; they have no sabhava. Therefore, even then there are only dhammas. -------------- pt: >So then it goes that if I'm arguing "there are only paramattha dhammas" and actual paramattha dhammas are not the object of panna at that moment, I could be arguing in two ways: - sharing Dhamma, in what case, cittas involved are hopefully kusala as I'm trying to use concepts about paramttha dhammas to hopefully point the listener towards the actual experience of paramattha dhammas. - attachment to a view, even if that view is that "there are only paramattha dhammas", so the cittas are akusala as I'm attached to certain concepts about paramattha dhammas, and averse to some other concepts that are being proposed by the opponent in the argument. --------------- I think I see what you mean. If the messenger is a disreputable character, that could tarnish the message in the minds of the audience. ----------------------------- pt: > Further, if I'm hopefully arguing from a kusala position - trying to point the listener towards insight by employing (talking by use of) concepts about paramattha dhammas, there is no reason why such explanation should take precedence over doing the same thing (point the listener towards insight) by employing conventional speech (like Scott's "you should develop metta, panna, etc"). ------------------------------ I think there is a good reason why it should take precedence. Conventional language can communicate the Dhamma, but only *after* there has been some communication by Abhidhamma language. Anyone can teach "develop loving kindness, develop right understanding of ultimate reality," and that could be a condition for kusala to arise. But it is not the way kusala is *developed.* Kusala is developed by the panna that knows conditioned dhammas. I don't know how conditioned dhammas could be learnt without Abhidhamma language, do you? Anatta, for example, when taught only in conventional language would lead to nonsensical conclusions such as, "We do not exist: pt and Ken H are not here!" ---------------- pt: > I mean, according to the commentarial passage that Alex recently quoted - both ways of instructing by ultimate/conventional terminology are equally valid depending on what works for the listener. The main thing though is that my talk is kusala (sharing) and truly does point the listener towards experiencing paramattha dhammas, rather than us just arguing about paramattha dhammas by getting attached (lobha in my case and dosa in listener's case) to concepts (views) about paramattha dhammas. ----------------- I would question that interpretation of the commentary. I think conventional-language Dhamma is a luxury only the wise can afford. And what, really, is the 'main thing?' True Dhamma taught by an angry teacher would still be better than false Dhamma taught by a kind teacher, wouldn't it? ---------------------- pt: > I guess the trouble is that it's so easy to mix these up - I start truly with the intention to share, and yet within a few moments, I'm already in the argument mode without even noticing... So I'd better stop now :) ---------------------- Thanks very much for your thoughts on this, pt. And don't worry about argument mode. Panna can arise even to know anger and wrong view. We just have to do the best we can without any false notions of control over dhammas. :-) Ken H #106367 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >That's fine - no argument there. I hope I can assume that, when you open a Dhamma book, it is not with the intention of developing insight. That sort of intention would belong with a belief in self, wouldn't it? > >And the monks described in the Theravada texts didn't study Dhamma with an intention of developing insight either, did they? Nor did they count breaths with an intention of developing samatha. >Just so long as we've got that straight! :-) KO:? No they can't.? I rather not use intent because it has a meaning of self-motivated action.? It should be chanda motivated by faith/panna or lobha.? We read dhamma books because of our faith or panna that condition chanda?/cetana/viriya ?to?read them.? To purposely do it, no, even for?reading a dhamma book.?It could be lobha for panna. ? Cheers Ken O #106368 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Ken H and Scott >-------- > >Yes, it is a rule book. For there to be an order of monks there has to be a rule book. Otherwise, what makes it an order? How else can a monk be identified as a monk? > >But that doesn't mean rules and rituals have any efficacy. A monk who keeps strictly to the vinaya is just like a lay person who gives alms: he may or may not have kusala consciousness at the time. > >------------ ------ KO:?? There bounds?be?monk?even Buddha has?desribed monks who are just?look like monks in appearance.? But we cannot assume that rules dont have efficacy.?? They become strong hetupaccaya when faith arises to believe in the Buddha dhamma that such rules are for the restraint, are for eradication of unprofitable.??This is very clear in Visud.??? Cheers Ken O #106369 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue ashkenn2k Dear Alex >There were many lay non-returners in Buddha's time. Also Citta the householder WAS master of Jhanas. > >"Well, venerable sir, to whatever extent I wish, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhåna, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. [299] Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhåna…. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the fading away as well of rapture … I enter and dwell in the third jhåna…. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain … I enter and dwell in the fourth jhåna." BB transl. SN 41.8 > >""The layman Kakudha, Ananda, through the destruction of the five lower fetters (that bind beings to the world of the senses), has arisen spontaneously (among the Suddhavasa deities), and will come to final cessation in that very place, not liable to return from that world. > >"So it is with Kalinga, Nikata, Katissabha, Tuttha, Santuttha, Bhadda, and Subhadda, and with more than fifty laymen in Nadika. " >DN16 http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ dn/dn.16. 1-6.vaji. html KO: Yes there are lay people who are jhanas masters. The formulae so far I seen is for recluses and not lay followers. Also are we comparing apple with apple. These lay followers have great accumulations for this condition to arise, they understand dhamma easily. Do we have it? Be honest with ourselves. Thanks Ken O #106370 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Ken H (and Ken O) - In a message dated 3/29/2010 2:20:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Ken O, I'll go straight to the end of your reply: -------------- KO:> Because I am stressing there is need for concepts of words for us to understand dhamma.> -------------- That's fine - no argument there. I hope I can assume that, when you open a Dhamma book, it is not with the intention of developing insight. That sort of intention would belong with a belief in self, wouldn't it? --------------------------------------------------------------- LOLOL! So, it is opened for the same non-reason for which one trips and falls? Contemplating the Dhamma is for no purpose? Is that it? The Buddha didn't urge Dhamma study? Ken H, what ARE you claiming? -------------------------------------------------------------- And the monks described in the Theravada texts didn't study Dhamma with an intention of developing insight either, did they? Nor did they count breaths with an intention of developing samatha. ------------------------------------------------------------------ They went forth and followed the bhikkhu rules without a reason? Are you saying that they studied Dhamma and (as you say) counted breaths entirely purposelessly? Would that not make them incredibly stupid? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Just so long as we've got that straight! :-) Ken H ================================= With metta, Howard P. S. Perhaps I'm missing what your assertion actually is, and I need to read more details from you, Ken. Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106371 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:09 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Ken H., Regarding: K: "Yes, it is a rule book. For there to be an order of monks there has to be a rule book. Otherwise, what makes it an order? How else can a monk be identified as a monk? But that doesn't mean rules and rituals have any efficacy. A monk who keeps strictly to the vinaya is just like a lay person who gives alms: he may or may not have kusala consciousness at the time." Scott: Yeah, I don't even think it is cynical to suggest that any group of people - men, anyway ;-) is going to need all sorts of rules because of all the nonsense they'll get up to otherwise. Or some of them, anyway. What about those for whom the Path had arisen? I tend to think, as do you, that a rote, empty, compulsive keeping of rules or engaging in rituals *with a goal in mind that this alone is the point and this alone will have efficacy* is an obsessional neurosis. Me: "...'should' might be one of the most misunderstood words in any discussion here. In the light of the above listed parameters, how is one to understand a statement like 'one should do x or y?' K: "Yes, a sense of urgency is a good thing, provided it comes from right understanding and not wrong understanding." Scott: You suggest here that when it is told that one should, say, develop mettaa, it is said by way of instilling a 'sense of urgency.' What it is that one ends up doing in order to develop mettaa based on this sense of urgency? I would suggest that the saying of it can be condition, then, for the arising of this urgency (a dhamma) which would lead to some sort of 'doing.' The meditators on the list wrongly (and with assomating repetitiveness) suggest that the DSG message is 'do nothing.' This is not true. K: "Sometimes I feel enormously grateful to know that there are only dhammas. (And to know what that means, not just to know it as a slogan.) I am sure you do too. If you were living in a society where it was commonplace to show gratitude in a demonstrative way, I am sure you wouldn't hesitate to bow before a Buddha relic (such as the one they have at the Foundation)." Scott: Ken, I do appreciate the way in which the Dhamma is elucidated here amidst the various discussions. I'd want to steer away from statements of belief or expressions of gratitude alone though, if possible, since these are really not amenable to discussion (see any attempt to explain anything to a meditator). