#109200 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Waves or Wires? Pt's 2nd visit kenhowardau Hi Nina, --- N: > When we met you we had not given you turning towards sixty. --- Nice of you to say so, Nina, but it applies much more to you and Lodewijk. Dhamma study is indeed the fountain of youth. Citta doesn't only die in the present moment, it is also just being born. :-) Ken H #109201 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:30 am Subject: What I heard. India 2007. nilovg Dear friends, I was listening to recordings. This is a reposting. Nama and rupa are different realities. At the moment a characteristic appears that characteristic can be known. You do not have to think about the difference between nama and rupa, the characteristic that appears is already known by sati and pa~n~na. There is no time to call it nama or rupa. Usually people remember the terms first and then they try to find out about nama and rupa. Right understanding knows one characteristic at a time. There is no need to say that a particular characteristic is nama. By understanding that seeing experiences visible object one can come closer to the understanding of nama, instead of trying to know beforehand that a reality is nama. Visible object cannot be seeing. Seeing is now performing the function of seeing. Each citta and each cetasika peform their function. Nama that arises has to perform a function. Seeing is the faculty of experiencing only. It sees. We can know that it is dhamma because it is real. This is not right understanding yet, but it is the beginning to know seeing at the moment of seeing. Usually when we read about seeing it is not seeing that sees, it is thinking about seeing. There may be only understanding of the term and its meaning. There are many different levels of understanding. Reality is not in the book, but it is here and now. ------- Nina. #109202 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:07 am Subject: Re: What I heard. India 2007. szmicio Dear Nina, I want to add some my recent thoughts. Sometimes all is clear, I have trust to the Dhamma, but how I can be sure this is not attachment? I dont know what is attachment and what is not. Hovewer I strongly belive that the way must be detachment, that is daily life for lay peoples. I think to lead our normal life, to study Dhamma when there are proper conditions to it, is very according to detachment. But this is long long way, sometimes I think this is maybe the slower progress comparing to others methods. Smetimes I can appreciate to be remionded on nama and ruupa now. Then I strongly belive this is a right path. Such moment is calmer and pleasant, but this can be easily lobha. Then path leads to more and more misery. Best wishes Lucas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I was listening to recordings. This is a reposting. > #109203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound. was: Jhana moment is just mentality nilovg Dear Vince and Howard, Op 11-aug-2010, om 12:06 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: >> But when seeing it by way of paramattha dhammas: it happens as in a >> flash that temperature produces sound. There is no glass, no persons >> who throws it in the ultimate sense. > > I cannot check these details on elements but what you says here sounds > fully right to me. However, I still think such experience need of some > stabilization on anatta; that's far to me. -------- N: We all need some stabilization on anatta ! Only by beginning to have more understanding of characteristics of realities, appearing one at a time. ----- Howard wrote: I would say the same for temperature and motion and cittas. IMO, they are simply finer-grain constructs separated out from the stream of experience. But this isn't the point. The point is that I see little basis for emphasizing temperature over motion as a condition for sound. --------------------------------------------------- N: I have been thinking of our discussion. It has to do with 'ruupas out there' and that may not be acceptable for those seeing realities from the point of phenomenology. Apart from sound originated by citta there is sound that is originated by heat. Ruupas that are not of the body, outward ruupas, are originated by heat and I find this understandable. Heat is so powerful, it cooks, matures, it can make what is solid into liquid. Sound of nature, sound that is 'out there' is no exception, it is originated by heat. ------- NIna. #109204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] knowing mind nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 14-aug-2010, om 5:37 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > Dear Nina thank you for your explanation, but I still have > confusion, I have read in a book about the experience of Nibbana > for the first time by Sotapanna is presided by the breaking up of > feeling, > In the Sutta mention about the stopping of feeling is the happiness/ > ultimate peacefulness. > > But nevertheless a feeling of emptiness (causes peacefullness) > arised and can be felt. Is that feeling is a Lokuttara feeling? ------- N: Each citta is accompanied by feeling and there could not be a stopping of feeling and then a citta arising without feeling. Anaagamis and arahats who have developed jhaana and are proficient in jhaana can attain cessation (nirodha) of citta and accompanying cetasikas, feeling, sa~n~naa, etc. It is the temporary suspension of citta and cetasikas. But this is impossible for sotaapanna and those about to attain this state. For the person who is about to attain the state of sotaapanna, any reality that appears, even lobha, is realized as either impermanent or dukkha or anattaa. When lokuttara citta arises that experiences nibbaana it is accompanied by samaadhi that is of the strength of the first stage of jhaana, for those who have never cultivated jhaana. Thus, because of conditions lokuttara citta and the accompanying feeling are peaceful. ------- Nina. #109205 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. India 2007. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 15-aug-2010, om 13:07 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > Sometimes all is clear, I have trust to the Dhamma, but how I can > be sure this is not attachment? I dont know what is attachment and > what is not. ------ N: When you think of attachment afterwards it is gone already. No way to know its characteristic. ------ > > L: Hovewer I strongly belive that the way must be detachment, that > is daily life for lay peoples. I think to lead our normal life, to > study Dhamma when there are proper conditions to it, is very > according to detachment. But this is long long way, sometimes I > think this is maybe the slower progress comparing to others methods. ------ N: It is of no use to think of slow or fast, and if we do it shows attachment. ------- > L: Smetimes I can appreciate to be remionded on nama and ruupa now. > Then I strongly belive this is a right path. Such moment is calmer > and pleasant, but this can be easily lobha. Then path leads to more > and more misery. ------- N: A moment of understanding is bound to be followed by moments of lobha, liking it. Knowing this helps us to have more understanding of anattaness, of conditions. -------- Here is a dialogue with Ken O you may like: --------- 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. ------- Nina. #109206 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Sarah. Questions to Ajahn Sujin nilovg Dear Lukas, your q. list: >> 20. I have doubts. It's not pleasant. >> >> 21. I will be living my normal life as I do it, but doubts are >> present. And this thinking, I dont like it. ----- N: Only the sotaapanna has eradicated doubt. Pa~n~naa developed to that degree can eradicate doubt. Through right understanding of whatever reality appears, even if it is doubt, there will be less doubt about nama and rupa. I remember talking to Ven. Dhammadharo about doubt, and he said: then the reality will just be doubt, doubt, doubt. (I still hear him say this with much emphasis), but I think I mentioned this before. It is just a naama and that is all. WE should not run away from the present moment. If you find it unpleasant, there is already another reality that should be understood: dosa or unpleasant feeling. That is conditioned by lobha: things are not the way you would like them to be. Are you doing a retreat in Sweden? Nina. #109207 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:20 am Subject: Re: What I heard. India 2007. szmicio dear Nina, Thank you very much, very helpful. I am always thinking about people and things. Whether I act or did something in a proper way. What others think etc. recently I had very enjoyable time with your 'Alone with the Dhamma' Very helpful. > --------- > 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. > ------- L: What about if I react to delishious food. I enjoy the taste making up a stories of the food. This is not according what Buddha said, that a food should be only used for sustauin this body not for pleasure. I had a lot of regrets, that i reacted in such way not according to Dhamma. But the moment is gone now, is it OK to let it go? Is it me that reacts to pleasant food. I feel like this was me who reacyted this or that way. best wishes Lukas #109208 From: Ken O Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana adepts outside of the Buddha sasana do not have belief in control ? ashkenn2k Dear Sukin >> >> Exercise power over dhamma is not possible due to anatta of dhamma. >> >> We cannot >> >> change this characteristics of dhamma that is why we bound to get old >> >> and die. >> >> It does not mean we cannot condition the next citta by prompting.of >> >> the present >> >> citta. >> >> >> > >> >The present citta and cetasikas is conditioned by the previous citta no >> >matter which type that one was. You know that I know this, so what is >> >your point......? >> > KO:? yes present is arise due to past, but it is the present that determines the future :-).? A subtle distinction in the interpretation of dhamma.? If the past wholly determine what the present will do for the next citta, then there is no salvation.?? >In other words, it does not matter if whether this present citta is >kusala or akusala since it has already arisen and fallen away, and when >it is time for whatever may be the result of this citta, that too needs >to be known for what it is, namely as conditioned and already fallen away. > KO:? No, that is the correct.? The present moment of what we experience is the moment even if the citta is very fast or even?1 trillion times?faster.? It is still a citta that is the?moment of experience.? that conventional moment of thinking is still a citta of the present and not past even if it is condition by the past.? It is the present of this citta that determines the next arising of citta.? There must be a citta and a present.? If there is no such thing, then we cannot experience at all.????If we start alluding that present has fallen away since citta is very fast, then there is no present at all, what is experience is always past, this is not in line with Buddha principle, this is determining. >S: Of course it is important. But the implications which you appear to >give it is what the problem is. KO:? there is no problem, it is not understanding the nature of dhamma that is the problem. > >S: There is no doubt that kusala and akusala now accumulates and that >the former is preferable. Even this very consideration was conditioned >and already fallen away. Yet there is some other reality all the time >and the challenge is always to the understanding of it at any level. >Your considerations seem to want me to be 'concerned' about that which >has in fact already arisen and fallen away by conditions...... > KO:? as again, you fall into the trap of determining.? It is not about accumulation that one should be concern with, it is the present and understanding of dhamma one should be concern with even it is only a split second or a trillion of a split second. >S: Vipaka cittas and javana cittas are very different by nature, but no >matter, they all arise by conditions beyond control. And when someone >reminds us about 'natural', it is when we appear to forget this fact and >talk as if there was some degree of control with regard to certain types >of cittas, as I think you are leaning towards here. > >> And wise attention dontt come naturally, they are through reading, >> investigatng and thinking. KO::? Investigation does not come naturally, it is directed by panna, viriya and chand.? the only thing that is beyong control is the characterisitic of dhamma due to anatta and also due to vipaka.? Other than that, citta can be directed, if not there would not be dhammas for direction >S: :-) You use the word 'nature' here, so perhaps you only need to read >my use of the term in the same way that you use it. KO:? Nope, your naturally term is detemining while mine is not L:-) > >S: And so what! However intricate those conditions may be and how the >difference in kind of influence / conditioning, does it not all still >come down to the present moment being all there is and that it has >already arisen and fallen away beyond control? KO:? present is present and it has yet fallen away.? How could a present fall away if we dont experience it.? If it fall away, how do we experience it. > > >S: A probability game if you are playing the game of abstraction. ;-) >However in terms of the reality of the "present moment" it is a *truth* >that this moment is conditioned already, including by accumulated >tendencies. KO:? Still not determining, it is just probabilitiy. > >I hope I haven't misunderstood you too much. KO:? No, it just that our understanding of dhamma differs Cheers Ken O #109209 From: Ken O Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana adepts outside of the Buddha sasana do not have belief in control ? ashkenn2k Dear Robert I like your post.? I did not know now we have to pay to learn dhamma.? What next. ha ha ha Cheers Ken O #109210 From: Ken O Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? ashkenn2k Dear Alex Honestly. there is no point explaining to you if you are not open minded and willing to investigate and ponders what I have said.? Even if I explain a million times, your mind is close and not open. Dhamma can only be understood, if we keep an open mind, investigate it thoroughly.? I am not close to other ideas of dhamma.? I investigate until I found my answers.? Even now there are still many dhammas I cannot understand, I continue to investigate and be open minded. cheers Ken O #109211 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:13 am Subject: control, skill. truth_aerator Hello KenO, KenH, all. > KO:? yes present is arise due to past, but it is the present that >determines the future :-).?A subtle distinction in the >interpretation >of dhamma.? If the past wholly determine what the >present will do for >the next citta, then there is no > salvation.?? This is a crucial point! I fully agree. It is true that the certain citta arises and falls before there can be reaction toward it. Of course javana cittas arise after many previous instances of citta and the whole process happens in split second. This is why one trains, contemplates and reflects on Dhamma PRIOR. Due to such training in sila, samadhi, panna there automatically arises proper response to sense objects. This is a point in training. So while one cannot do anything about the past, one cannot change what no longer exists. One can develop skills (wisdom) so that future bad states do not arise. The skill doesn't grow on trees or fall out of blue sky. Skill requires intentional development. At first it is imperfect, but eventually it will be. Practice makes it perfect. The more one repeats to "let go", the more trained the mind is. While intentional effort may be required at first, after some time it will be not needed. Ex: Training in self defense (karate, JKD, whatever). At first one is clumsy and has to think how to move this and that arm, how to shift the hips, where to place the legs, etc etc. After doing it 100, or 1000, or100,000 times it becomes automatic responce and one doesn't have to think to do it. It just happens. Same with Buddhist training. Lets say when one is practicing 16 step Anapanasati (which is entire dhamma), one practices and teaches the mind with wisdom. At first the mind may be deliberately guided until it is trained to follow Dhamma without thinking. Eventually right results will follow. IMHO wisdom is a skill, and skill is learned through hard and repetitious work. With metta, Alex #109212 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:18 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro kenhowardau Hi Fabian, ------ <. . .> F: > Dear Ken who told you samadhi is not focusing your attention? Do you think Vipassana doesn't need samadhi? ------- Yes, Fabian. I have already answered that question in a dozen different ways. I have been trying to tell you vipassana does not require deliberate focussing (or any other deliberate activity). Vipassana is a conditioned reality - beyond anyone's control. -------------------- <. . .> FABIAN: > You are slandering because you said, "There is no such thing in the Tipitaka as 'practising concentration.'" while Sutta said so. I'm so sad for you by saying learning Dhamma as a whole, but making that statement. -------------------- Thanks for worrying about me. I am worried about you too. At DSG you have a rare opportunity to hear the true Dhamma: I hope you won't throw it away. ------------------------------------- <. . .> KEN H: > > Please let me assure you, 'right view''right understanding' 'panna' and 'samma-ditthi' and are all the same thing. They are different names for the same conditioned dhamma. FABIAN: > Please let me assure you right view does not necessarily right understanding, for example you believe in rebirth, it is only a view, until you can see by yourself it becomes right understanding. ------------------------------------- I agree that the term can be misused. People can say they *believe* in rebirth, but, unless they have panna, they cannot have *right understanding* of rebirth. There are basically two kinds of panna: one is associated with samatha and the other with vipassana. The former kind knows that kusala kamma leads to kusala vipaka and akusala kamma leads to akusala vipaka. The latter kind knows that kamma and vipaka are just conditioned dhammas (with no self). I think both kinds could be called right understanding of rebirth. -------------------------------------------- <. . .