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one *should* express gratitude for the Buddha and the Dhamma - an exhortation, as you suggest, to engender a sense of urgency. Now, as for myself, I light a candle at the base of a small statue of the Buddha each night, and have done for almost 6 years since an interest in the Dhamma arose. This isn't some sort of culturally induced habit (which I think you are describing above). I don't consider myself a religious person. It wasn't ever a part of my 'culture' prior to having an interest in the Dhamma. No one told me I should do it. I don't believe that the doing of it does anything just because. I think that for many, many nights the act of lighting this candle is habitual, without kusala. However, once in a long while, I do notice that an appreciation of the Buddha and the Dhamma does seem to swell momentarily. What do you think the connection is between the lighting of the candle at the base of the Buddha statue and the very infrequent arising of kusala? K: "I am the least religious person I know. And yet, offering a garland of flowers at the relic shrine was one of the highlights of my trip to Thailand. Probably a lot of lobha was involved. But at such a place there are certain conditions for kusala that aren't present at other places." Scott: I'm surprised at the latter statement. The meditators would be all over you here, you know, forests and bases of trees and seclusion and all that. Rather than go the other way, though, keeping in mind that our little collection of meditators is like way out to lunch, do you suggest that one *should* go to relic shrines and offer a garland of flowers? So-called 'standard DSG' would suggest that you are incorrect to suggest that there are necessarily any more conditions for kusala at a relic shrine than anywhere else. I'd be interested if this view is emerging. It would reflect some sort of shift in understanding things. And again, forget the meditators, this is just between us (so as you don't panic and jump back into rhetoric to fend off the horde). ;-) K: "I hope you will attend one of the Bangkok/Kang-Krajan meetings some time, they have idyllic conditions for Dhamma discussion. And there's always a contingent of meditators there. They add to the occasion. 'It takes all kinds to make the world go round.' :-)" Scott: Again Ken, I'd love to attend and all that - it would be cool. But I don't need to. Far from all those 'idyllic conditions' I've somehow found a great affinity with many of the ways the Dhamma is explained by Kh. Sujin. If there is an emerging message that, while dhammas are anatta, there are still some *shoulds* that are relevant (again leaving aside the whole samatha-bhaavanaa thing) then I'd like to know more about what this means. Sincerely, Scott. #106372 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "...I see no reason to take any of your pronouncements seriously." Scott: Thanks, man. You've seen the light! I see no reason to do so either. ;-) Keep discussing with the others though... Sincerely, Scott. #106373 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear Ken O., Regarding: KO: "There bounds be monk even Buddha has desribed monks who are just look like monks in appearance. But we cannot assume that rules dont have efficacy. They become strong hetupaccaya when faith arises to believe in the Buddha dhamma that such rules are for the restraint, are for eradication of unprofitable. This is very clear in Visud." Scott: What is it about the rules that makes them 'strong hetupaccaya?' I thought the roots were lobha, dosa, moha, alobho, adosa, and amoha. Or are you suggesting that faith is a root? Can you say more about this please? Sincerely, Scott. #106374 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg scottduncan2 Dear pt, Regarding: KO:?? There bounds?be?monk?even Buddha has?desribed monks who are just?look like monks in appearance.? But we cannot assume that rules dont have efficacy.?? They become strong hetupaccaya when faith arises to believe in the Buddha dhamma that such rules are for the restraint, are for eradication of unprofitable.??This is very clear in Visud.??? Scott: In this small paragraph I count 15 little triangles with question marks inside them. Is this an acid flashback, a font problem on my computer, or what? In other words, god, I hope you see them too... Sincerely, Scott. #106375 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta nilovg Dear Han. Thank you for your good wishes. Sure, I make mistakes,as to Dhamma knowledge. Op 29-mrt-2010, om 1:04 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > But if the succeeding citta is not accompanied by understanding > (say, it is accompanied by lobha) what happens to the understanding > that was accumulated in the citta with understanding that has > fallen away? > > Therefore, I would just say that the understanding (or any other > quality) is "accumulated", without saying in which dhamma it is > accumulated. > > However, I have absolute faith in your Dhamma knowledge, and that > you never make mistakes. -------- N: As you know, anusayas are lying dormant also in kusala cittas, we do not question this. And so it is with accumulated good qualities, they are accumulated and as it were carried on from citta to citta. Our life is an unbroken series of cittas. After the javanacittas with understanding have fallen away, there may be tadalambana cittas which are vipaakacittas and then bhavangacittas until a new process starts. That process may have akusala javanacittas. Each citta is anantara paccaya, contiguity-condition for the following citta, and thus what was accumulated is contained in each of these cittas, no matter in what type of citta, also in akusala citta. There are no gaps. Accumulations are not static, there is a new accumulation added time and again. Nina. #106376 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was:Nama vs Citta nilovg Dear Nori, your question 2. Op 26-mrt-2010, om 6:33 heeft nori het volgende geschreven: > In my personal observation, I view 'memory' to exist in support by > 'physical' formations/sankharas (e.g. formations in the physical > brain, or other parts of the body) or is it possible that 'memory' > exists otherwise? (Such as in the case where the Buddha has the > ability to recall past lives.) > > Also, is 'memory' a necessary support for 'knowing'/understanding - > that is 'science' (defined as: "possession of knowledge as > distinguished from ignorance (nescience)) ? --------- N: In conventional language we speak about memory, but this is not quite the same as sa~n~naa, remembrance, a cetasika arising with each citta. It marks the object experienced by citta and the accompanying cetasikas so that it can be reognized later on, or it remembers or recognizes. It could not arise without citta, and depending on the citta it has the same physical base as the citta: eyesense, earsense, etc. or another kind of ruupa that is called heartbase. The Abhidhamma does not speak about formations in the physical brain, that is the department of medical science which sees phenomena from a different angle. Memory or remembrance is necessary for all cittas, thus also for understanding. There is no citta without sa~n~naa. Firm remembrance of the Dhamma one has heard is mentioned as one of the conditions for satipa.t.thaana. Nina. #106377 From: han tun Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your further clarification. Nina: As you know, anusayas are lying dormant also in kusala cittas, we do not question this. And so it is with accumulated good qualities, they are accumulated and as it were carried on from citta to citta. Our life is an unbroken series of cittas. After the javanacittas with understanding have fallen away, there may be tadalambana cittas which are vipaakacittas and then bhavangacittas until a new process starts. That process may have akusala javanacittas. Each citta is anantara paccaya, contiguity-condition for the following citta, and thus what was accumulated is contained in each of these cittas, no matter in what type of citta, also in akusala citta. There are no gaps. Accumulations are not static, there is a new accumulation added time and again. ---------- Han: There are things which I do not know up until now, e.g., (1) anusayas are lying dormant also in kusala cittas; and (2) that what was accumulated is contained in each of these cittas, no matter in what type of citta, also in akusala citta. It is very profitable for me, a real eye-opener! Thank you very much, once again. Respectfully, Han #106378 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rules and rituals sukin pt sukinderpal Hello Ken, You wrote: My apology. At times I cannot express myself very well until I have many rounds of thinking. Suk: No problem. And I’m sure this is the case with everybody. ========== Ken O: Are they all rules? So it is not the rules that differentiate, it is the samma ditthi that differentiate the rules. Not because there are no rules. Suk: And we know that a monk with little or no understanding could take any of the Vinaya rules for ‘self’. On the other hand, for those who are enlightened the rules need not even exist. As for the rest who are in between, I think these rules are more or less ‘reminders’ about what kusala is and what is not and hence the need to develop understanding of present moment realities. Perhaps when thinking in terms of maintaining order within the Bhikkhu Sangha ‘rules’ are very important. But since panna is the deciding factor when it comes to the individual’s development of understanding, ‘rules’ as it is generally understood does not apply. What do you think? ========== Ken O: Similarily, I explain my discussion with you about the email here. It is not the convention actions that make an action wrong, it is the miccha ditthi that make the action wrong. Conventional action is just a mean to an end. That does not mean one does not understand this convention action is just nama and rupa. Suk: Some of the discussions here is really about what is right and what wrong practices. The former can only ever come from right intellectual understanding; the latter on the other hand can only happen because of the influence of wrong understanding. ========== Ken O: Understanding nama and rupa does not mean we do not do convention actions or there are no rules, we understand the conditions behind these convention actions or the reasons behind these rules why Buddha impose such rules. Suk: It would seem that this question of conventional action should not even come in unless one means to give it some special status. Of course we are all involved in conventional actions all day and all night, I mean even sleeping involves body intimation which is not standing! Direct understanding of conditions can only happen with one nama or one rupa as object. Wouldn’t you think that the Vinaya rules should be understood in terms of citta and cetasikas which is also the only way that conditions are ever known? Remember the rules were necessitated when monks of inferior character joined the Bhikkhu Sangha and certain misconducts happened. Besides, in terms of the development of understanding leading to the removal of ignorance, why should one’s attitude towards the rules be different from any and every other object of consideration? Why for example, a monk’s breaking of any particular Vinaya rule be different from any other situation? Doesn’t each and every moment call for understanding to be developed or else kusala encouraged and akusala discouraged? =========== Ken O: We understand it is citta that hears, it is through the accumulation of all sense door and mind door processes, that one listens. Separately, not impt, I want to separate what is meant by conventional thinking of conceptual and conventonal thinking. Suk: But for what purpose? Isn’t it hard enough to understand the distinction between reality and concept, what is nama and what is rupa and differentiate between citta and cetasikas? Besides, without the Dhamma don’t we already know conventional reality such as reading a book, eating dinner, stealing, hitting someone, speaking kindly and showing respect? ============ Ken O: What we learn now is just conventional truth and not conventional concepts. What we walk now is conventional action but not conceptual actions. Conceptual actions only happen when our mind see a moving object, a conventional actions is the accumulations of cittas that condition the movement of the body intimations that cause us to walk. I think I dont use it anymore, because it will add more confusion to the dicussion in the forum. Suk: You are thinking about such examples as reading a book. What you are saying is that such actions should not simply be reduced to citta and cetasikas arising and falling away with different objects, some concept and some reality. Perhaps you fear that the kind of hard and fast distinction that some of us make might lead to the denial at some point of conventional actions? I don’t think that you should fear this. Right consideration in terms of paramattha dhammas is not going to lead one to suddenly be lost as to what one is doing such as mistake touching a table for touching a car or driving off the road. Even with complete loss of memory, citta will continue to think in terms of people and things and actions performed. True, one citta or even one javana process, can’t read or give, but this does not mean that there must be some special order of cittas involved in any conventional action. Think about the act of reading a book for example. Isn’t there seeing, hearing, touching, thinking not in any special order? And how could all these, some vipaka, while others are javana cittas all be somehow related to any particular act? Perhaps I’m missing something, in which case do try to explain again. Metta, Sukinder #106379 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg ashkenn2k Dear Scott Faith arise with kusala of two roots or three roots with panna. Faith is a faculty and power (bala). It can be strong hetupaccaya associated with alobha and adosa or panna if arise. There is a detail description of faith as faculty in the path of disrimination. I like this story from UP written by Nina. “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Threes, Ch V, 42, Characteristics) that the Buddha said: “Monks, a believer is to be recognized by three characteristics. What three? He desires to see the virtuous; he desires to hear Saddhamma; with heart free from the taint of stinginess he dwells at home, a generous giver, clean handed, delighting in giving up, one to ask a favour of, one who delights to share gifts with others. By these three characteristics a believer is to be recognized as such....” The Commentary to this sutta, the “Manorathapúraní” relates a story of a woman with strong confidence who wanted to listen to the Dhamma. She put her small child under a tree and stood listening to the preaching of the Dhamma during the night. She saw that a snake bit her child, but she thought that if she would speak about this it would disturb the listening to the Dhamma. She thought about the fact that her child was going around in the cycle of birth and death and that in former lives he was many times her child.She wanted to practise the Dhamma, and she stood listening the whole night,developing understanding so that she became a sotåpanna. At daybreak the poison was withdrawn from the child’s body because of her realisation of the truth and her strong confidence in the truth. She took up her child and went away. The commentary adds that people who are like that are persons who have the wish to listen to the Dhamma. Cheers Ken O #106380 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rules and rituals sukin pt ashkenn2k Dear Sukin >Suk: And we know that a monk with little or no understanding could take >any of the Vinaya rules for ‘self’. On the other hand, for those who are >enlightened the rules need not even exist. As for the rest who are in >between, I think these rules are more or less ‘reminders’ about what >kusala is and what is not and hence the need to develop understanding of >present moment realities. Perhaps when thinking in terms of maintaining >order within the Bhikkhu Sangha ‘rules’ are very important. But since >panna is the deciding factor when it comes to the individual’s >development of understanding, ‘rules’ as it is generally understood does >not apply. What do you think? > KO: We cannot claim that because some could take the rules out of confidence in the Buddha, faith. For those who are enlighted, they could still trangress the training rules if I am not mistaken. We cannot said that rules does not exist, if rules does not exist then why did Buddha put these rules. Ruels are not just solely for maintainng order, rules are for restraint, for the condition for the arisen of profitable states and abolishing the unprofitable states. Rules can condition rememberance and rememberance can condition panna. So it is not just a straight foward said that just developing understanding at the present moment. We must ask how does panna condition to arise. We cannot out of no where develop panna. It must first started with faith. Panna can arise due to conditions by other factors like faith, sati, sanna or sila or panna itself. So just by saying it is just the present reality and nothing else matters, that is to reject all is written in the Vinaya, suttas and samatha bhavana. Different people has different inclinations and these inclination will condition differently to the path. It is not one size fits all, it is that different sizes but to one goal, that is the development of vipassana nana. >Suk: Some of the discussions here is really about what is right and what >wrong practices. The former can only ever come from right intellectual >understanding; the latter on the other hand can only happen because of >the influence of wrong understanding. > >========== KO: Are you saying that listening and reading are not conventional actions like meditation are conventional actions? > >Suk: It