> FABIAN: Dear Ken, you better answer which comes first, understanding/panna (Abhidhamma) or Samadhi Enlightenment of The Buddha? Instead of asking DSG support for your wrong view. --------------------------------------------- Even for the Buddha, right understanding had to come first. Way back at the beginning when he became a bodhisattha, he had already heard the Dhamma from a previous Buddha. Ken H #109213 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:44 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro chandrafabian Dear Ken, Hi Fabian, ------ <. . .> F: > Dear Ken who told you samadhi is not focusing your attention? Do you think Vipassana doesn't need samadhi? KEN H: Yes, Fabian. I have already answered that question in a dozen different ways. I have been trying to tell you vipassana does not require deliberate focussing (or any other deliberate activity). Vipassana is a conditioned reality - beyond anyone's control. FABIAN: Dear Ken, You are not answer my question, WHO TOLD YOU Samadhi is not focussing your attention? DO YOU THINK VIPASSANA DOESN'T NEED SAMADHI? ----------------------------------- <. . .> FABIAN: > You are slandering because you said, "There is no such thing in the Tipitaka as 'practising concentration.'" while Sutta said so. I'm so sad for you by saying learning Dhamma as a whole, but making that statement. KEN H: Thanks for worrying about me. I am worried about you too. At DSG you have a rare opportunity to hear the true Dhamma: I hope you won't throw it away. FABIAN: my statement is a little bit inaccurate, I'm not sad about you, but concerned over your statement "we should learn Dhamma as a whole" but in fact you didn't. WHO TOLD YOU "there is no such thing in The Tipitaka as'practicing concentration?" ----------------------------------------- <. . .> KEN H: > > Please let me assure you, 'right view''right understanding' 'panna' and 'samma-ditthi' and are all the same thing. They are different names for the same conditioned dhamma. FABIAN: > Please let me assure you right view does not necessarily right understanding, for example you believe in rebirth, it is only a view, until you can see by yourself it becomes right understanding. KEN H: I agree that the term can be misused. People can say they *believe* in rebirth, but, unless they have panna, they cannot have *right understanding* of rebirth. There are basically two kinds of panna: one is associated with samatha and the other with vipassana. The former kind knows that kusala kamma leads to kusala vipaka and akusala kamma leads to akusala vipaka. The latter kind knows that kamma and vipaka are just conditioned dhammas (with no self). I think both kinds could be called right understanding of rebirth. FABIAN: Do you think Samatha and Vipassana not Samadhi? ------------------------------- <. . .> FABIAN: Dear Ken, you better answer which comes first, understanding/panna (Abhidhamma) or Samadhi Enlightenment of The Buddha? Instead of asking DSG support for your wrong view. KEN H: Even for the Buddha, right understanding had to come first. Way back at the beginning when he became a bodhisattha, he had already heard the Dhamma from a previous Buddha. Ken H FABIAN: If He had right understanding, why He mortify himself...? Do you think self mortification comes from right understanding? Mettacittena, fabian #109214 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] knowing mind chandrafabian Dear Nina, thank you for the explanation, your explanation is clearing up my mind. Would you please tell me what is another khandha accompanying citta in Path/Nibbana experience? What is the difference of experience between each Path? Thank you for sharing, Mettacittena, fabian #109215 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:33 am Subject: Re: seclusion epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > ..... > > Let's not delay any longer by thinking about moving the deck-chairs first! Hi Sarah! Happy to see that your thoughts are just as sharp as the last time I visited. Just jumping in to visit and say that I like the idea of carrying your seclusion with you - makes for less expensive real estate both in the physical and in the ultimate sense; and also the reminder that the present moment is the best time to instantly practice jhana and vipassana - if conditions allow. The illusions of time and space should not be used as obstacles to prevent sudden realizations of what is present. :-) Best Regards, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109216 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:00 am Subject: Re: Susima sutta, dry insight? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Lukas (& Kevin) > > #107053 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > This is wonderful you have comments to this Sutta. > > > > I like from the Sutta: > > > > <"Thus, Susima, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' > > > > "Any feeling whatsoever... > > > > "Any perception whatsoever... > > > > "Any fabrications whatsoever... > > > > "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' > .... > S: And this is the meaning of "khandha" as described above. Any rupa or nama whatsoever is anatta and not worth clinging to for an instant. > .... > > "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"> If one becomes disenchanted with the chain of khandas, all the way up to consciousness, what then is the relationship to consciousness? Once nibbana is perceived, does consciousness then continue to experience nibbana and the 'higher cittas' more and more frequently? What is the state of a Buddha or arahat in this regard? What is the definition of "fully released," and is it a permanent condition, ie, beyond the changing conditions of samsara/The All? And...finally, in my chain of questions that are far more advanced than I am, what is the nature of parinibbana. Do you consider it to be the complete cessation of any and all experience, including the experience of nibbana? Thanks, Robert E. :-) = = = = = = = = = = #109217 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: seclusion nilovg Dear Rob Ep, nice to see you again, and how is your family doing? I like your addition about seclusion. I shall also render Sarah's post about a discussion with Kh. Sujin about seclusion. Op 16-aug-2010, om 9:33 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > Just jumping in to visit and say that I like the idea of carrying > your seclusion with you - makes for less expensive real estate both > in the physical and in the ultimate sense; and also the reminder > that the present moment is the best time to instantly practice > jhana and vipassana - if conditions allow. The illusions of time > and space should not be used as obstacles to prevent sudden > realizations of what is present. :-) ------- Sarah's post: Viveka, in particular kaya-viveka. Any viveka refers to the citta, the mental seclusion, i.e. seclusion from defilements. Citta viveka is a higher degree than kaya viveka. It's the mental state that matters, not the physical seclusion. Samatha at any moment of kusala, so all kusala includes samatha. Viveka to be developed by understanding more about the kusala and akusala now. If not kusala, cannot be viveka. When we hear 'kaya-', we think about place, but the place is not relevant for anyone who doesn't have kaya viveka. The example of Meghiya, the Buddha's attendant, was discussed. (See 'U.P.' under 'seclusion' and 'Meghiya'). Instead of thinking about a place, such as the forest with no understanding, there must be wholesome cittas now. All the Teachings are about understanding. Kaya viveka refers to normal life, not to those who are alone without understanding - this has nothing to do with kaya viveka. Those with understanding who have accumulations to be alone - this is kaya viveka. So, bodily seclusion depends on panna. If there is little panna and we go to the forest, it's just 'wanting'. If there is more panna, for some it is their nature to live alone - some...They can live alone with the right understanding of realities ------- Actually, there are two meanings of kaya viveka: a) referring to those who already lived alone, who developed understanding, and b) in the higher sense, the detachment from sense objects anywhere at all. This is the ultimate meaning. Develop right understanding to see that there is no one at all. It's all about panna, not the place. Panna, aloof from sense objects. ---------- Nina. #109218 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: seclusion sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, ...and always great to have you add your comments and keep an eye on what we're writing here....:) ... --- On Mon, 16/8/10, epsteinrob wrote: >Just jumping in to visit and say that I like the idea of carrying your seclusion with you - makes for less expensive real estate both in the physical and in the ultimate sense; and also the reminder that the present moment is the best time to instantly practice jhana and vipassana - if conditions allow. The illusions of time and space should not be used as obstacles to prevent sudden realizations of what is present. :-) ... S: Very nicely put. I especially like the last sentence: "The illusions of time and space should not be used as obstacles to prevent sudden realizations of what is present. :-)" Yes, we have quite enough baggage, without adding to it, don't we? Back to your other message and others' posts tomorrow, when less jet-lagged... Wishing you and your family a good summer! Metta Sarah ===== #109219 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] knowing mind nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 16-aug-2010, om 7:58 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > Would you please tell me what is another khandha accompanying citta > in Path/Nibbana experience? ------- N: The four naama-kkhandhas arise and fall away together, thus: feeling, sa~n~naa, sa"nkhaarakkhandha (formations), including all cetasikas apart from feeling and sa~n~naa. When the four naama- kkhandhas are lokuttara, pa~n~naa and many other sobhana cetasikas are included in sa"nkhaarakkhandha. --------- > F: What is the difference of experience between each Path? ------- N: At each stage of enlightenment the four noble Truths are realised, but there are different degrees of realizing them. Pa~n~naa, detachment, calm, they all are of a higher degree as a higher stage of enlightenment is reached. Defilements are eradicated stage by stage until they are all eradicated at the stage of arahatship. ------- Nina. #109220 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Fallacy of Mahayana Texts ptaus1 Hi Kevin, > Kevin: Perhaps I was trolling. I was not aware that I was. If I was, I > apologize for it. If you would prefer that I do not post such things, please > just let me know and I will refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks. > > > P.S. I didn't quote the exact words because the posts are down along with > e-sangha. pt: Sorry for a late response. My thinking here is that it's fine to occasionally post things that are not strictly about discussing Dhamma in Theravada light. But in this particular case, I feel you were making an argument regarding a non-Theravada tradition, which called for a proper examination of the issues you raise. However, firstly, there don't seem to be people here who would be able to provide a proper discussion on the matters concerning Tibetan Buddhism, and secondly, even if there were such people here, this probably wouldn't be the best place to discuss it, since this is not a Tibetan Buddhism forum. In addition, as I mentioned, I think it's very important to provide proper quotes in such sensitive arguments, otherwise the whole thing runs a serious risk of turning into trolling, flaming wars, etc. I understand the problem with e-sangha being down, but in that case I feel that such a sensitive argument needs to be supported with some other materials for the sake of credibility. Anyway, thanks for your consideration in this matter. Best wishes pt #109221 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:53 am Subject: Re: Waves or Wires? Pt's 2nd visit ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: Penguins! Nobody told me there would be penguins! And chocolate . . . I'll be there next time for sure. pt: That'd be great. I'll provide the chocolate, and hopefully the penguins will feel like showing up as well :) > KH: You might have to prepare pt for my age, though. I turned 60 this week, and I don't want any comments! :-) pt: No worries there Ken, I tend to associate old age with wisdom among other things, so up until reading your post, I considered you for a 90-year old at least :) About meeting with Jon and Sarah, yes, it was great. Inspiring too. E.g. neither the flu nor the cough would stop Sarah from dhamma discussion. Only when we'd switch to talking about computers and equipment would she become disinterested. So I devised a plan to bring up the equipment topic every now and then to give her an incentive to rest. But, while I thought she was resting in the other room, it turns out she was in fact typing up responses on dsg :)) About the topics discussed, there were many, though I tend to ask a lot about samatha - particularly regarding whether it can be "done" or not, description vs. prescription, what's a samatha "beginner", whether kusala can be practiced or not, samatha arising with every kusala citta vs. practicing samatha, recognising kusala, etc. So, many of the things we discussed here lately. I still have a few buts regarding what Sarah and Jon say, which is why I think you might be needed the next time :) Best wishes pt #109222 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:00 am Subject: Re: Cittas - sub-moments ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Thanks for addressing this. Best wishes pt Many commentators take the presence moment to be implied by the Buddha's statement: "There are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned: arising, passing away, and the alteration of that which stands" (A.3:47/i,152). Here the presence moment is identified with "the alteration of that which stands" (.thitassa a~n~nathatta)." #109223 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: seclusion epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > nice to see you again, and how is your family doing? I like your > addition about seclusion. I shall also render Sarah's post about a > discussion with Kh. Sujin about seclusion. Thanks for this re-posting; it is good to read. And nice to see you too! My family is well. Thanks for asking. My daughter is 12 now and has her own cell phone. Pretty soon she will be driving me around [in my fantasy.] Hope you are well too! Best, Robert E. ======================== #109224 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana adepts outside of the Buddha sasana do not have belief in control ? sukinderpal Hi Ken O, ============ > > >> >The present citta and cetasikas is conditioned by the previous > citta no > >> >matter which type that one was. You know that I know this, so what is > >> >your point......? > >> > > > KO: yes present is arise due to past, but it is the present that > determines the > future :-). A subtle distinction in the interpretation of dhamma. > Suk: Both are statements of fact. Our objections arise from what we perceive the other to imply. ========== > If the past wholly determine what the present will do for > the next citta, then there is no salvation. > Suk: This is what you are reading me to imply in my statement. And this is what happens when we forget that it is *panna* which understands. Not to believe in the possibility of salvation would be an instance in fact, of wrong view. Can you elaborate how stating that "the present citta and cetasikas is conditioned by the previous citta no matter which type that one was" leads to the kind of wrong view? ========== > >In other words, it does not matter if whether this present citta is > >kusala or akusala since it has already arisen and fallen away, and when > >it is time for whatever may be the result of this citta, that too needs > >to be known for what it is, namely as conditioned and already fallen > away. > > KO: No, that is the correct. The present moment of what we > experience is the > moment even if the citta is very fast or even 1 trillion > times faster. It is > still a citta that is the moment of experience. that conventional > moment of > thinking is still a citta of the present and not past even if it is > condition by > the past. > Suk: You are introducing the concept of "past" into this discussion. And you bring in an argument used normally with someone expressing doubt with regard to the idea of the characteristic of a citta or cetasika being experienced by the succeeding citta and cetasikas, since theoretically, they don't exist anymore. But this is not what I'm talking about. The present moment having "fallen away" is not the same as saying that it is "past". Of course the present moment is present and in the only way that it could possibly be, which is that it has arisen by conditions beyond control, and fallen away already at the time that there is any knowing of this. =========== > It is the present of this citta that determines the next arising of > citta. There must be a citta and a present. If there is no such > thing, then we > cannot experience at all. If we start alluding that present has > fallen away > since citta is very fast, then there is no present at all, what is > experience is > always past, this is not in line with Buddha principle, this is > determining. > Suk: As I said, you are introducing the idea of 'past' into the discussion and projecting an implication not intended by me. But it sounds also, almost as if you are trying to freeze frame the present moment with the objective of showing how it influences the future. And although I do stress the present moment, I see this as being known only by panna and no reason to think beyond this. And neither do I question the fact of future cittas arising, all of which like this moment, are conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. However even when the present reality is known with the level of wisdom, one which sees that this is how it has been in the past and will be in the future, this is *based on the understanding of the present moment being conditioned already*. How else could such kind of understanding be reached? And why would this imply 'determining' given especially that the need to understand the present moment is stressed and the harm of ignorance and craving otherwise arising, including those conditioning most of our thoughts about the past, present and future? Perhaps this latter should give you pause, because even though you do talk about the present moment, you keep arguing against the fact of it having arisen by conditions beyond control....... But of course, I'm repeating myself and we're going in circles. ;-) =========== > > >S: There is no doubt that kusala and akusala now accumulates and that > >the former is preferable. Even this very consideration was conditioned > >and already fallen away. Yet there is some other reality all the time > >and the challenge is always to the understanding of it at any level. > >Your considerations seem to want me to be 'concerned' about that which > >has in fact already arisen and fallen away by conditions...... > > KO: as again, you fall into the trap of determining. It is not about > accumulation that one should be concern with, it is the present and > understanding of dhamma one should be concern with even it is only a > split > second or a trillion of a split second. > Suk: And the fact that you are arguing against it, shows that you are struggling against fully accepting the role of past accumulation in conditioning the present moment. When I talk about the present moment (kusala or akusala) being conditioned already, this is not saying that accumulations was the only conditioning factor, nor is it saying that the present has not made a difference. It is saying that whatever all that is involved, proximity, conascense, object, root, predominance, repetition condition etc. they have already done what they have done, including now while thinking about such things. There is no 'concern' with regard to accumulations, but even if there is, the understanding is of it *having had the influence* and already fallen away. Indeed understanding conditions is what is being highlighted and the fact not only of anatta, but also of anicca. ============= > > >S: Vipaka cittas and javana cittas are very different by nature, but no > >matter, they all arise by conditions beyond control. And when someone > >reminds us about 'natural', it is when we appear to forget this fact and > >talk as if there was some degree of control with regard to certain types > >of cittas, as I think you are leaning towards here. > > > >> And wise attention dontt come naturally, they are through reading, > >> investigatng and thinking. > > KO:: Investigation does not come naturally, it is directed by panna, > viriya and > chand. > Suk: Again I think that you miss the point. I am using natural as in arising by conditions beyond control and not as in frequency of particular types of citta over others. But I'll try to make my point by that way as well. Generally speaking, for someone with very strong accumulations for ignorance and attachment, for him these arise almost invariably. On the other side of the spectrum, the arahat can no more have these dhammas arise, and for him only sobhana dhammas arise. For an average person, it is mostly akusala which arises in a day but just as this would be natural, so too would any kusala with or without panna that arises in between. None of this is saying that at any given moment the citta, whatever type, is not conditioned by the appropriate mental factors. It is saying that any of this would include Natural Decisive Support Condition, without which one in fact, could neither be identified as an uninstructed worldling on one hand nor an arahat on the other. Indeed how does any development / change happen if not due to the accumulating nature of citta and the mental factors? So while you caution against falling back on the idea of accumulations and thereby encouraging determinism, I think that you need to be careful not push it aside as a result of some idea of control over dhammas. ============= > > Ken: the only thing that is beyong control is the characterisitic of > dhamma > due to anatta and also due to vipaka. Other than that, citta can be > directed, > if not there would not be dhammas for direction. > Suk: And what do you have in mind when you say 'can be directed' and 'for direction'? Do you refer simply, to the possibility of change by conditions or something more? ============ > >S: :-) You use the word 'nature' here, so perhaps you only need to read > >my use of the term in the same way that you use it. > > KO: Nope, your naturally term is detemining while mine is not L:-) > Suk: You mean to say that your use of 'natural' and 'beyond control' applies only to vipaka dhammas and the tilakhana and that mine applies wrongly, to javana cittas as well? In other words, you are saying that the arising at any moment of javana cittas are *not* natural and are controllable. Or are you actually saying that *some* javanas are controllable and these would then not be considered 'natural'? I say that javana cittas are conditioned and beyond control which is what it's 'nature' is. Your reading this as implying determinism sounds somewhat like some people's objections when they first hear about Kamma and it's influence in one's life. At this point you might want to consider that 'old kamma' is not just the five sense bases which is where vipaka cittas arise, but also the heart base, where our accumulated tendencies take effect. =========== > > >S: And so what! However intricate those conditions may be and how the > >difference in kind of influence / conditioning, does it not all still > >come down to the present moment being all there is and that it has > >already arisen and fallen away beyond control? > > KO: present is present and it has yet fallen away. How could a > present fall > away if we dont experience it. If it fall away, how do we experience it. > Suk: There is of course no "we" to experience anything, but just citta and cetasikas experiencing an object. But your concern is how the present could be considered as such if it has fallen away already? Past is past and present is present. The knowing with wisdom of the present object is not saying that it is a past object, but anicca being a fact, this becomes apparent at some level. =========== > > >S: A probability game if you are playing the game of abstraction. ;-) > >However in terms of the reality of the "present moment" it is a *truth* > >that this moment is conditioned already, including by accumulated > >tendencies. > > KO: Still not determining, it is just probabilitiy. > Suk: What the next moment will be, no one can know. What this moment is, no one could have predicted. But once it has arisen and is known in the moment, whatever this is, the understanding can arise of the particular kusala or akusala dhamma having arisen in the past or that the accumulated tendency for it being present. No need to think about probability, but neither is there any implication of determinism. ============ > >I hope I haven't misunderstood you too much. > > KO: No, it just that our understanding of dhamma differs > Suk: In what seems like quite a crucial point. ;-) Against my better judgement, given the points you brought up, I am not going to go over this post a second time, feeling absolutely tired by now. So please forgive any mistakes and unnecessary repeats. Metta, Sukinder #109225 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: seclusion epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > ...and always great to have you add your comments and keep an eye on what we're writing here....:) Thanks, I am happy to say hello! > ... > S: > Yes, we have quite enough baggage, without adding to it, don't we? That is for sure! > Back to your other message and others' posts tomorrow, when less jet-lagged... > > Wishing you and your family a good summer! Thank you, Sarah. We're having a nice time, and hope things are good for you too! Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = #109226 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fallacy of Mahayana Texts farrellkevin80 Dear PT, Pt wrote: pt: Sorry for a late response. My thinking here is that it's fine to occasionally post things that are not strictly about discussing Dhamma in Theravada light. But in this particular case, I feel you were making an argument regarding a non-Theravada tradition, which called for a proper examination of the issues you raise. However, firstly, there don't seem to be people here who would be able to provide a proper discussion on the matters concerning Tibetan Buddhism, and secondly, even if there were such people here, this probably wouldn't be the best place to discuss it, since this is not a Tibetan Buddhism forum. In addition, as I mentioned, I think it's very important to provide proper quotes in such sensitive arguments, otherwise the whole thing runs a serious risk of turning into trolling, flaming wars, etc. I understand the problem with e-sangha being down, but in that case I feel that such a sensitive argument needs to be supported with some other materials for the sake of credibility. Anyway, thanks for your consideration in this matter. Kevin: No problem for late response Pt. Yes, should have the quotes been available (they were not because e-sangha is down) I would have certainly provided them. But, nevertheless, the words come from a Tibetan Buddhist Loppon. Loppon is a degree that is given out extremely sparingly. Only a handful of westerners have that title, and very few Tibetans do. It means Acharya in Tibetan, but is given to people very sparingly. Not only that, but the man graduated from the first full-fledged four year school of Tibetan medicine outside of Tibet and is a doctor of Tibetan medicine. He is certainly familiar with the medical texts. As far as the Dzogchen goes, not only is he a Loppon but he has taken teachings from a long list including basically all of the famous modern day Dzogchen teachers, and is certified to teach himself in both the Nyingma (Dzogchen) and Sakya traditions, something which most Tibetan lamas are not. I feel his credentials are good in this area just to take his word for it. It is like Nina Van Gorkom talking about the Abhidhamma. If she says sound is produced by heat and motion, you can be fairly certain what she says is correct, you don't have to check it with the texts to make sure (though you can if you want to). Again, just to be clear, I don't endorse Tibetan Buddhism at all (in fact the original post I made in this thread was made to show that many of their texts are fakes or copied from other traditions). I am just showing that, in this particular field, the man is very knowledgeable. If he says the Tibetan Medical tantras are copies, there is good reason to believe they are. If he says many Dzogchen texts were written in Tibet, by Tibetans, there is good reason to believe that they were. That is not to mention that he speaks Tibetan fluently and has translated many of these texts. Not many living people know more about these things than he does. That is the truth. I can understand that this may not be the best conversation for this list. When I wrote the topic I was just thinking about textual scrutiny in general, not in a very particular way. I am sure it would be better to drop this conversation as well. So let's let it be... All the best, Kevin #109227 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fallacy of Mahayana Texts nilovg Dear Kevin, Op 16-aug-2010, om 19:35 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > It is like Nina Van Gorkom talking about the Abhidhamma. If she > says sound is produced by heat and motion, you can be fairly > certain what she > says is correct, > ------ N: No, not always correct. I make mistakes. But just this point: sound is originated by heat, or by citta. ----- Nina. #109228 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fallacy of Mahayana Texts farrellkevin80 N: No, not always correct. I make mistakes. But just this point: sound is originated by heat, or by citta. Thanks for that correction Nina. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ #109229 From: Ryan Brawn Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:00 pm Subject: dhammapada (my thoughts) gr8fuldawg2010 Hello Group, They depart with their thoughts well collected, they do not tarry in their abode. Like swans who have left their lake, they leave their house and home. -Dhammapada vs. 91- my thoughts, I think this scripture is talking about abandoning living in our thoughts, to see the thought, then name it and let it go. To no longer live there in them. which is to realize that we are our thoughts (we think we are our thoughts, and by abandoning them, and realizing that "All that we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts". So it is by realizing this that we realize all we are is made up of our thoughts based on cause and effect, Someone is who they are based on their thoughts whcih are based on the things (causes) that have happened to them, the effect is their thoughts, which is who they think they are. Which is really simply cause and effect! We are simply Cause and Effect! When we realize this we realize there is no self. I am totally new to all this, so I could be way off. This is just what I came up with why meditating on this scripture. any thoughts or opinions? Peace, Love & Happy Living Ryan #109230 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:37 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro kenhowardau Hi Fabian, --- FABIAN: > You are not answer my question, WHO TOLD YOU Samadhi is not focussing your attention? DO YOU THINK VIPASSANA DOESN'T NEED SAMADHI? --- Samadhi is a universal cetasika. It is found in every moment of consciousness (citta). Without it, the citta and cetasikas could not focus on their object. Therefore, there are as many types of samadhi as there are types of citta. The types of citta are 'vipaka' 'kiriya' 'kusala' and 'akusala' The last two can be 'prompted' or 'unprompted' 'with ditthi' (right-view or wrong-view respectively) or 'without ditthi.' The highest forms of consciousness (kusala with panna) are samatha and vipasana. Samatha is taught by various great teachers, Vipassana is taught only by Buddhas. The Dhamma (the teaching of the Buddha) is a description of every type of citta and the rupas that arise with them. That description needs to be heard, wisely considered, and verified. Then there can be the end of dukkha - nibbana. Therefore, when we read a sutta that uses the word "samadhi" we need to know which type of citta is being described by that particular sutta. If (for example) the sutta is describing akusala cittas containing wrong-view then "samadhi" refers to miccha-samadhi. If the sutta is describing samatha then samadhi refers to the samma-samadhi that arises in jhana. If it is describing vipassana then samadhi refers to samma-samadhi of the Eightfold Path. ------------ <. . .> FABIAN: > WHO TOLD YOU "there is no such thing in The Tipitaka as 'practicing concentration?" ------------ As I said, the Dhamma as a whole tells me that. Some teachers are misguided. (That would include the ones who influenced me in my first 26 years of Dhamma study.) They take a quote from the Dhamma and interpret it out of context. Therefore, we find people "practising samadhi" in the same, conventional, way they would practice anything else (such as football or piano). That is, they practise by trying to make it happen. Those teachers and their students need to go back to the beginning and start again. We all need to do that occasionally. That's why you will see DSG members telling each other to "start again." They mean we should remember there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. Dhammas arise, perform their functions and fall away. There is nothing else. Ken H #109231 From: Vince Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound. was: Jhana moment is just mentality cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > N: We all need some stabilization on anatta ! > Only by beginning to have more understanding of characteristics of > realities, appearing one at a time. yes. Just one doubt: all these realities are not substantial, therefore in depth we are not dealing with realities but with characteristics. It means we are under a delusion of a plurality of substantial things in where we endow them with their own individual nama and rupa for each one. However, rupa is rupa and seeing is seeing; there is not "your" seeing and "my" seeing, not "this" rupa and "that" rupa... Etc. Both views are not contradictory? I think the understanding of what happens in such and such phenomena drive to a progressive detachment. However, I'm thinking here in the existence of a bypass to overcome defilements. And this involve and old question I made you some time ago: How do you understand the cultivation of the understanding of all things of the whole reality as nama and rupa but at one time for all?. I mean, taking the complete picture of the here and now as the object of contemplation instead to be focused in the characteristics of such and such object. best, Vince, #109232 From: Ryan Brawn Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:48 am Subject: enlightenment gr8fuldawg2010 Group, Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment? And if so does one half to do so by giving up all his possesions? What if one has family? Is there anyone who has achieved enlightenment that was a layman? If so, is his story somewhere that I can read it? Peace, Love & Happy Living Ryan #109233 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:53 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro chandrafabian Dear Ken, Hi Fabian, FABIAN: <.......