would seem that this question of conventional action should not >even come in unless one means to give it some special status. Of course >we are all involved in conventional actions all day and all night, I >mean even sleeping involves body intimation which is not standing! >Direct understanding of conditions can only happen with one nama or one >rupa as object. Wouldn’t you think that the Vinaya rules should be >understood in terms of citta and cetasikas which is also the only way >that conditions are ever known? > KO: Until your understanding is at vipassana nana, we cannot claim at cetasikas and citta level. Because all starts from conventional actions and conventional understanding. I have yet seen one example of no convention actions like listening except for Buddha himself who realise dhamma himself. >=========== >Suk: But for what purpose? Isn’t it hard enough to understand the >distinction between reality and concept, what is nama and what is rupa >and differentiate between citta and cetasikas? Besides, without the >Dhamma don’t we already know conventional reality such as reading a >book, eating dinner, stealing, hitting someone, speaking kindly and >showing respect? >============ > KO: Not diificult, just that it is not beneficial to the forum who has a hard time understanding the meaning of convetion, so I refrain. >============ > >Suk: You are thinking about such examples as reading a book. What you >are saying is that such actions should not simply be reduced to citta >and cetasikas arising and falling away with different objects, some >concept and some reality. Perhaps you fear that the kind of hard and >fast distinction that some of us make might lead to the denial at some >point of conventional actions? I don’t think that you should fear this. >Right consideration in terms of paramattha dhammas is not going to lead >one to suddenly be lost as to what one is doing such as mistake touching >a table for touching a car or driving off the road. >Even with complete loss of memory, citta will continue to think in terms >of people and things and actions performed. True, one citta or even one >javana process, can’t read or give, but this does not mean that there >must be some special order of cittas involved in any conventional >action. Think about the act of reading a book for example. Isn’t there >seeing, hearing, touching, thinking not in any special order? And how >could all these, some vipaka, while others are javana cittas all be >somehow related to any particular act? KO: It is not about order. because you are fretting that order means self that is not what I am saying here. I am saying cetana will. If cetana dont will, how do you read. By magic?. Understand the nature of citta and cetasikas are impt so we are not confuse what is panna, what is chanda and what is cetana. You are mixing act of cetana with self, that is wrong. Act is cetana, self is miccha ditthi. When there is a purposedly act that is miccha ditthi with cetana. When you listen to dhamma, that is cetana with panna or saddha. Also can you read books or listen at paramatha level? This is the questions I ask DSG. So far no one can answer that why? because it is impossible for one mind door to do it. Until you are there, we cannot claim there is no convention action, no rules. cheers Ken O #106381 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Sure, one can and it is a good thing to analyse things into khandha/ayatana/ dhatu DO categories. However all of this is to realize 4NT and get rid of all craving. > >It does seem to me that some enthusiastic people turn this analysis into metaphysics and say interesting things dealing with existence or non-existence (an issue that Buddha tried to avoid). IMHO one should never use "no one can control dhammas" as an excuse for unrestrained behavior. IMHO. > >Thank you for your other part of the post. I basically agree with it. KO:? No one can control dhamma may sound not too good due to cultural differences.? To me it is ok to say no control over dhamma.? But if you wish to have a?another rendering, it should be no exercise of power over dhamma.? pg 57-58 Dispeller fo Delusion 233 <<222.?? But it is no-self (Anatta) in the sense of powerlessness.? Or because there is no exercise of power in these three instances, [namely] "this being arisen, let it not reach presence, having reached presence, let it not grow old, having grown old, let it not break up", and it is void of this quality of having power exercised over it (vasavattana). Therefore it is no-self for thse four reasons, [namely] because it is void, because it has no owner, because of not behaving as desired [akamakariya] because of exclusion of self.>> ? That is why when we see the noble truth of suffering, it shows the powerless over dhammas, we cannot stop?ageing, birth and illness?etc by mere wishing. ? <<"What is meant by not getting what one desires, that too is suffering? To beings subject to birth there comes desire: 'O might we not be subject to birth, and birth not come to us.' But this cannot be attained by mere desiring. So not getting what one desires, that too, is suffering. To beings subject to aging there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to aging, and aging not come to us...' (as before). To beings subject to disease there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to disease and disease not come to us...' To beings subject to death there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to death and death not come to us...' To beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair, and sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair not come to us.' But this cannot be attained by merely desiring. So not getting what one desires that too is suffering. >> ? No one can control dhamma does not mean no restraint in dhamma.? Dont mixed understanding with actions.? Anatta is a characteristics that could be?understood by panna and?it is not?about no action or about an action.? Anatta is not self and?is?not?no action, because action is cetana.?? So when people mix them up, all dhamma go haywire.? Action can be kusala or akuala.? ?Understanding?can condition kusala actions like reading dhamma books or listening, or it could conditions like samath bhavana (conditions apply here :-)).? Likewise?aksuala can condition unrestriant behaviour especially lobha who?makes?one must purposedly do?an action to develop panna.? Very stuble?lobha we must?be wary of. ? ? ? Cheers Ken?O? #106382 From: Kevin Farrell Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:22 pm Subject: Concepts are like like hallucinations farrellkevin80 Dear everyone, I like to think (hallucinate) of concepts as being like hallucinations. Kevin The Lost Trailers: http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 #106383 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:58 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Ki Ken O, -------- KO: > ? I rather not use intent because it has a meaning of self-motivated action.? It should be chanda motivated by faith/panna or lobha.? We read dhamma books because of our faith or panna that condition chanda?/cetana/viriya ?to?read them.? To purposely do it, no, even for?reading a dhamma book.?It could be lobha for panna. -------- Yes, and when we catch ourselves wanting to have insight, we can remember that wanting (lobha) is a dhamma just like any other. Dhammas are rolling regardless of whatever we might think. Good dhammas, bad dhammas it doesn't really matter which; the important thing is to know them for what they are - completely devoid of self and therefore, uncontrollable. Ken H #106384 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:20 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ----------- <. . .> KP: > But we cannot assume that rules dont have efficacy.?? They become strong hetupaccaya when faith arises to believe in the Buddha dhamma that such rules are for the restraint, are for eradication of unprofitable.??This is very clear in Visud.??? ------------- Thanks, Ken, hetupaccaya is another term I really should be familiar with. After a quick revision, I remember that it (root condition) is the presence of one or more of the six wholesome and unwholesome mulas. I don't know how a training rule could act as hetupaccaya, but if the Visud says it can, I won't argue. :-) In any case, I would disagree strongly that a rule could have efficacy. A rule is a concept, not a dhamma. Only dhammas have efficacy. Ken H #106385 From: "nori" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta norakat147 Hello Nina, N:"Yes, it is different. Citta does not retain understanding... ...citta with understanding arises during the moments of javana in a process, it falls away, but it is not lost. There are the following cittas succeeding one another, and ***understanding is as it were carried on from citta to citta***, so that understanding can arise again in the future. ...Anussaya refers only to the latent tendencies, and aasaya refers to both kusala and akusala that are accumulated." Here lies a fundamental contradiction. If citta is only a pure observer, how can it retain anything? What exactly is being retained? With Metta, Nori #106386 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:01 pm Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Ken O), -------- <. . .> KH: > > I hope I can assume that, when you open a Dhamma book, it is not with the intention of developing insight. That sort of intention would belong with a belief in self, wouldn't it? > > H: > LOLOL! So, it is opened for the same non-reason for which one trips and falls? Contemplating the Dhamma is for no purpose? Is that it? The Buddha didn't urge Dhamma study? Ken H, what ARE you claiming? -------------------------------------------------------------- I am claiming that the monks described in the texts as practising satipatthana did not have craving for future enlightenment. (- nor any other kind of craving.) They had right understanding of the present-moment reality. --------------------------- KH: > >And the monks described in the Theravada texts didn't study Dhamma with an intention of developing insight either, did they? Nor did they count breaths with an intention of developing samatha. > > H: > They went forth and followed the bhikkhu rules without a reason? Are you saying that they studied Dhamma and (as you say) counted breaths entirely purposelessly? Would that not make them incredibly stupid? ----------------------------- In between moments of satipatthana and samatha, monks have other kusala moments that involve concepts of people and things to do. Hence daily-life routines are unavoidable. A monk who is developing samatha knows, above all else, that the present citta needs to be kusala. Counting breaths is a secondary consideration that occurs naturally in the kusala thinking of a [beginner] jhana meditator. ---------- <. . .> H: > P. S. Perhaps I'm missing what your assertion actually is, and I need to read more details from you, Ken. ---------- I agree it was over the top. But that's the way the Dhamma is when compared to conventional wisdom. How else could anatta look to us worldlings but over the top? :-) Ken H #106387 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation centers/dsg upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 3/29/2010 6:02:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (and Ken O), -------- <. . .> KH: > > I hope I can assume that, when you open a Dhamma book, it is not with the intention of developing insight. That sort of intention would belong with a belief in self, wouldn't it? > > H: > LOLOL! So, it is opened for the same non-reason for which one trips and falls? Contemplating the Dhamma is for no purpose? Is that it? The Buddha didn't urge Dhamma study? Ken H, what ARE you claiming? -------------------------------------------------------------- I am claiming that the monks described in the texts as practising satipatthana did not have craving for future enlightenment. (- nor any other kind of craving.) They had right understanding of the present-moment reality. ---------------------------------------------------- Ken, there were beginners, even worldlings, among them. The more junior monks were trained by the more senior monks. The monks described in the Anapanasati Sutta, for example, certainly were a truly excellent group that included many ariyans of all levels, but they weren't all seasoned monks and certainly not all ariyans, though it seems they all were devoted practitioners. Many were new monks. --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- KH: > >And the monks described in the Theravada texts didn't study Dhamma with an intention of developing insight either, did they? Nor did they count breaths with an intention of developing samatha. > > H: > They went forth and followed the bhikkhu rules without a reason? Are you saying that they studied Dhamma and (as you say) counted breaths entirely purposelessly? Would that not make them incredibly stupid? ----------------------------- In between moments of satipatthana and samatha, monks have other kusala moments that involve concepts of people and things to do. Hence daily-life routines are unavoidable. A monk who is developing samatha knows, above all else, that the present citta needs to be kusala. Counting breaths is a secondary consideration that occurs naturally in the kusala thinking of a [beginner] jhana meditator. -------------------------------------------------- The question is whether they did what they carried out their activities without any purpose. I have no idea why you think so. ----------------------------------------------- ---------- <. . .> H: > P. S. Perhaps I'm missing what your assertion actually is, and I need to read more details from you, Ken. ---------- I agree it was over the top. But that's the way the Dhamma is when compared to conventional wisdom. How else could anatta look to us worldlings but over the top? :-) ---------------------------------------------- Over the top or not, I'm missing exactly what you are claiming and why you believe it to be so. I don't think that "over the top" is necessarily untrue. I just don't see the what and why of the matter. Even the Bodhisatta, when he embarked on his search, did so with the purpose of putting an end to suffering. 'Purpose' isn't a dirty word. ;-) --------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #106388 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:03 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg kenhowardau Hi Scott, --------- <. . . S: > I tend to think, as do you, that a rote, empty, compulsive keeping of rules or engaging in rituals *with a goal in mind that this alone is the point and this alone will have efficacy* is an obsessional neurosis. ----------- Yes, for sure, and that's not a rare thing in the world, is it? People in general are obsessive neurotics. They (we?) get away with it most of the time, but whenever something goes wrong - disrupting their routines - they (we) behave very badly. ------------------------ <. . .> KH: > . . . a sense of urgency is a good thing, provided it comes from right understanding and not wrong understanding. > > Scott: > You suggest here that when it is told that one should, say, develop mettaa, it is said by way of instilling a 'sense of urgency.' What it is that one ends up doing in order to develop mettaa based on this sense of urgency? I would suggest that the saying of it can be condition, then, for the arising of this urgency (a dhamma) which would lead to some sort of 'doing.' The meditators on the list wrongly (and with assomating repetitiveness) suggest that the DSG message is 'do nothing.' This is not true. ------------------------- It is not true because it presupposes the existence of a doer. (Or, in this case, the existence of a do-nothing-er.) With that kind of presupposition the Dhamma will never be seen, no matter how hard one tries to cover all the possibilities: "do something; do nothing; do both something and nothing; do neither something nor nothing." (to paraphrase the Brahmajala Sutta) ----------------- <. . .> S: > What do you think the connection is between the lighting of the candle at the base of the Buddha statue and the very infrequent arising of kusala? ------------------ That's a very pertinent question for me. The low point of my trip to Thailand was my dismal failure to understand the answers K Sujin gave to my questions. One of those answers was that there had to be "an act of dana" (in order for there to be dana). As I understand it, an act of dana is a concept. (Just like the lighting of a candle is a concept.) But if we don't do it, there is no possibility for dana. So, I suppose, if you want to pay respect to the Buddha, there has to be an act (or concept) of respect paying. That won't guarantee any kind of kusala consciousness, of course, but it will be a condition for it. But don't pay too much attention to me, this is not my strong topic! :-) --------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > . . . at such a place there are certain conditions for kusala that aren't present at other places. > > S: > I'm surprised at the latter statement. The meditators would be all over you here, you know, forests and bases of trees and seclusion and all that. Rather than go the other way, though, keeping in mind that our little collection of meditators is like way out to lunch, do you suggest that one *should* go to relic shrines and offer a garland of flowers? So-called 'standard DSG' would suggest that you are incorrect to suggest that there are necessarily any more conditions for kusala at a relic shrine than anywhere else. I'd be interested if this view is emerging. It would reflect some sort of shift in understanding things. ----------------------------- It's not a shift in understanding so much as a remembering of what I have been told here at DSG. To understand the benefits of kusala means to feel an urgent need for kusala right now. If there is someone with you right now, show that person some kindness or generosity. If there is no other person that's unfortunate, but maybe there is some other way you can have kusala consciousness now. With that attitude, we can see how some situations are more favourable than others in terms of the possibilities they offer. If there is a monk on almsround, for example, what a wonderful opportunity that would offer. If there is just a fly trapped in a window, then at least there is some lesser opportunity. There is still no control over whether citta will be kusala or akusala, of course. And kindness shown to a fly is still better than conceit shown to a monk. I know I am on dangerous ground here, but I still think the presence of a Buddha relic offers certain conditions for [kusala] respect-paying that are not found elsewhere. --------------------- <. . .