> KEN H: Samadhi is a universal cetasika. It is found in every moment of consciousness (citta). Without it, the citta and cetasikas could not focus on their object. Therefore, there are as many types of samadhi as there are types of citta. The types of citta are 'vipaka' 'kiriya' 'kusala' and 'akusala' The last two can be 'prompted' or 'unprompted' 'with ditthi' (right-view or wrong-viewrespectively) or 'without ditthi.' The highest forms of consciousness (kusala with panna) are samatha and vipasana. Samatha is taught by various great teachers, Vipassana is taught only by Buddhas. The Dhamma (the teaching of the Buddha) is a description of every type of citta and the rupas that arise with them. That description needs to be heard, wisely considered, and verified. Then there can be the end of dukkha - nibbana. Therefore, when we read a sutta that uses the word "samadhi" we need to know which type of citta is being described by that particular sutta. If (for example) the sutta is describing akusala cittas containing wrong-view then "samadhi" refers to miccha-samadhi. If the sutta is describing samatha then samadhi refers to the samma-samadhi that arises in jhana. If it is describing vipassana then samadhi refers to samma-samadhi of the Eightfold Path. FABIAN: Dear Ken, this is the third time I'm asking you, WHO TOLD YOU Samadhi is not focussing your attention? DO YOU THINK VIPASSANA DOESN'T NEED SAMADHI? At least give me references. ------------ FABIAN: <.....> KEN H: As I said, the Dhamma as a whole tells me that. Some teachers are misguided. (That would include the ones who influenced me in my first 26 years of Dhamma study.) They take a quote from the Dhamma and interpret it out of context. Therefore, we find people "practising samadhi" in the same, conventional, way they would practice anything else (such as football or piano). That is, they practise by trying to make it happen. Those teachers and their students need to go back to the beginning and start again. We all need to do that occasionally. That's why you will see DSG members telling each other to "start again." They mean we should remember there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. Dhammas arise, perform their functions and fall away. There is nothing else. Ken H FABIAN: Again Ken, My question is not answered yet, WHO TOLD YOU "there is no such thing in The Tipitaka as 'practicing concentration?" At least give me references. Mettacittena, fabian #109234 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] knowing mind chandrafabian Dear Nina, your answer is clear and straight to the point, it is well explained, thank you for sharing your knowledge. Mettacittena, fabian. #109235 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:09 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro kenhowardau Hi Fabian, --- FABIAN: > Dear Ken, this is the third time I'm asking you, WHO TOLD YOU Samadhi is not focussing your attention? DO YOU THINK VIPASSANA DOESN'T NEED SAMADHI? --- In trying to answer your questions, my strategy has been to show you how samadhi is described in the texts. I have been trying to show you that samadhi is just a fleeting conditioned dhamma. As such, it is not something that can be controlled in any way. There are no ritual practices by means of which a desired form of samadhi (or any other conditioned dhamma) can be made to arise. Ritual practices belong only in the conventionally known world. A person can give money to the poor, for example, and the ritual of dana has been performed. Someone can decline an opportunity to harm his enemy, and the ritual of sila has been performed. A meditator can sit motionless without being distracted, and the ritual of samatha has been performed. Or another meditator can concentrate very carefully on the way he walks ("left foot up, right foot down . . .") and the ritual of satipatthana has been performed. Those rituals could be performed with akusala kamma and no one would be able to tell the difference. The important thing to know is that no ritual can have any efficacy in absolute reality. Belief in their efficacy is wrong view. Real dana, sila and bhavana occur only in brief moments in which alobha, adosa and amoha have arisen by conditions. ----------- F: > At least give me references. ----------- I could give thousands of references to where the texts tell us what samadhi (or any other conditioned dhamma) is. The only trouble is that you and I understand those texts differently. It is more difficult, however, to give a quote specifically denying that samma-samadhi is concentration on how the feet go up and down, or how thoughts come and go, etc. The only quote of that kind I can think of is in the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or maybe it's to the Maha-satipatthana Sutta). It says that the activities (walking, eating, talking, etc) listed in the sutta as being "known with mindfulness" are not being known in the general sense of knowing. That is, they are not known in the way that uninstructed worldlings (and even "dogs and jackals") know them. Instead they are to known in the particular sense that is taught only by the Buddha. Satipatthana is right understanding of a presently arisen *conditioned dhamma.* What more can I say? How else can I answer your question? :-) Ken H PS: Here is the commentary quote I was referring to: "In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. "Subcommentary: Dear Ken, this is the third time I'm asking you, WHO TOLD YOU Samadhi is not focussing your attention? DO YOU THINK VIPASSANA DOESN'T NEED SAMADHI? --- In trying to answer your questions, my strategy has been to show you how samadhi is described in the texts. I have been trying to show you that samadhi is just a fleeting conditioned dhamma. As such, it is not something that can be controlled in any way. There are no ritual practices by means of which a desired form of samadhi (or any other conditioned dhamma) can be made to arise. Ritual practices belong only in the conventionally known world. A person can give money to the poor, for example, and the ritual of dana has been performed. Someone can decline an opportunity to harm his enemy, and the ritual of sila has been performed. A meditator can sit motionless without being distracted, and the ritual of samatha has been performed. Or another meditator can concentrate very carefully on the way he walks ("left foot up, right foot down . . .") and the ritual of satipatthana has been performed. ------------------------------------------------- With respect, Ken, the Buddha would be perplexed at someone calling these "rituals". ----------------------------------------------- Those rituals could be performed with akusala kamma and no one would be able to tell the difference. ----------------------------------------------- Of course. All practice has the internal element as the essential element. ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109237 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:59 am Subject: Rite and Ritual/KenH upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In the wheel publication _________________________ FUNDAMENTALS OF BUDDHISM Four Lectures by Nyanatiloka Mahathera ISBN 955-24-0120-8 Originally published by Bauddha Sahitya Sabha: 1949, 1956, 1968 Wheel Publication no. 394/396 Copyright 1994 by the Buddhist Publication Society BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY KANDY, Sri Lanka ------------------------------------------ is found the following: ***************************************************** Belief in the moral efficacy of mere external rite and ritual (//silabbata-paramasa//) constitutes, according to the Buddha's teaching, //a mighty obstacle to inner progress//. One who takes refuge in mere external practices is on the wrong path. For, in order to gain real inner progress, all our efforts must necessarily be based on our own understanding and insight. Any real progress is rooted in right understanding, and without right understanding there will be no attainment of unshakable peace and holiness. Moreover, this blind belief in mere external practices is the cause of much misery and wretchedness in the world. It leads to mental stagnation, to fanaticism and intolerance, to self-exaltation and contempt for others, to contention, discord, war, strife and bloodshed, as the history of the Middle Ages quite sufficiently testifies. This belief in mere externals dulls and deadens one's power of thought, stifles every higher emotion in man. It makes him a mental slave, and favours the growth of all kinds of hypocrisy. The Buddha has clearly and positively expressed himself on this point. He says: "The man enmeshed in delusion will never be purified through the mere study of holy books, or sacrifices to gods, or through fasts, or sleeping on the ground, or difficult and strenuous vigils, or the repetition of prayers. Neither gifts to priests, nor self-castigation, nor performance of rites and ceremonies can work purification in him who is filled with craving." [The Buddha said that neither the repetition of holy scriptures, nor self-torture, nor sleeping on the ground, nor the repetition of prayers, penances, hymns, charms, mantras, incantations and invocations can bring us the real happiness of Nirvana.] It is not through the partaking of meat or fish that man becomes impure, but through drunkenness, obstinacy, bigotry, deceit, envy, self-exaltation, disparagement of others and evil intentions -- through these things man becomes impure." ****************************************************** I note in particular "The man enmeshed in delusion will never be purified through the mere study of holy books, or sacrifices to gods, or through fasts, or sleeping on the ground, or difficult and strenuous vigils, or the repetition of prayers. Neither gifts to priests, nor self-castigation, nor performance of rites and ceremonies can work purification in him who is filled with craving." Note that there is no mention of meditation here or of guarding the senses. There *is*, however, mention of "the mere study of holy books" among the activities not producing putification. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109238 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] enlightenment nilovg Dear Ryan, Op 17-aug-2010, om 4:48 heeft Ryan Brawn het volgende geschreven: > Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment? ------- N: Yes. Of what use would be the Buddha's teachings if this were not possible? -------- > R: And if so does one half to do so by giving up all his > possesions? What if one has family? ------- N: When one has reached the first stage, the stage of the sotaapanna, one still has attachment to possessions. Also to one's family. There is no need to force oneself not to have attachment, that even obstructs the development of understanding. The Path is comprehending, not suppressing. Thus, a sotaapanna lives his normal life, but there is no more wrong view about realities being permanent or self. One does not commit grave evil deeds that result in an unhappy rebirth. -------- > R: Is there anyone who has achieved enlightenment that was a > layman? If so, is his story somewhere that I can read it? ------- N: We read about people of all walks of life , also slaves, who attained enlightenment. Gradual Sayings, Book of the Ones, (I, 35) : chief among layfollowers, see Aanaathapi.n.dika, Mahaanama, there were countless layfollowers, it is very impressive. They had to begin once: developing understanding of any naama and ruupa appearing now. Such as seeing now, visible object now, attachment now. In the midst of daily activities. That is the right Path leading to the right result. ------- Nina. #109239 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:08 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro chandrafabian Dear Ken, KEN H: Hi Fabian, <......> --- KEN H: In trying to answer your questions, my strategy has been to show you how samadhi is described in the texts. I have been trying to show you that samadhi is just a fleeting conditioned dhamma. As such, it is not something that can be controlled in any way. There are no ritual practices by means of which a desired form of samadhi (or any other conditioned dhamma) can be made to arise. Ritual practices belong only in the conventionally known world. A person can give money to the poor, for example, and the ritual of dana has been performed. Someone can decline an opportunity to harm his enemy, and the ritual of sila has been performed. A meditator can sit motionless without being distracted, and the ritual of samatha has been performed. Or another meditator can concentrate very carefully on the way he walks ("left foot up, right foot down . . .") and the ritual of satipatthana has been performed. Those rituals could be performed with akusala kamma and no one would be able to tell the difference. The important thing to know is that no ritual can have any efficacy in absolute reality. Belief in their efficacy is wrong view. Real dana, sila and bhavana occur only in brief moments in which alobha, adosa and amoha have arisen by conditions. -------------------------- FABIAN: Dear Ken, the way you answer is, like people asking for mango got apricot for the answer. I don't want to ask you the same question for the fourth time because I think it is inapropriate ------------------------- F: <......> KEN H: I could give thousands of references to where the texts tell us what samadhi (or any other conditioned dhamma) is. The only trouble is that you and I understand those texts differently. It is more difficult, however, to give a quote specifically denying that samma-samadhi is concentration on how the feet go up and down, or how thoughts come and go, etc. The only quote of that kind I can think of is in the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or maybe it's to the Maha-satipatthana Sutta). It says that the activities (walking, eating, talking, etc) listed in the sutta as being "known with mindfulness" are not being known in the general sense of knowing. That is, they are not known in the way that uninstructed worldlings (and even "dogs and jackals") know them. Instead they are to known in the particular sense that is taught only by the Buddha. Satipatthana is right understanding of a presently arisen *conditioned dhamma.* What more can I say? How else can I answer your question? :-) Ken H FABIAN: Nice try Ken, but this Sutta mention many times to focus your attention. Do you have any sutta support your claim...? Do you think only A very high and special being could practice Satipatthana? ------------------------ KEN H: PS: Here is the commentary quote I was referring to: "In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. "Subcommentary: Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] enlightenment farrellkevin80 Dear Ryan, Ryan: Group, Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment? And if so does one half to do so by giving up all his possesions? What if one has family? Is there anyone who has achieved enlightenment that was a layman? If so, is his story somewhere that I can read it? Peace, Love & Happy Living Ryan Kevin: There is the possibility. There have been many. I am a sotapanna since March 18'th, 2010 and a sakadagami since 4 days ago. I have no trouble announcing this, being that I already announced sotapanna after it occurred. Be well, Kevin ___________ #109241 From: "connie" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:38 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta 326, sutta 6.17 cha nissara.niyaa dhaatuyo nichiconn Dear Friends, 326 = 6.17: nissara.niyaa dhaatuyo Olds: elements of extraction RD: elements tending to deliverance Walshe DN 33.2.2(17) 'Six elements making for deliverance (nissara.niiyaa-dhaatuyo): Here, a monk might say: (a) "I have developed the emancipation of the heart (ceto-vimutti) by loving-kindness (mettaa), [iii 248] expanded it, made it a vehicle and a base, established, worked well on it, set it well in train. And yet ill-will still grips my heart." He should be told: "No! do not say that! Do not misrepresent the Blessed Lord, it is not right to slander him thus, for he would not have said such a thing! Your words are unfounded and impossible. If you develop the emancipation of the heart through loving-kindness, ill-will has no chance to envelop your heart. This emancipation through loving-kindness is the cure for ill-will." Or (b) he might say: "I have developed the emancipation of heart through sympathetic joy (muditaa), and yet aversion (arati) still grips my heart ..." [iii 249] Or (d) he might say: "I have developed the emancipation of the heart through equanimity (upekhaa), and yet lust (raago) grips my heart." Or (e) he might say: "I have developed the signless emancipation of the heart (animittaa ceto-vimutti), *1103 and yet my heart still hankers after signs (nimittaanusaari hoti) ..." Or (f) he might say: "The idea 'I am' is repellent to me, I pay no heed to the idea: 'I am this.' Yet doubts, uncertainties and problems still grip my heart ..." [iii 250] (Reply to each in similar terms to (a)). Walshe: Cf. VM 21.66 Suttanta 326, 17: a) <ti. So , tissa vacaniiyo, ti. <ti, so tissa vacaniiyo ti. <ti, so tissa vacaniiyo <ti. <ti. So tissa vacaniiyo ti. <ti. So tissa vacaniiyo ti. <ti. So tissa vacaniiyo ti. (10) Sa'ngiiti A.t.thakathaa 326. Nissara.niyaa dhaatuyoti nissa.tadhaatuyova. Pariyaadaaya ti.t.thatiiti pariyaadiyitvaa haapetvaa ti.t.thati. ti yasmaa abhuuta.m byaakara.na.m byaakaroti, tasmaa maa eva.m bha.niiti vattabbo. Yadida.m mettaacetovimuttiiti yaa aya.m mettaacetovimutti, ida.m nissara.na.m byaapaadassa, byaapaadato nissa.taati attho. Yo pana mettaaya tikacatukkajjhaanato vu.t.thito sa'nkhaare sammasitvaa tatiyamagga.m patvaa <>ti tatiyaphalena nibbaana.m passati, tassa citta.m accanta.m nissara.na.m byaapaadassa. Etenupaayena sabbattha attho veditabbo. Animittaacetovimuttiiti arahattaphalasamaapatti. Saa hi raaganimittaadiina~nceva ruupanimittaadiina~nca niccanimittaadiina~nca abhaavaa <>ti vuttaa. Nimittaanusaariiti vuttappabheda.m nimitta.m anusaratiiti nimittaanusaarii. Asmiiti asmimaano. Ayamahamasmiiti pa~ncasu khandhesu aya.m naama aha.m asmiiti ettaavataa arahatta.m byaakata.m hoti. Vicikicchaakatha.mkathaasallanti vicikicchaabhuuta.m katha.mkathaasalla.m. ti sace te pa.thamamaggavajjhaa vicikicchaa uppajjati, arahattabyaakara.na.m micchaa hoti, tasmaa maa abhuuta.m bha.niiti vaaretabbo. Asmimaanasamugghaatoti arahattamaggo. Arahattamaggaphalavasena hi nibbaane di.t.the puna asmimaano natthiiti arahattamaggo asmimaanasamugghaatoti vutto. (10) Sa'ngiiti .Tiikaa 326. Haapetvaati kusalacitta.m parihaapetvaa pavattitumeva appadaanavasena. Abhuuta.m byaakara.na.m byaakaroti <>tiaadinaa (a. ni. 6.13) attani avijjamaana.m gu.nabyaahaara.m byaaharati. Cetovimutti-sadda.m apekkhitvaa <>ti vutta.m. Puna byaapaado natthiiti idaani mama byaapaado naama natthi sabbaso natthiiti ~natvaa. <>ti vatvaa yesa.m nimittaana.m abhaavena arahattaphalasamaapattiyaa animittataa, ta.m dassetu.m <>tiaadi vutta.m. Tattha raagassa nimitta.m, raago eva vaa nimittanti raaganimitta.m. aadi-saddena dosanimittaadiina.m sa'ngaho da.t.thabbo. Ruupavedanaadisa'nkhaaranimitta.m ruupanimittaadi. Tesa~n~neva niccaadivasena upa.t.thaana.m niccanimittaadi. Tayida.m nimitta.m yasmaa sabbena sabba.m arahattaphale natthi, tasmaa vutta.m <>ti. Nimitta.m anusaratiiti ta.m nimitta.m anugacchati aarabbha pavattati. Asmimaanoti <>ti pavatto attavisayo maano. Aya.m naama aha.m asmiiti ruupalakkha.no, vedanaadiisu vaa a~n~nataralakkha.no aya.m naama attaa aha.m asmi. <>ti maano samugghaa.tiiyati etenaati asmimaanasamugghaato, arahattamaggo. Puna asmimaano natthiiti tassa anuppattidhammataapaadana.m kittento samugghaatattameva vibhaaveti. ...to be continued, connie #109242 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:51 pm Subject: Re: enlightenment truth_aerator Hello Ryan, all, >R: Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment? Yes. In Buddha's time a lot of people gained 3 of 4 stages. ex: ""More than five hundred laymen who have passed away in Nadika, Ananda, through the complete destruction of the three fetters have become stream-enterers, and are safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html There is also suttas somewhere that talk about lay people up to anagami stage. There were cases of people even reaching Arhatship prior to ordination, but they either ordained or died prior to it. A lay person can achieve Arhatship, at least at the death moment. "I say there is no difference between a lay follower who is thus liberated in mind and a bhikkhu who has been liberated in mind for a hundred years,that is, between one liberation and the other."