> S: > Far from all those 'idyllic conditions' I've somehow found a great affinity with many of the ways the Dhamma is explained by Kh. Sujin. If there is an emerging message that, while dhammas are anatta, there are still some *shoulds* that are relevant (again leaving aside the whole samatha-bhaavanaa thing) then I'd like to know more about what this means. --------------------- No, I think it's always the same 'no-control' message. There just has to be right understanding. To the extent that there is right understanding, we find that the wording of the message (shoulds or no shoulds) doesn't matter so much. And, conversely, no matter how carefully someone like K Sujin might put the Dhamma into words, if there is no understanding (of anatta) the meaning is lost. Ken H #106389 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:13 am Subject: accumulations and mind-reading (judging) truth_aerator Dear KenO, all >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > >There were many lay non-returners in Buddha's time. Also Citta the householder WAS master of Jhanas. > > > >"Well, venerable sir, to whatever extent I wish, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhåna, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. [299] Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhåna…. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the fading away as well of rapture … I enter and dwell in the third jhåna…. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain … I enter and dwell in the fourth jhåna." BB transl. SN 41.8 > > > >""The layman Kakudha, Ananda, through the destruction of the five lower fetters (that bind beings to the world of the senses), has arisen spontaneously (among the Suddhavasa deities), and will come to final cessation in that very place, not liable to return from that world. > > > >"So it is with Kalinga, Nikata, Katissabha, Tuttha, Santuttha, Bhadda, and Subhadda, and with more than fifty laymen in Nadika. " > >DN16 http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ dn/dn.16. 1-6.vaji. html > > KO: Yes there are lay people who are jhanas masters. The formulae so far I seen is for recluses and not lay followers. Also are we comparing apple with apple. These lay followers have great accumulations for this condition to arise, they understand dhamma easily. Do we have it? Be honest with ourselves. > > > Thanks > Ken O How do you know how much accumulations you have or have not (or others have or have not)? IMHO, if a person is born in a sufficiently good environment, with sufficient discernment, has access to Dhamma teaching and understands the value Dhamma - then at that point s/he has lots of accumulations already in order to be in such a very rare opportunity. The chances of being in this position is very very rare, as you probably know. Most people do not have this chance. Insects and other apaya beings outnumber humans by big magnitude. In a sense, we have very good accumulations already. IMHO. IMHO it is not very productive to blame accumulations for everything and avoiding studying, considering and being aware of satipatthana. With metta, Alex #106390 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:55 pm Subject: Cutting all Craving Ends all Suffering! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Cutting Craving Ends Suffering! At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus: Whatever desire & lust there is for form, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness, whatever greed, urge and craving, whatever engagement, entanglement and clinging, any habitual addiction, obsession, and underlying tendency there is for form, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness, overcome, cut and eliminate it all! Then all form, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness will be overcome & conquered, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, completely destroyed, so that it is unable to ever re-arise again... This - only this - is the End of all Suffering...! Craving => Clinging => Fear => Panic => Suffering! <....> http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/2nd_Noble_Truth: Cause_of_Suffering.htm Craving can be cut due to the neuro-plasticity of learning. Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:112 III 162 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #106391 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and craving. truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, While I find the concept of free-will to be problematic, and some of the things that I've experienced backed it up, still the quote you gave doesn't address volition & choice completely. >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > > >Sure, one can and it is a good thing to analyse things into khandha/ayatana/ dhatu DO categories. However all of this is to realize 4NT and get rid of all craving. > > > >It does seem to me that some enthusiastic people turn this analysis into metaphysics and say interesting things dealing with existence or non-existence (an issue that Buddha tried to avoid). IMHO one should never use "no one can control dhammas" as an excuse for unrestrained behavior. IMHO. > > > >Thank you for your other part of the post. I basically agree with it. > > KO:? No one can control dhamma may sound not too good due to cultural differences.? To me it is ok to say no control over dhamma.? But if you wish to have a?another rendering, it should be no exercise of power over dhamma.? > > pg 57-58 Dispeller fo Delusion 233 > <<222.?? But it is no-self (Anatta) in the sense of powerlessness.? Or because there is no exercise of power in these three instances, [namely] "this being arisen, let it not reach presence, having reached presence, let it not grow old, having grown old, let it not break up", and it is void of this quality of having power exercised over it (vasavattana). Therefore it is no-self for thse four reasons, [namely] because it is void, because it has no owner, because of not behaving as desired [akamakariya] because of exclusion of self.>> > The above paragraph says that one cannot control the AGING/ANICCA of what is arisen! 1) ""this being arisen, let it not reach presence," Also the above paragraph says that 2) "having reached presence, let it not grow old," AND 3)"having grown old, let it not break up" ? > That is why when we see the noble truth of suffering, it shows the >powerless over dhammas, we cannot stop?ageing, birth and illness?etc >by mere wishing. Correct. But it doesn't say that a good disciple cannot (perhaps slowly) change from akusala to kusala behaviour (through wisdom of course). With metta, Alex #106392 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:33 am Subject: Re: rules and rituals sukin pt sukinderpal Hi Ken, ====== >Suk: And we know that a monk with little or no understanding could take >any of the Vinaya rules for ‘self’. On the other hand, for those who are >enlightened the rules need not even exist. As for the rest who are in >between, I think these rules are more or less ‘reminders’ about what >kusala is and what is not and hence the need to develop understanding of >present moment realities. Perhaps when thinking in terms of maintaining >order within the Bhikkhu Sangha ‘rules’ are very important. But since >panna is the deciding factor when it comes to the individual’s >development of understanding, ‘rules’ as it is generally understood does >not apply. What do you think? KO: We cannot claim that because some could take the rules out of confidence in the Buddha, faith. For those who are enlighted, they could still trangress the training rules if I am not mistaken. We cannot said that rules does not exist, if rules does not exist then why did Buddha put these rules. S: I am not saying that these rules do not exist, Ken. What I am saying is that since panna is involved here, the rules are not to be understood as it is generally done. In other words, panna leads and not the rules. Also if you look at it from the standpoint of faith, this conditions a perspective about these rules, different from when no faith is involved. Without both of these however, the rules followed become silabattaparamasa. ========== KO: Ruels are not just solely for maintainng order, rules are for restraint, for the condition for the arisen of profitable states and abolishing the unprofitable states. Rules can condition rememberance and rememberance can condition panna. So it is not just a straight foward said that just developing understanding at the present moment. S: I said: “rules are more or less ‘reminders’ about what kusala is and what is not and hence the need to develop understanding of present moment realities.” Does this not sound like what you are saying? ========== KO: We must ask how does panna condition to arise. We cannot out of no where develop panna. It must first started with faith. Panna can arise due to conditions by other factors like faith, sati, sanna or sila or panna itself. Suk: You are referring to faith that must exist prior to any arisen panna and not the one that necessarily arises with it. So you are saying that there is faith in the Triple gems without any level of panna and that panna cannot arise without this faith first coming to be? And I think likewise, that you are also making a case for the other mental factors such as sati and sila, that these must be there *before* panna? ========== KO: So just by saying it is just the present reality and nothing else matters, that is to reject all is written in the Vinaya, suttas and samatha bhavana. S: Giving priority to understanding the present moment does not mean nothing else matters. No doubt what is in the Vinaya and the Suttas and the development of Samatha bhavana all these are best seen in light of understanding present moment realities, this however does not mean for example, that kusala without panna is not valuable. But why do you conclude that if one is focused on the need to develop right understanding of present moment realities, this implies rejection of the Suttas and Vinaya? ========== KO: Different people has different inclinations and these inclination will condition differently to the path. It is not one size fits all, it is that different sizes but to one goal, that is the development of vipassana nana. S: True, and for some faith is strong as compared to wisdom. However, faith without wisdom means nothing in terms of the Path being developed, does it not? ========== >Suk: Some of the discussions here is really about what is right and what >wrong practices. The former can only ever come from right intellectual >understanding; the latter on the other hand can only happen because of >the influence of wrong understanding. KO: Are you saying that listening and reading are not conventional actions like meditation are conventional actions? S: What I am saying is that listening and reading can be conventional actions undertaken with right or wrong view. Meditation as is spoken of here is necessarily motivated by wrong view and never right view. ========== >Suk: It would seem that this question of conventional action should not >even come in unless one means to give it some special status. Of course >we are all involved in conventional actions all day and all night, I >mean even sleeping involves body intimation which is not standing! >Direct understanding of conditions can only happen with one nama or one >rupa as object. Wouldn’t you think that the Vinaya rules should be >understood in terms of citta and cetasikas which is also the only way >that conditions are ever known? KO: Until your understanding is at vipassana nana, we cannot claim at cetasikas and citta level. Suk: It does not have to imply this Ken. When you talk about sati and faith and wisdom, aren’t you talking about cetasikas? And when you talk about hearing and seeing, aren’t theses cittas? ========== KO: Because all starts from conventional actions and conventional understanding. I have yet seen one example of no convention actions like listening except for Buddha himself who realise dhamma himself. S: No one is denying that the conventional action of reading and listening is required for there to be hearing of the Dhamma for example. The problem seems to be that you go on to make a case *for* conventional actions, one which is beyond necessity. =========== >Suk: But for what purpose? Isn’t it hard enough to understand the >distinction between reality and concept, what is nama and what is rupa >and differentiate between citta and cetasikas? Besides, without the >Dhamma don’t we already know conventional reality such as reading a >book, eating dinner, stealing, hitting someone, speaking kindly and >showing respect? KO: Not diificult, just that it is not beneficial to the forum who has a hard time understanding the meaning of convetion, so I refrain. Suk: I think all the resistance comes from unwillingness on the part of so called ‘meditators’ to accept that what they do is wrong practice. If the matter was about what constitutes and not conventional activities in general, I don’t think there would be any argument at all. =========== >Suk: You are thinking about such examples as reading a book. What you >are saying is that such actions should not simply be reduced to citta >and cetasikas arising and falling away with different objects, some >concept and some reality. Perhaps you fear that the kind of hard and >fast distinction that some of us make might lead to the denial at some >point of conventional actions? I don’t think that you should fear this. >Right consideration in terms of paramattha dhammas is not going to lead >one to suddenly be lost as to what one is doing such as mistake touching >a table for touching a car or driving off the road. >Even with complete loss of memory, citta will continue to think in terms >of people and things and actions performed. True, one citta or even one >javana process, can’t read or give, but this does not mean that there >must be some special order of cittas involved in any conventional >action. Think about the act of reading a book for example. Isn’t there >seeing, hearing, touching, thinking not in any special order? And how >could all these, some vipaka, while others are javana cittas all be >somehow related to any particular act? KO: It is not about order. because you are fretting that order means self that is not what I am saying here. I am saying cetana will. If cetana dont will, how do you read. By magic?. Suk: OK, now you come to the point. Cetana arises with all cittas performing the function of coordinating and in the case of javana, the additional function of willing. This latter can manifest as action through body, speech or mind, and if kusala, lead to good results and if akusala, to bad results. ========== KO: Understand the nature of citta and cetasikas are impt so we are not confuse what is panna, what is chanda and what is cetana. You are mixing act of cetana with self, that is wrong. Act is cetana, self is miccha ditthi. When there is a purposedly act that is miccha ditthi with cetana. When you listen to dhamma, that is cetana with panna or saddha. S: No I am not “mixing act of cetana with self”, but simply pointing to the existence of miccha ditthi in the idea of meditation which then conditions the associated conventional activity. You it seems, in bringing up the matter of conventional activity and of cetana, are defending the meditator’s decision to practice samatha. Qualifying this with being also the result of kusala chanda and saddha appears to me to be due to not seeing that miccha ditthi must necessarily be involved in any idea by the Buddhist, to practice samatha as he does. Of course you do warn these people about the need for panna in order that the practice be right. I however, don’t think that even this is the correct approach. For me when panna arises, it arises to *understand* and not to follow any prescribed practice or method. And so when panna does not arise, whatever is written in the Texts are just descriptions of different realities and conditions. It is with the arising of miccha ditthi, that these descriptions are taken for methods to follow. ========== KO: Also can you read books or listen at paramatha level? This is the questions I ask DSG. So far no one can answer that why? because it is impossible for one mind door to do it. S: I am very, very behind in my reading and so I haven’t seen your question to anyone else and therefore read their response. But haven’t I given my answer? Or is it that mine didn’t satisfy you? ========== KO: Until you are there, we cannot claim there is no convention action, no rules. S: Of course for an enlightened person there will continue to be conventional actions such as reading and discussing the Dhamma with others. What you are saying with regard to rules, is that panna of a lower level need them but those of very high level, do not? How can it then be said that panna of Pariyatti and that of Patipatti and Pativedha must conform and agree? Metta, Sukinder Ps: I got up early to read and answer this email because my air-conditioner stopped working and not because I wanted to watch Tevez play, who btw scored a hat trick in 12 minutes against Wigan a little while ago!! :-) #106393 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:31 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg ptaus1 Hi Scott, > Scott: In this small paragraph I count 15 little triangles with question marks inside them. Is this an acid flashback, a font problem on my computer, or what? As far as I can tell, it's lack of standards among computer and software manufacturers, or rather their reluctance to comply with suggested standards regarding character encodings. So what we seem to have is that those of us who are on Windows have one default encoding, those on macs have another, those on non-english Windows have yet another, and finally, Pali is usually in yet another encoding. To top it all off, browser can also have a different encoding set as default, but they will then attempt to automatically detect encodings on a page that's loading, so they then get confused when they encounter multiple encodings on a page - like when you are reading messages on dsg in Expanded mode. Hence, some of the problems that you encounter. The only solution would be if we all decide, ok, let's all make sure we're reading and typing replies in "Unicode (UTF-8)" encoding. But that'll be difficult to coordinate all the time because each one of us will have to check the encoding every time - especially when replying to messages, because the browser might just change it automatically on loading a new page. So in the mean-time, if you're encountering weird signs, try changing the encoding in order to find the one in which the message was originally typed. In most browsers, it's in the top menu under View -> Character Encoding. For example, for KenO's messages, I switch to "Western (Windows-1252)" encoding, and all the weird signs disappear, which means KenO is usually typing his messages in that particular encoding. Anyway, I'll soon start a series of posts on this topic to let you all know what I've learned about it so far, maybe it helps. Best wishes pt #106394 From: "Sadhu Chew" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta chewsadhu Dear Nina & Han, Thank you for your discussion on this lying dormant and the accumulation topics. It is very interesting. 