&" SN55.54 (4) Ill BB Trans There is no difference in Nibbana between a lay person who becomes an Arahat and a monk who was such for 100 years. Great news! With metta, Alex #109243 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:47 pm Subject: Re: Waves or Wires? Pt's 2nd visit kenhowardau Hi pt, ---------- <. . .> pt: > That'd be great. I'll provide the chocolate, and hopefully the penguins will feel like showing up as well :) ---------- :-) I think there is a sutta about this kind of thing: a young man was encouraged into the sangha by descriptions of the beautiful female devas he would be able to visit in the higher realms. At my age, it's chocolate and penguins. ------------ <. . .> pt: > I still have a few buts regarding what Sarah and Jon say, which is why I think you might be needed the next time :) ------------ I'll bring a wooden ruler - for rapping knuckles. :-) Ken H #109244 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:04 am Subject: Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------- <. . .> H: > I note in particular "The man enmeshed in delusion will never be purified through the mere study of holy books, or sacrifices to gods, or through fasts, or sleeping on the ground, or difficult and strenuous vigils, or the repetition of prayers. Neither gifts to priests, nor self-castigation, nor performance of rites and ceremonies can work purification in him who is filled with craving." ------- I think anyone - even a child - can see that mere rituals have no effectiveness. And so it would be a shame to suggest that the suttas were teaching this same, banal, conventional sort of wisdom. Ordinary people don't realise that *all* conventional activities are ineffective in ultimate reality. That's why we have suttas. :-) --------------------------- H: > I note in particular "The man enmeshed in delusion will never be purified through the mere study of holy books, or sacrifices to gods, or through fasts, or sleeping on the ground, or difficult and strenuous vigils, or the repetition of prayers. Neither gifts to priests, nor self-castigation, nor performance of rites and ceremonies can work purification in him who is filled with craving." Note that there is no mention of meditation here or of guarding the senses. There *is*, however, mention of "the mere study of holy books" among the activities not producing purification. ------------------------------ What about "difficult and strenuous vigils" or "performance of rites and ceremonies"? When we have heard the Dhamma correctly, we go about our normal daily lives. We don't do anything special. Any attempt at making vipassana happen would be a 'rite' or 'ceremony' or 'strenuous vigil' of the most extreme and blatent kind. It would be a denial of dependent origination. (Please excuse the OTT language.) :-) Ken H #109245 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/17/2010 9:04:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ------- <. . .> H: > I note in particular "The man enmeshed in delusion will never be purified through the mere study of holy books, or sacrifices to gods, or through fasts, or sleeping on the ground, or difficult and strenuous vigils, or the repetition of prayers. Neither gifts to priests, nor self-castigation, nor performance of rites and ceremonies can work purification in him who is filled with craving." ------- I think anyone - even a child - can see that mere rituals have no effectiveness. And so it would be a shame to suggest that the suttas were teaching this same, banal, conventional sort of wisdom. -------------------------------------------------------- The people at the time of the Buddha, led by priests, were majorly involved with rites and rituals, even more than today, and the Buddha certainly did teach against them again & again. You are incorrect in this, Ken. ------------------------------------------------ Ordinary people don't realise that *all* conventional activities are ineffective in ultimate reality. That's why we have suttas. :-) ------------------------------------------------- You should read more of the suttas, Ken. The Buddha again and again made fun of various rituals. --------------------------------------------- --------------------------- H: > I note in particular "The man enmeshed in delusion will never be purified through the mere study of holy books, or sacrifices to gods, or through fasts, or sleeping on the ground, or difficult and strenuous vigils, or the repetition of prayers. Neither gifts to priests, nor self-castigation, nor performance of rites and ceremonies can work purification in him who is filled with craving." Note that there is no mention of meditation here or of guarding the senses. There *is*, however, mention of "the mere study of holy books" among the activities not producing purification. ------------------------------ What about "difficult and strenuous vigils" or "performance of rites and ceremonies"? --------------------------------------------------- Yes. The priests were pushing them all the time. Nothing of the sort applies to the Buddha's teaching of meditation and guarding the senses. ----------------------------------------------- When we have heard the Dhamma correctly, we go about our normal daily lives. We don't do anything special. --------------------------------------------- And nothing happens. ------------------------------------------- Any attempt at making vipassana happen would be a 'rite' or 'ceremony' or 'strenuous vigil' of the most extreme and blatent kind. ------------------------------------------- I consider that to be nonsense. (My view.) ------------------------------------------ It would be a denial of dependent origination. ----------------------------------------- No, it would not. --------------------------------------- (Please excuse the OTT language.) :-) Ken H ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109246 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:02 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro kenhowardau Hi Fabian, ------- <. . .> FABIAN: Dear Ken, the way you answer is, like people asking for mango got apricot for the answer. ------- I take that as a compliment. :-) I think a good Dhamma friend will continue to answer apricot (no self) no matter how much someone wants to hear mango (self). ----------------- F: > I don't want to ask you the same question for the fourth time because I think it is inappropriate ----------------- Perhaps instead you could explain why my answers have been unsatisfactory. I don't mind talking about it, there is nothing better to do. ------------------------ <. . .> FABIAN: Nice try Ken, but this Sutta mention many times to focus your attention. ----------------------- It mentions mindfulness of conditioned dhammas. Unfortunately, it is interpreted as mentioning mindfulness of concepts. And so the meaning is completely lost. -------------------------- F: > Do you have any sutta support your claim...? -------------------------- Are you suggesting that the commentary support that I quoted cannot be trusted? You trust your own commentaries, and you trust the commentaries of your meditation teacher, so why not trust the commentaries that were handed down by the Theras? --------------------- F: > Do you think only A very high and special being could practice Satipatthana? ---------------------- Yes I do think that. I doubt there would be more than a dozen or so people in the world today who practise satipatthana. It is only for the very wise. But I don't find that discouraging. The only thing the Dhamma teaches us to do is to understand the way things have been conditioned to arise now. Regardless of whether it is good or bad, high or low, pleasant or unpleasant: there is nothing else that needs to be understood now, at this moment. --------- <. . .> FABIAN: Do you think dogs and jackals meditate Ken...? --------- They know how to concentrate on a single concept. But they don't mistake that sort of concentration for satipatthana. (Mainly because they haven't heard of satipatthana.) Ken H #109247 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:42 am Subject: Re: What I heard. India 2007. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I was listening to recordings. This is a reposting. > > Nama and rupa are different realities. At the moment a characteristic > appears that characteristic can be known. You do not have to think > about the difference between nama and rupa, the characteristic that > appears is already known by sati and pa~n~na. There is no time to > call it nama or rupa. Usually people remember the terms first and > then they try to find out about nama and rupa. Right understanding > knows one characteristic at a time. There is no need to say that a > particular characteristic is nama. By understanding that seeing > experiences visible object one can come closer to the understanding > of nama, instead of trying to know beforehand that a reality is nama. > > Visible object cannot be seeing. Seeing is now performing the > function of seeing. Each citta and each cetasika peform their > function. Nama that arises has to perform a function. Seeing is the > faculty of experiencing only. It sees. We can know that it is dhamma > because it is real. This is not right understanding yet, but it is > the beginning to know seeing at the moment of seeing. Usually when we > read about seeing it is not seeing that sees, it is thinking about > seeing. There may be only understanding of the term and its meaning. > There are many different levels of understanding. Reality is not in > the book, but it is here and now. Thanks for a clear post on the nature of seeing as seeing. It reminded me of the Buddha's wonderful statement in the Bahiya sutta: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." This seems very much in harmony to the point you were making about how we often cloud direct discernment of the nature of perception by adding mental proliferations. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109248 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:47 am Subject: Re: enlightenment kenhowardau Hi Ryan, ----------- > Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment? ----------- Yes. ------------------ > And if so does one half to do so by giving up all his possesions? ------------------ First, one would have to understand there was no possessor of the possessions: so no one to give up anything. ------------------------ > What if one has family? Is there anyone who has achieved enlightenment that was a layman? If so, is his story somewhere that I can read it? ------------------------ Everyone wants stories. :-) What about reality? What are the realities of the present moment? Do you know? Do you care? Ken H #109249 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:55 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro chandrafabian Dear Ken, F: <......> KEN H: Perhaps instead you could explain why my answers have been unsatisfactory. I don't mind talking about it, there is nothing better to do. FABIAN: circular argumentation, when I ask A you answer B and often your personal opinion is not supported by valid references. ------------------------ <. . .> KEN H: It mentions mindfulness of conditioned dhammas. Unfortunately, it is interpreted as mentioning mindfulness of concepts. And so the meaning is completely lost. FABIAN: Nope this sutta doesn't mention mindfulness of condition Dhammas, it's your own interpretation. However it does mention mindfulness of mind and body activities. -------------------------- F: <.....> KEN H: Are you suggesting that the commentary support that I quoted cannot be trusted? You trust your own commentaries, and you trust the commentaries of your meditation teacher, so why not trust the commentaries that were handed down by the Theras? FABIAN: I trust more on the sutta itself. By the way, which satipatthana commentary supported your argument? --------------------- F: <....> KEN H: Yes I do think that. I doubt there would be more than a dozen or so people in the world today who practise satipatthana. It is only for the very wise. But I don't find that discouraging. The only thing the Dhamma teaches us to do is to understand the way things have been conditioned to arise now. Regardless of whether it is good or bad, high or low, pleasant or unpleasant: there is nothing else that needs to be understood now, at this moment. FABIAN: It is logical fallacy Ken, The Satipatthana is to be practice by common people to grow wisdom. Thousands even tens of thousands of people are still practicing Satipatthana today. According to Visuddhi Magga, wiser people progress more rapidly. - Dhamma theory learner, grow theoretical wisdom - Dhamma practitioner/Vipassana meditator grow penetrative wisdom. --------- <. . .> FABIAN: Do you think dogs and jackals meditate Ken...? KEN H: They know how to concentrate on a single concept. But they don't mistake that sort of concentration for satipatthana. (Mainly because they haven't heard of satipatthana.) Ken H FABIAN: Second times, do you think dogs and jackals meditate Ken...? Mettacittena, fabian #109250 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:06 am Subject: "Beatufiul cetasikas" farrellkevin80 I think this term may be misleading. Nothing is beautiful. Kevin ___________ #109251 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH epsteinrob Hi Howard and Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Any attempt at making vipassana happen would be a 'rite' or 'ceremony' or > 'strenuous vigil' of the most extreme and blatent kind. > ------------------------------------------- > I consider that to be nonsense. (My view.) > ------------------------------------------ > > It would be a denial of dependent origination. > ----------------------------------------- > No, it would not. > --------------------------------------- I think it's a mistake to merge terms to make them have similar meanings when they are not the same. "Meditation" is not a "ritual," and it is not a "rite," it is a practice. Words do have specific references, and are used to make distinctions. If you consider a practice to be a rite or ritual, you have colored the world with a single-colored brush. When someone sits down to practice the piano, they are not engaging in a rite or ritual, but a practice. They are sitting down to work towards a certain result through development of a skill. If we did not all, every single one of us, engage in such practices, whether we approve of them or not, we would not be able to walk, talk, feed ourselves, or function in our jobs. It is ludicrous to say that it is not possible to practice something and develop a skill. To say that because realities arise dependent on conditions, it is impossible to practice the dhamma or to have an intention that influences practice, is as nonsensical as to say that we cannot drive our cars with skill because we don't know what the road conditions will be or what the other drivers will do. It is exactly the same. When we practice meditation or sutta study or any other dhamma-related activity, we do not deny the existence of conditions, but act in accord with them to continue in our activity. We adjust to conditions from moment to moment, quite the contrary of denying them. That is how we do *everything.