1. Anusayas are lying dormant in all cittas as long as its have not been eradicated by the Path consciousness. 2. Kammas are accumulated. 3. Paramis are accumulated. Usually we say they are accumulated and as it were carried on from citta to citta. We even were told that they are the forces. Are they talking in Ultimate sense? Can we note the Anusayas while the Kusala citta is arising? Don't we learn that when the Kusala citta arises, it arises together with it's associated mental factors? There are no other mental states exist at that moment other than that arising mental states. Fire does not lying dormant in the matches. But a new matches has the potentiality to produce fire when there are conditions. Thank you. May all beings be well and happy. With respect, Chew --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > Thank you very much for your further clarification. > > Nina: As you know, anusayas are lying dormant also in kusala cittas, we do not question this. And so it is with accumulated good qualities, they are accumulated and as it were carried on from citta to citta. Our life is an unbroken series of cittas. > After the javanacittas with understanding have fallen away, there may be tadalambana cittas which are vipaakacittas and then bhavangacittas until a new process starts. That process may have akusala javanacittas. Each citta is anantara paccaya, contiguity-condition for the following citta, and thus what was accumulated is contained in each of these cittas, no matter in what type of citta, also in akusala citta. There are no gaps. Accumulations are not static, there is a new accumulation added time and again. > > ---------- > > Han: There are things which I do not know up until now, e.g., (1) anusayas are lying dormant also in kusala cittas; and (2) that what was accumulated is contained in each of these cittas, no matter in what type of citta, also in akusala citta. It is very profitable for me, a real eye-opener! Thank you very much, once again. > > Respectfully, > Han > #106395 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:45 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: I don't know how conditioned dhammas could be learnt without Abhidhamma language, do you? Anatta, for example, when taught only in conventional language would lead to nonsensical conclusions such as, "We do not exist: pt and Ken H are not here!" pt: I guess it depends on the accumulations, for some conventional seems enough, though this might be mostly for the very wise students, as you (maybe) suggest below. > KH: I would question that interpretation of the commentary. I think conventional-language Dhamma is a luxury only the wise can afford. pt: Perhaps you can give your rendering of that commentarial passage? I attached it below. Thanks. > KH: And what, really, is the 'main thing?' True Dhamma taught by an angry teacher would still be better than false Dhamma taught by a kind teacher, wouldn't it? pt: I'm not sure, I take it that both would be essentially commiting akusala, and akusala conditions more akusala, so I thought you'd be likely to call it wrong practice. But maybe I'm wrong and some akusala is a good akusala... Best wishes pt AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55: Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-katha-, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-katha-. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-katha-. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-katha-. To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-katha- , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-katha-, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-katha-, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-katha-. There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-katha-. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena. #106396 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:28 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg ptaus1 Hi KenH, > In any case, I would disagree strongly that a rule could have efficacy. A rule is a concept, not a dhamma. Only dhammas have efficacy. I also find this topic confusing - concepts are not dhammas, but I think they can condition other dhammas because concept can be object of citta - so there should be at least the object condition. I think I asked Sarah once about this, but can't find that post right now. Anyway, it seems logical that this would happen because we hear and read about the Dhamma by using concepts which then condition dhammas such as panna to arise. One thing I don't really understands is why concepts are not considered dhammas as well if they can condition other dhammas, but I think the answer is just - they aren't. Best wishes pt #106397 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:48 am Subject: Re: meditation centers/dsg ptaus1 Hi KenH, I found that post by Sarah about concepts and conditions if you're interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/104199 and there's also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/102068 On re-reading them, I think concepts can condition other dhammas, but concepts are not conditioned or unconditioned because they don't arise and fall. Concepts are really weird... Best wishes pt #106398 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study on the development of Jhanas - Virtue epsteinrob Hi All! Alex happened to quote something from recent group activity and I clicked over here and enjoyed this exchange. I hope you are all well! A quick comment below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > >There were many lay non-returners in Buddha's time. Also Citta the householder WAS master of Jhanas. > > > >"Well, venerable sir, to whatever extent I wish, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhåna, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. [299] Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhåna…. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the fading away as well of rapture … I enter and dwell in the third jhåna…. Then, to whatever extent I wish, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain … I enter and dwell in the fourth jhåna." BB transl. SN 41.8 What do you think of the "to whatever extent I wish" that Citta keeps repeating? Do you think he is mis-speaking or does this semi-enlightened dude have willful volition in play? ;-) I would think that someone as advanced as he is would avoid making statements as if he can control the jhanas through will, rather than realize that they are merely and solely the product of arising conditions. What's up with that? Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = #106399 From: Vince Date: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:39 am Subject: Re[2]: [dsg] Re: D.O. was: Nama vs Citta cerovzt@... Dea Nina you wrote: > N: As you know, anusayas are lying dormant also in kusala cittas, we > do not question this. And so it is with accumulated good qualities, > they are accumulated and as it were carried on from citta to citta. > Our life is an unbroken series of cittas. > After the javanacittas with understanding have fallen away, there may > be tadalambana cittas which are vipaakacittas and then bhavangacittas > until a new process starts. That process may have akusala > javanacittas. Each citta is anantara paccaya, contiguity-condition > for the following citta, and thus what was accumulated is contained > in each of these cittas, no matter in what type of citta, also in > akusala citta. There are no gaps. Accumulations are not static, there > is a new accumulation added time and again. also I find very contradictory claiming the citta contains something. If citta contains something then she could not falls away together with the object but she would remain. Until now I understand only one way for accumulation, and it is attachment or detachment. We cannot "store" an object in some place. I don't understand how citta can be "a recipient" to contain something. There is an accumulation in a causal trend when citta experience an object but this accumulation is the way to know, deluded or not. Here there is accumulation because it is established as a causal trend citta.after-citta. At least I understand this is the only possible accumulation, and from detachment arises kusala or akusala. Any akusala will be kusala according detachment. In fact, when there is deeper detachment there is better understanding. Attachment is the cause of the wrong or right view. When we talk about "concepts" we are talking about delusion caused by attachment Also, citta it's just a word, no more. She is non-substantial and not an entity. Citta and nama&rupa both arises in the here and now in a co-dependent way. While we ignore this then we put names (citta, nama,rupa...) and a whole Abhidhamma in order to understand. But all these names are just annata and they belongs to nothing at all, they are devoid of substance. The accumulation explanation sounds as if citta was an store, when in fact it seems to be more like a mirage. A mirage doesn't contain the object but it is just a reflection, and for this reason it falls away together with the object. However, capacity to reflect remains, as the pure water without reflections. At the other side, I wonder very much about using the tadalambana-citta as a bridge while she is the retention of an object which has not fallen away yet. She cannot be a bridge but it is built in the same previous land, not in "the middle" neither the next. How citta can be an store of something?. How to say accumulation is a reality instead a concept? best wishes, Vince