* We can walk competently down the street without being control freaks suffering from an illusion of control; and we can do the same with meditation. It is just another activity with a set of skills, practices and intentions like anything else. It does not deny any part of the dhamma, including dependent origination. And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." It is a simple and benign practice that was taught and practiced by the Buddha every day of his life. It is mentioned and promoted in countless suttas, and is mentioned and accepted as the norm in the Abhidhamma. To think that you can only understand the conditional nature of dhammas by denying the Buddha's central meditation practice is a strange twist of the teachings. Here is a site for instance, that describes the stages of development as described in the Abhidhamma as they are realized in Abhidhamma-based Vipassana meditation: http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_vii.htm Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109252 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" farrellkevin80 I had written: I think this term may be misleading. Nothing is beautiful. Kevin ... Here is the definition of sobhana: Sobhana: 'lofty', beautiful, pure, are called, in Abh. S., all states of consciousness excepting the unwholesome and those without roots (ahetuka). Sobhana-sa-dha-rana are called the mental factors (cetasika) common to all lofty consciousness; s. Tab. II.[Buddhist Dictionary, Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by NYANATILOKA MAHATHERA] Sobhana Kevin: Perhaps 'lofty' is a better translation of this term? To a deluded mind some things may be "attractive", but certainly no thing is "beautiful". How could a thing be "beautiful"? Thanks, Kevin ___________ #109253 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Little selves? sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Alex & Paul), --- On Fri, 13/8/10, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: How about "dhammas" or "dhammaa" or "realities"? >>Absolute realities is just a translation of "paramattha dhammas", used to distinguish such dhammas from conventional realities. ------------------------------------------------ H:> Yes, 'paramattha' is properly rendered by 'ultimate' or 'fundamental' or 'basic'. It is 'dhammas' that is more debatable, and I think the less-loaded translation would be 'phenomena'. .... S: I think we need a "loaded" translation to bring home the clear distinction between what is real, what arises and falls away, what is directly experienced by the 5 sense doors, for example, as opposed to all our ideas about visible object, sound and so on. ... >Phenomena are actually experienced and not just imagined, but that word doesn't suggest the core of fixed and unchanging identity that 'realities' does. --------------------------------------------- S: Concepts are also experienced and phenomena may be understood to include a plethora of imaginings, but the word is fine if we understand it to be the reality which can be directly known, the nama or rupa which arises now. Yes, you don't like 'realities' because you object to visible object as being real, as to having its particular characteristic which cannot be changed and which is distinct from that of any other reality. Furthermore, each visible object has a distinct characteristic different from any other visible object. Otherwise, we'd never be able to distinguish what is seen at this moment. The language reflects our different understandings. ... >>S: Should a distinction not be made between visible object and say, cars or trees in your experience? --------------------------------------------- H:>I do think a distinction should be made, the distinction being based on degree of mental construction involved, with you believing it to be zero. ... S: At the moment of seeing consciousness arising and experiencing visible object, just that which is seen, by definition there is zero "mental construction" involved, if by "mental construction" you mean anything other than the seeing of visible object. .... >Sights and sounds and tastes and smells etc are relatively elementary objects of experience with little or no mental construction involved ... S: What mental construction could be involved in a taste or smell? .... >> - unlike such huge mental constructs as cars & trees. (We differ on extent of mental construction involved. For me, only nibbana is asankhata.) ... S: Yes, nibbana is asankhata. Taste or smell are sankhata. How does that make taste or smell have any "mental construction involved"? ... >I would not refer to cars and trees etc as "phenomena" but more usually as "things," and I view them as imagined worldly "objects," concepts that are useful, but merely projected, mental constructs. ------------------------------------------- S: Fine. We agree on concepts, but you seem to suggest there's still a degree of something conceptual in the visible object, taste or smell:-/ Good to see you posting and hoping you and Rita are having a good summer. Metta Sarah ======== #109254 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Present moment sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > As you are also well aware off, cetana is present in all kinds of cittas. Chanda, adhitthana, adhimokkho, viriya, etc are variable cittas. Do you think that I believe in a Self that is going to control reality? No. I study presently arisen vinnana & namarupa when I sit down and close the eyes (or during daily activities). ... S: I think you've answered your own question:). When there is any setting out to study presently arisen dhammas, is there not a (possibly subtle) idea of Self controlling reality? No need to answer now. Panna will know. .... > Intention happens with every citta. So one may as well intend for more kusala and less akusala - just like one would intend to swim to the safety. Development has to start somewhere and if it is always pushed "later! When the conditions are right!", then it will never come. Later will always be "later"! ... S: Same answer. .... > > ""One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort..." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html ... S: We read it according to our understanding, don't we? ... > Also, IMHO, it is improper to expect one to be perfect before starting intentional development, even if this development is intentional choice and action of reading ADL,Survey,etc rather than watching TV. It is true that this is fully conditioned, and IMHO, one of the conditions is putting too much weight to the belief that "there is no use putting in effort, my kilesas want to see TV, so maybe I should watch TV rather than indulge in wrong view of trying to control realities". ... S: Again - stories, rather than understanding present dhammas. .... > Right. And this is what some teachers teach. Even KS or Nina (in perfections) does talk about things to understand, things to do. Paramis are to be developed, and akusala (whether it is wrong views or actions) are to be abandoned. ... S: Through the development of understanding and satipatthana only. Without the right understanding of present dhammas, no paramis can be developed. ... > If you have "The Samannaphala sutta and its commentaries" please see page 77 on "attakara" and similar explanations for some other wrong views as well. > > > According to the Commentaries it is wrong view of Makkhali Gosala that "whatever will be will be; whatever will not be will not be". > Pg 79. ... S: No understanding of kamma and other conditions. No understanding of satipatthana. .... > Buddha on other hand has said: > "Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html#turban2 > > Of course all of this goes without saying that understanding is important. IMHO understanding of drawbacks of lack of effort and understanding the benefits of effort is an important condition that manifests as effort. IMHO belief has to be inseparable with action. > To say but not to act, isn't good. ... S: When there is understanding of sound, visible object or whatever reality appears now, there is right effort - no need to think of doing anything. Let go of the burden of Self acting and meditating, Alex! You'll find all your fears unfounded:) Metta Sarah ======== #109255 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:48 am Subject: Re: seclusion sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S:We can see how an understanding of namas and rupas leads to >detachment from all that is conditioned. What's the point of >pursuing those states which are anicca, dukkha and anatta? > >A: Right, and so many people (who could) became monks&nuns and have relinquished a lot of unnecessary possessions. ... S: Many did and many didn't. What were the possessions, the acquisitions that the Buddha taught us all to relinquish, regardless of the life-style? What did he teach was the house-builder? .... > >S:Before the Buddha's time, people associated seclusion with >retiring to quiet forests and bodily seclusion. > > Right, this is half the picture. The Buddha has also taught about seclusion of the mind and seclusion from acquisitions. .... S: Yes, seclusion from the defilements of the mind. .... > So those who could mentally abandon the physical acquisitions, moved to monasteries (meditation retreats or becoming bhikkhus or bhikkhunis) > > If one is trully secluded from desire for material comfort, household, etc,, and is able to go into physical seclusion, why not meditate with right understanding in monasteries, forests, caves, etc? ... S: If you would prefer to live in a cave, that's fine. For most people, instead of having fewer defilements, living in a cave would lead to extreme anguish. This is why even some devoted bhikkhus who had the Buddha's personal guidance were advised not to live in forests or caves. Did the Buddha ever advise his lay disciples to live like this? No, he just encouraged them to develop satipatthana. ... >Why not abandon that which one is mentally secluded from (this applies to all who have good enough health, free from responsibilities, and have required means, etc)? > > Why one can't attain jhana, even at home, if one is really mentally secluded from material things? .... S: Is there mental seclusion now from visible object or sound? These are the "material things" that the Buddha taught us about. If there is no understanding, no calm now, no need to think about another time, another place or developed samatha. Metta Sarah ======= #109256 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:56 am Subject: Re: To Sarah. Questions to Ajahn Sujin sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > L: I can answer, but there is so many doubts. I feel like I need support. > I know Dhamma well on intelectuall level. Could you please extend my question number 14. to Acharn: > > '14. How do you understand 3 Gems. The gem of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha? I understand only refuge in Dhamma, but I couldnt grasp the meaning of refuge in Buddha and Sangha? > > You and Nina or maybe someone else can try to answer I will be for sure delighted to hear this Dhamma. .... S: When we understand the dhamma appearing now, we begin to take refuge in the Dhamma. In this way, we also begin to appreciate the Buddha's teachings as followed by the ariyan Sangha. In this way we also begin to take refuge in the Buddha and Sangha too. It all comes down to the understanding of seeing and visible object now. As the understanding grow, the doubts disappear. (I'll also raise it with KS with your other qus, depending on the situation.) ... > > How's life in Poland? > > I am not in Poland now, I am in Sweden. I try to get some renunciation, but even in comfortable conditions there can be so many agitation. It doesnt work on me much. .... S: It has nothing to do with "comfortable conditions". Renunciation for a moment of right understanding, that's all. Of course, there's agitation or restlessness most of the day - kilesa rule, as you know. .... > I can easily get more nekkhama vitakka during my daily life then in a monastery or something. Now I am chasing something, no rest no chance to forget all the world. ... S: And chasing dreams about monasteries or other places or times. The Dhamma is not about forgetting the world, but understanding the world is just this moment of seeing or hearing, regardless of our daily life. When there's awareness, there's nekkhama already! Hope the work in Sweden is going well! Metta Sarah ====== #109257 From: Vince Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" cerovzt@... Kevin wrote: > I had written: I think this term may be misleading. > Nothing is beautiful. an arahant liberated by both ways is somebody able to attain the eight deliverances forward and backward; the third one is perceiving phenomena plenty of beauty. There are quite mentions on this; DN 2,112, AN 4,306, Patika-Sutta Vince. #109258 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:33 am Subject: Re: q. sarahprocter... Dear Fabian, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Very good, I agree with you. > Many people don't understand, when they try to recall Dhamma while practicing meditation actually they are not in present moment. ... S: What do they or you mean by "practicing meditation"? Are they referring to bhavana or mental development? Doesn't bhavana always refer to the present moment? ... > > Even though sometimes it is ok to recall Dhamma we have learned before, thinking about Dhamma too much while practicing meditation is hampering their progress to get singleness of mind. .... S: Can there be "practicing meditation" now? Is there singleness of mind now? ... > To be in present moment all the time is to be aware and attentive towards all of our mind and body activity. .... S: Perhaps we can say one present moment object at a time. Rather than talk about "body activity", perhaps it's more useful to talk about namas and rupas, don't you think? .... > > Thinking of any kind is still thinking, and thinking is not meditating ... S: Good point! Metta Sarah ======== #109259 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:37 am Subject: Re: The role of samatha for insight sarahprocter... Dear Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Sukkha-vipassaka means "freed by vipassana alone" doesn't it? And 'freed' means attained arahantship. But does that necessarily mean sukkha-vipassakas will never, subsequently, practise mundane jhanas? (Not that it matters much what they do after arahantship, of course.) > :-) ... S: sounds correct. Subsequently, as various suttas suggest, there may well be the attaining of jhanas. All depends on accumulations. Thx for picking up on a comment I expressed badly. Metta Sarah ======= #109260 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:46 am Subject: Re: Difference between conventional and unconventional actions sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Howard), #108025 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Howard (and Jon), > > Not sure if this will help the discussion, I came across a passage on > effort in Vsm (section on concentration(!) - mindfulness of breathing) > VIII, 202-3: > > "...the bhikkhu sits, having established > mindfulness at the nose tip or on the upper lip, without giving > attention to the in-breaths and out-breaths as they approach and recede, > though they are not unknown to him as they do so, and he manifests > effort, carries out a task, and achieves an effect. > > 203. ' "Effort": what is the effort? The body and the mind of one who is > energetic become wieldy?"this is the effort. What is the task? > Imperfections > come to be abandoned in one who is energetic, and his applied > thoughts are stilled?"this is the task. What is the effect? > Fetters come to > be abandoned in one who is energetic, and his inherent tendencies come > to be done away with?"this is the effect." > > pt: So it seems interesting that even for samatha, effort is equated to > mind and body becoming wieldy, rather than - making the mind and body > wieldy by (what I guess Jon would call - 'intentional') effort. .... S: yes, and I think that if you check, by "the body becoming wieldy", it is the cetasikas referred to - cittas and cetasikas, not physical body. That wasn't the Buddha's concern. In other words, kaya-kammannata is the the wieldy state of the (mental) body, while and citta-kammannata is the wieldy state of consciousness. ... > Though > it's another matter how does one become energetic in the first place... ... S: Again, Right View is the Forerunner....:) Metta Sarah ====== #109261 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:51 am Subject: Re: FUNDAMENTALS sarahprocter... Hi Colette, # 108024 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > This may be a bit "out there" but the concept that the Buddha issued concerning ANYTHING as being WRONG OR RIGHT is itself an act of labeling (see Name & Form); in order to speak that something is wrong or right takes the act of THINKING thoughts where we run into BIJA and it's reason for "being" as CAUSE & CONDITIONS. .... S: It may be "out there", but the Buddha taught the truth that there is a RIGHT and a WRONG! We can test out now for ourselves whether kindness is right or wrong, whether greed or anger is right or wrong and so on. Yes, we use labels, but these labels point to realities, to truths that can be tested out. If we never learn the difference between right and wrong, then the right will never be developed and the wrong will never be relinquished. Most important of all is to understand that these "rights" and "wrongs" are also conditioned dhammas, not belonging to anyone. Thanks for your reflections. I think it is the seed of lobha, greed which leads to the conditioned 'being' and further causes of becoming. Metta Sarah ====== #109262 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:57 am Subject: Re: Help pls finding Sutta on World Creation Self Views (not in DN1?) sarahprocter... Dear Antony, # 108026 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > This sutta makes me laugh as I am temporarily liberated from self-views. The Buddha rejects four speculative views: > 1. "The self and the cosmos are self-produced"... > 2. "The self and the cosmos are produced by another"... > 3. "The self and the cosmos are both self-produced and produced by another"... > 4. "The self and the cosmos are neither self-produced nor produced by another, but are spontaneously arisen." > > People are intent on the idea of "made by me" and attached to the idea of "made by another." Some do not realize this, nor do they see it as a thorn. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.6.06.than.html > (John D. Ireland: "I am the agent") > Antony: This covers the first three, but I don't quite understand what the problem with number 4 is. .... S: I think that the problem with any wrong views, including all those above, is the idea of there being a self and a cosmos. A self doesn't arise in any form. At a moment of right understanding of a reality, there is a temporary liberation from self-view, just for that moment. .... > Another set of speculative views that the Buddha rejects: > "The self and the cosmos are eternal... > "The self and the cosmos are not eternal"... > "The self and the cosmos are both eternal and not eternal"... > "The self and the cosmos are neither eternal nor not eternal"... > > Antony: It is a joy to be liberated from these self-views about permanence/impermanence. I think that the Dhamma is much more immediate than concepts can pin down. ... S: What about the idea of a computer screen or a siren? Is there any idea that they exist or last for a moment? If so, there is self-view and the idea of permanence. ... > A: Yes I will be in Sydney and I'm pleased to report that my mobility is improving (my walking is back to normal!) I have some ideas to discuss about how dana (giving an object) affirms the long-term existence of others, complementing viewing everything as psychophysical phenomena. Maybe I'll start a thread on dsg. ... S: Please do start the thread on DSG and I am delighted to hear that your walking and mobility have improved so much. Perhaps when Pt (and Ken H) come over to visit us in Manly, you'll be able to do so as well? Metta Sarah ======= #109263 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:43 am Subject: Re: To Sarah. Questions to Ajahn Sujin szmicio Dear Sarah, Nina Thank you very much. I think that nekkhama is just a vitakka that hits its object when proper conditions during the thay. It arise and fall away. nothing to be attached to. Yesterday wandering through cementary in sweding and listening to Acharn Sujin talks with you and Jon and Nina I get a few moments of calm. The visible object and thinking, especially taking many things from visible object, the characteristic of thinking. Then I was sure this is right path. Nina, according to your questin if I am still on retreat, I can say I am slowly getting back home. I will be back at 19th AUG. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > L: I can answer, but there is so many doubts. I feel like I need support. > > I know Dhamma well on intelectuall level. Could you please extend my question number 14. to Acharn: > > > > '14. How do you understand 3 Gems. The gem of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha? I understand only refuge in Dhamma, but I couldnt grasp the meaning of refuge in Buddha and Sangha? > > > > You and Nina or maybe someone else can try to answer I will be for sure delighted to hear this Dhamma. > .... > S: When we understand the dhamma appearing now, we begin to take refuge in the Dhamma. In this way, we also begin to appreciate the Buddha's teachings as followed by the ariyan Sangha. In this way we also begin to take refuge in the Buddha and Sangha too. > > It all comes down to the understanding of seeing and visible object now. As the understanding grow, the doubts disappear. > (I'll also raise it with KS with your other qus, depending on the situation.) > ... > > > How's life in Poland? > > > > I am not in Poland now, I am in Sweden. I try to get some renunciation, but even in comfortable conditions there can be so many agitation. It doesnt work on me much. > .... > S: It has nothing to do with "comfortable conditions". Renunciation for a moment of right understanding, that's all. Of course, there's agitation or restlessness most of the day - kilesa rule, as you know. > .... > > I can easily get more nekkhama vitakka during my daily life then in a monastery or something. Now I am chasing something, no rest no chance to forget all the world. > ... > S: And chasing dreams about monasteries or other places or times. The Dhamma is not about forgetting the world, but understanding the world is just this moment of seeing or hearing, regardless of our daily life. When there's awareness, there's nekkhama already! > > Hope the work in Sweden is going well! > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #109264 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:45 am Subject: Re: Self View and actions jonoabb Dear All My apologies for the long period of (relative) silence. I have of course been following the discussions closely. I'd like to begin by sending some long-overdue replies. Like this one to Alex: Dear Alex (108214) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > ... > You say that intentional doing something, or intentionally trying to alter something involves delusion of "Self trying to control". > =============== J: No, I've never said that intentionally doing something involves an idea of 'self trying to control'. That is obviously not so since, as you mention below, intentional action is necessary in order just to live. There is intentional doing of things all the time. It may not be kusala, but neither does it necessarily involve an idea of a self trying to control. When it comes to intentional action that is done for reasons of a 'practice', however, the situation is different. There is the idea that 'If I do such and such it will lead to or support the arising of kusala'. There is the idea of being able to influence or control the arising of kusala. To my reading of the suttas, the Buddha was not suggesting the doing of specific actions as a means of engendering the arising of kusala. Rather, he was describing actions being done by persons of developed kusala. > =============== > We have to do intentional actions (such as get out of the bed, get dressed, eat, wash and so on). So why are these OK and not the meditation instructions that Buddha has given in the suttas (see anapanasati, or kayagatasati sutta for example). > =============== J: Your reading of the suttas differs from mine. I do not see any 'meditation instructions' in the suttas you mention. If you'd care to quote specific passages that you see as amounting to such 'instructions', I'd be happy to discuss further. > =============== > Also why can't there be chanda, viriya, adhimokkho and so on that doesn't involve self view? > > Buddha, Arahants and stream-enterers do have these qualities - so they are not bad in and of themselves. > =============== J: Correct. Mental factors such as chanda and viriya can be kusala or akusala, depending on whether the citta they accompany is kusala or akusala. And this in turn depends on whether the citta is accompanied by sobhana mental factors or akusala mental factors (mainly the roots of alobha, adosa and amoha (kusala) or lobha, dosa and moha (akusala)). > =============== > Practice doesn't have or require to involve Self Views, just like sweeping the floor doesn't have to reinforce the idea of "Self". Of course one can add wrong views, but one can add wrong views to anything - including studying and knowledge that one has. > =============== J: Any form of 'practice' that is not in accordance with the teachings is bound to involve wrong view. A correct intellectual understanding of the teachings is a necessary prerequisite to correct practice. (Of course, intellectual understanding is only that and is not to be mistaken for direct experience.) Jon #109265 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:50 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? jonoabb Hi pt (and KenH) (108295) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > ... > So to me that quite clearly says dhamma=characterisitcs, and if dhamma=characterisitcs, then sabhava must be equal to characterisitcs as well, since "dhammas means essences". > > The next sentence in the quote also seems very important to me: > "Also they are borne, or they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas." > > To me this seems to say that when a dhamma is experienced, what is in fact experienced is its specific nature (I assume sabhava), which then to me says that in an instance of insight, it's the characteristics which are experienced by panna, not anything else. > > Anyway, that's how I understand the texts we had at our disposal so far. Perhaps Jon can say more on this topic if he disagrees. > =============== J: Firstly, pt, many thanks for posting this series of quotes from Vism and its commentary. A very interesting subject to consider. For what it's worth my understanding is as follows: - A cetasika experiences the same object as the citta it accompanies; thus the object of panna is the dhamma that is the object of the citta - What panna knows is the characteristic of the dhamma presently being experienced. As to whether a dhamma can be regarded as being anything more than it's characteristics, I'm not sure how or why this particular question arises. Do you see it has having any practical significance? Jon #109266 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body jonoabb Hi Alex (and KenO) (108685) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T wrote: > > Dear Nina, Jon, Andrew, all, > ... > All things are anatta. This includes concepts (which are just a whole lot of sanna). Swimming is conditioned as any other activity. > =============== J: My point was that in the suttas the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anattaa invariably appear in the context of dhammas and not of conventional activities. (KenO, I made the same point in a message to you just before your last break. Any comments on this?) > =============== > In my understanding of the suttas The name & form (na-maru-pa) is deceptive by nature ?" it is not ultimate truth. It is mosadhamma, deceptive by nature while only Nibba-na is Amosadhamma. - Snp 3.12 > =============== J: Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the terms 'mosadhamma' and 'amosadhamma'. Would you mind saying a little more about them (with textual quotes)? Thanks. Jon #109267 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: This is my song to the defilements jonoabb Hi Kevin (108687) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Jon wrote: I listened, but I'm afraid I didn't get it. Would you mind > explaining a little? Thanks. > > Kevin: Yes. Jon. The defilements are like evil-doers and those are the evil > doers which I would like to see.blown of the face of the earth, destroyed, > crushed, never to arise again. Think of it as an ode to wisdom, wisdom which is > not-self. ... Thanks for this explanation. Perhaps I lack sufficient imagination to get it (even after having it explained to me)!! Jon The song was sung by Mark Levin. I am a big fan of his. It is > probably not a great introduction to him if you aren't familiar with him. He > has a three hour radio show every weeknight which is syndicated nationally here > in the States. He is also a Constitutional lawyer and has a law firm that is > involved in political issues, which he runs. So he works a lot, ... #109268 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:59 am Subject: Re: A get-together with Pt, Vince & Nancy! jonoabb Hi pt (108692) > But one very interesting thing that stuck with me is something Jon asked me - why is breath considered a kusala object for samatha? That got me stumped, and I don't know the answer. For example, recollection of the Buddha is definitely a kusala object, and so is the recollection of the Dhamma, etc. But breath? Why is breath as an object any different than for example focusing on an apple, or something worse like a crime? > =============== J: Yes, why is breath one of the 38 (or 40) 'objects' of samatha? If anapanasati is a matter of focussing on the breath, why is focussing/concentrating on that particular object kusala opposed to focussing on, say, a candle flame, a mantra or some other 'neutral' object? > =============== > > I thought about it on my way home (you have to take a half-hour boat-ride to get from their place back to the city - and the sea was rough, and the boat was swaying badly, so it seemed like a good idea to think about the discussion, instead of thinking about the ship sinking and then me having to swim back together with all the sharks, jelly-fish and other dangerous things in the Australian waters :)) so, I think that breath (and kasinas for example) are kusala objects in the way that they allow to see the drawbacks of the 5 senses and attachment to them (akusala), and withdraw to jhana (kusala) where the 5 senses are suspended for a time. > =============== J: As I know you will agree, there is actually no such thing as a 'kusala object'. Neither breath nor a kasina has any inherent kusala quality to it. Only consciousness can be kusala (or akusala). The attainment of jhana requires the development of samatha to a very high degree. The question is how that samatha is developed from beginning levels. If there is not kusala in the beginning, there can not be the development of samatha. Jon #109269 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:04 am Subject: Re: Buddhist Cosmology jonoabb Hi Fabian (108730) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Jonoabb, > > Yes of course science does not know Paramattha Dhammas, perhaps we can discuss this in other thread. > > My way of comparing cosmology on both sides is, to compare observable and acceptable theory, according to physics astronomy and corresponding theory according to Tipitaka. > > I would be happy to discuss this openly with anyone who is interested in mainstream physics astronomy. > > In my opinion Buddhist cosmology can help solve some of the problems faced by physics astronomer in explaining disparity between observation and theory. > =============== J: Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. An interesting subject for those who have an interest in astronomy. However, since that doesn't include me, I'll have to leave it to others to pursue ;-)). Jon #109270 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:38 am Subject: Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Alex), I enjoyed your quiz for Alex. I forget if he replied, but I will anyway: # 108902 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > Related issue is how grave the consequences of making such a "mistake" are - e.g. if I attempt to develop samatha, but in the process end up just engaging in akusala, then - is that as bad as washing the dishes while disliking it? ... S: Worse, because there's unlikely to be any wrong view involved in the second example. .... > Or how about the difference between: (a) engaging in akusala while trying to develop samatha believing that it's the path that leads to awakening, .... S: Seriously misguided... .... > and (b) compared to simply trying to develop samatha as a sort of a hobby (so not believing it's the path to awakening)? .... S: More subtle, but still mis-guided... Better to stick to washing the dishes imo! Metta Sarah ======== #109271 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Han, > > Han: What are the two objects of samatha that are not involved in > > aramma.n?panijjh?na? > ------- > N: I do not know. I think all the meditation subjects of samatha > enumerated in the Visuddhimagga are included. What do you think? ... S: As I also understand, all objects of samatha are included in arammanupanijjhana. Sometimes the objects of samatha are listed as 38 and sometimes as 40, that's all - just a difference of classification between the suttas and Vism. Metta Sarah ===== #109272 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:57 am Subject: Re: q. chandrafabian Dear Sarah, Dear Fabian, <....> SARAH: What do they or you mean by "practicing meditation"? Are they referring to bhavana or mental development? Doesn't bhavana always refer to the present moment? FABIAN: Dear Sarah, that's true I mean Bhavana. Yes Bhavana should always at the present moment. ------------------ <.....> SARAH: Can there be "practicing meditation" now? Is there singleness of mind now? FABIAN: Theoretically yes, but in practical depends on how far we have developed our concentration and awareness. If we have never practice mental development before and then try to live at the present moment at work, at home etc, it is almost impossible, especially if we are busy working person, or our job require us to make a lot of social gathering. ------------------- <....> SARAH: Perhaps we can say one present moment object at a time. Rather than talk about "body activity", perhaps it's more useful to talk about namas and rupas, don't you think? FABIAN: Even though I understand what you mean, the notion nama-rupa is too theoretical for me, that's why I prefer to say mind and body activity. --------------- <......> FABIAN: Thinking of any kind is still thinking, and thinking is not meditating SARAH: Good point! Metta Sarah FABIAN: Thank you Sarah. The problem in daily routine is we have to think, therefore it is very hard if not to say almost impossible, to develop Bhavana during our worldly daily activities at home or at work under special circumstances. Mettacittena, fabian #109273 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH chandrafabian Dear Bob, ROBERT: Hi Howard and Ken. <.....> I think it's a mistake to merge terms to make them have similar meanings when they are not the same. "Meditation" is not a "ritual," and it is not a "rite," it is a practice. Words do have specific references, and are used to make distinctions. If you consider a practice to be a rite or ritual, you have colored the world with a single-colored brush. When someone sits down to practice the piano, they are not engaging in a rite or ritual, but a practice. They are sitting down to work towards a certain result through development of a skill. If we did not all, every single one of us, engage in such practices, whether we approve of them or not, we would not be able to walk, talk, feed ourselves, or function in our jobs. It is ludicrous to say that it is not possible to practice something and develop a skill. To say that because realities arise dependent on conditions, it is impossible to practice the dhamma or to have an intention that influences practice, is as nonsensical as to say that we cannot drive our cars with skill because we don't know what the road conditions will be or what the other drivers will do. It is exactly the same. When we practice meditation or sutta study or any other dhamma-related activity, we do not deny the existence of conditions, but act in accord with them to continue in our activity. We adjust to conditions from moment to moment, quite the contrary of denying them. That is how we do *everything.* We can walk competently down the street without being control freaks suffering from an illusion of control; and we can do the same with meditation. It is just another activity with a set of skills, practices and intentions like anything else. It does not deny any part of the dhamma, including dependent origination. And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." It is a simple and benign practice that was taught and practiced by the Buddha every day of his life. It is mentioned and promoted in ountless suttas, and is mentioned and accepted as the norm in the Abhidhamma. To think that you can only understand the conditional nature of dhammas by denying the Buddha's central meditation practice is a strange twist of the teachings. Here is a site for instance, that describes the stages of development as described in the Abhidhamma as they are realized in Abhidhamma-based Vipassana meditation: http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_vii.htm Best, Robert E. FABIAN: Sadhu..... #109274 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Little selves? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex & Paul) - In a message dated 8/18/2010 2:25:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (& Alex & Paul), --- On Fri, 13/8/10, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: How about "dhammas" or "dhammaa" or "realities"? >>Absolute realities is just a translation of "paramattha dhammas", used to distinguish such dhammas from conventional realities. ------------------------------------------------ H:> Yes, 'paramattha' is properly rendered by 'ultimate' or 'fundamental' or 'basic'. It is 'dhammas' that is more debatable, and I think the less-loaded translation would be 'phenomena'. .... S: I think we need a "loaded" translation to bring home the clear distinction between what is real, what arises and falls away, what is directly experienced by the 5 sense doors, for example, as opposed to all our ideas about visible object, sound and so on. ----------------------------------------- The word 'real' is a very loaded one and is dangerous, like a snake that may be wrongly grasped. What is dependent for it's very existence is not a separate reality and is merely conventional, and when one adds to this that it has no duration and changes while standing, we are not left with a "reality". -------------------------------------- ... >Phenomena are actually experienced and not just imagined, but that word doesn't suggest the core of fixed and unchanging identity that 'realities' does. --------------------------------------------- S: Concepts are also experienced and phenomena may be understood to include a plethora of imaginings, but the word is fine if we understand it to be the reality which can be directly known, the nama or rupa which arises now. --------------------------------------- Concepts are imagined, not existent. Thinking occurs, but concepts are imagined things. -------------------------------------- Yes, you don't like 'realities' because you object to visible object as being real, as to having its particular characteristic which cannot be changed and which is distinct from that of any other reality. -------------------------------------- I object because of what I wrote above. You are playing a ventriloquist, Sarah. ;-)) ------------------------------------- Furthermore, each visible object has a distinct characteristic different from any other visible object. Otherwise, we'd never be able to distinguish what is seen at this moment. ------------------------------------- There is certainly a constantly varying quality to experience. Your formulating this in an entity manner is another story. ------------------------------------- The language reflects our different understandings. ------------------------------------ Indeed. -------------------------------------- ... >>S: Should a distinction not be made between visible object and say, cars or trees in your experience? --------------------------------------------- H:>I do think a distinction should be made, the distinction being based on degree of mental construction involved, with you believing it to be zero. ... S: At the moment of seeing consciousness arising and experiencing visible object, just that which is seen, by definition there is zero "mental construction" involved, if by "mental construction" you mean anything other than the seeing of visible object. -------------------------------------- We disagree. -------------------------------------- .... >Sights and sounds and tastes and smells etc are relatively elementary objects of experience with little or no mental construction involved ... S: What mental construction could be involved in a taste or smell? ---------------------------------------- Viewing it as a separate, unchanging entity - as a thing. --------------------------------------- .... >> - unlike such huge mental constructs as cars & trees. (We differ on extent of mental construction involved. For me, only nibbana is asankhata.) ... S: Yes, nibbana is asankhata. Taste or smell are sankhata. How does that make taste or smell have any "mental construction involved"? ----------------------------------------- Only nibbana is unconstructed. -------------------------------------- ... >I would not refer to cars and trees etc as "phenomena" but more usually as "things," and I view them as imagined worldly "objects," concepts that are useful, but merely projected, mental constructs. ------------------------------------------- S: Fine. We agree on concepts, but you seem to suggest there's still a degree of something conceptual in the visible object, taste or smell:-/ ---------------------------------------- I do more than seem to suggest. I assert it. --------------------------------------- Good to see you posting and hoping you and Rita are having a good summer. --------------------------------------- Yes, wonderful! Thanks. My son and his family are leaving tomorrow back to Texas after a 10-day visit with us. (I'm getting a really bad cold, though.) And in another week we're going to Newport, Rhode Island for a 4-day vacation, including a wedding to attend. I hope this summer is really good for you and Jon. :-) ----------------------------------------- Metta Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109275 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: q. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Fabian) - In a message dated 8/18/2010 3:39:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Fabian, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Very good, I agree with you. > Many people don't understand, when they try to recall Dhamma while practicing meditation actually they are not in present moment. ... S: What do they or you mean by "practicing meditation"? Are they referring to bhavana or mental development? Doesn't bhavana always refer to the present moment? -------------------------------------------------- At any time, the time is called "the present". When is it not "the present"? What is novel in such understanding? However, nothing happens in zero time. At no time does something happen. Rather, "things are in the midst of happening. -------------------------------------------- ... > > Even though sometimes it is ok to recall Dhamma we have learned before, thinking about Dhamma too much while practicing meditation is hampering their progress to get singleness of mind. .... S: Can there be "practicing meditation" now? Is there singleness of mind now? ------------------------------------------- Is there? Are people who are afflicted with a mind that cannot pay attention to things for any time at all exhibiting singleness of mind? Are they meditating? ------------------------------------------ ... > To be in present moment all the time is to be aware and attentive towards all of our mind and body activity. .... S: Perhaps we can say one present moment object at a time. Rather than talk about "body activity", perhaps it's more useful to talk about namas and rupas, don't you think? ------------------------------------------- Better to observe than to talk about namas and rupas. Better to see what actually happens. We think too much and watch to too little. ----------------------------------------- .... > > Thinking of any kind is still thinking, and thinking is not meditating ... S: Good point! ----------------------------------------- Three folks in accord! :-) ---------------------------------------- Metta Sarah ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109276 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammapada (my thoughts) nilovg Dear Ryan, Op 17-aug-2010, om 0:00 heeft Ryan Brawn het volgende geschreven: > They depart with their thoughts well collected, they do not tarry > in their abode. Like swans who have left their lake, they leave > their house and home. > -Dhammapada vs. 91- > ------- N: I have a note in my edition: This verse reminds us that complete understanding of realities leads to detachment. But it is a long process. When there is a beginning of understanding that seeing or thinking are only conditioned realities this will eventually lead to detachment from the idea of my seeing, my thinking. ------ R: I think this scripture is talking about abandoning living in our thoughts, to see the thought, then name it and let it go. ------ N: The Buddha's teaching is not abandoning thinking, but understanding that it is only a conditioned mental phenomenon. There are conditions for it, it arises already. The way is not: naming it and then letting it go. It is understanding itself, a cetasika (mental factor ), that will perform its function in its own time. It is not a matter of doing something, then there can easily be an idea of self naming it, letting it go. ------ Nina. #109277 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" farrellkevin80 Dear Vince, Vince: an arahant liberated by both ways is somebody able to attain the eight deliverances forward and backward; the third one is perceiving phenomena plenty of beauty. There are quite mentions on this; DN 2,112, AN 4,306, Patika-Sutta Kevin: Interesting Vince. Thank you. Do you mind providing some short quotes, as I don't have the texts with me? If I were an Arahant, I don't think I would want to perceive anything as beautiful. Thanks, Kevin ___________ #109278 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:39 pm Subject: intentional actions. truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Pt, all, >S: Better to stick to washing the dishes imo! The ideas here seem to be something like this: All meditation (kusala!) is bad as it is intentional action that just reinforces "the self view" (which is grossly incorrect and meditation teachers themselves teach not to have self views). But daily lay life involves just as much intentional activity and just as much if not more views of "I, me, mine". My cloth, my car, my children, my tax return, etc etc. A lot of it is actually minor akusala and there are a lot of situations where precepts may be broken or hindrances indulged in. But, Even if one meditates (such as metta) with hindrances, it is very good Kusala kamma that can lead to Brahma world or higher. The action does not require Self view. Washing dishes may require more self view (If *I* don't wash *my* dishes she will scream and complain at *me*!) "In the same manner a certain bhikkhu pervades, indulges, and abides with impure effulgence. Because his bodily misconduct is not thoroughly overcome, sloth and torpor and restlessness and worry are not well turned out; he has a blinking effulgence. After the breakup of the body, after death he is born with the gods of impure effulgence" http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/127-anuruddha-\ e.html With metta, Alex #109279 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, all, Alex: The ideas here seem to be something like this: All meditation (kusala!) is bad as it is intentional action that just reinforces "the self view" (which is grossly incorrect and meditation teachers themselves teach not to have self views). Kevin: I agree with your statement Alex. Here is another example: one can intentionally (or so it seems) decide to refrain from misconduct. One may say to oneself, "I will not lie no matter what". Now, when there comes a time that one has the choice whether to lie or to tell the truth, the lie is usually to "protect oneself" in some way. Perhaps you want to lie to a cop and say you were not going as fast as he said you were, or some other such thing. Now it certainly takes an intentional action to refrain from such a lie, and perhaps that does increase the idea of a doer, but the result of refraining is more powerful, for when one sticks to it and does not lie, one sees afterwards that this "self" this image one always creates and puts out to the world has not been protected (by the act of lying) but that yet, things are still here... the body is still here, "you" are still here, nama and rupa are still arising. This makes one realize that this idea of a person or a self that one conjures up, puts out there, and tries to protect by lying, by wearing clothes with ones own "personal style", and so on and so forth is actually just hollow. Here you haven't lied to protect it, yet there are still things arising here... still nama and rupa, what must it be? This is like when monks are not allowed to use a mirror. When I was a bhikkhu I never used a mirror. I shaved by feeling, while in the shower. Everyday we look in the mirror, though we may not realize it. We look when we brush our teeth, we look - just a glance - just about everytime we use the restroom. We look and ask, "am I pale?",. "I feel energetic today, do I look healthy?", or "do I look tiered"? Each time we do this it reaffirms thsi "being" in the world. But when we intentionally refrain from using a mirror, after a while we realize that we never look at our image, and yet this body is still here, this nama and rupa is still arising, but it is not a person though, it helps us see the hollownes, the "voidness" of the concept of an "I". It helps bring about Right View. That is why all the rules of sila are made for monks. Only the very first monks had accumulations to follow them perfectly without faltering. All the monks that came afterwards, even in the Buddha's time, made transgressions and had to make up for them. They had to 'try' to have sila. Thus it is an intentional action to be undertaken in my view, an intentional action that leads to the fog clearing and seeing that under all actions, intentional or not, there really is no doer, no person, no being. Kevin ___________ #109280 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:53 pm Subject: Re: seclusion truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: Many did and many didn't. What were the possessions, the >acquisitions that the Buddha taught us all to relinquish, regardless >of the life-style? What did he teach was the house-builder? He also said that lay life was "a dusty path" and that a lay person cannot compete with a Bhikkhu. "A householder, or the son of a householder or one born in some clan hears the Teaching and gains faith in the Thus Gone One. With that gain of faith reflects, the household life is full of difficulties, it is the path for defiling. Going forth is like open space. Living in a household it is not easy to lead a holy life complete and pure without being defiled. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/076-sandaka-e1\ .html Before one can have mental seclusion, physical seclusion for some may be required. It is like planting a tree. WHen it is small it may require physical seclusion and a lot of care. But after a while it becomes big and strong and doesn't need protection. As long as one has defilements (such as lust), other objects can provoke and increase it. Objects can serve as objective or decisive support conditions for hindrances to arise. When one has no fetters, external objects do not bother one, but not before. With metta, Alex #109281 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, I hope you don't mind if I take this time to tell a little story relevant to the thread topic... I want to tell a story. I think this tale might help people realize the appropriateness of intentional sila and samadhi. I went to Thailand nearly two years ago and became a monk. My dream had been to become a monk for a long time. I wanted to go to Thailand to be a good monk and practice meditation. I thought this would help me attain nibbana. When I got to Thailand I started hanging around with Robert and going to Ajahn Sujins classes. I started to come around to her way of practice. I am very happy that I did, but I still disagree with some of the ideas taught there. You see, I became a monk at that time because that was my initial intention in coming to Thailand. I became a monk while listening to Ajahn. And after I became a monk I continued to go to Ajahns classes every week and to discuss dhamma with my friends from the group. There was a feeling there that people should only practice the sila that they have natural accumulations for, if I am not mistaken. Also, that most people don't have the accumulations to practice samattha correctly and that they are actually just increasing self-view when they do. I, however, had been trying to practice very good sila for a long time as a lay-person in preparation for becoming a monk. I wanted to be ready to handle all the rules of the monks. As a layperson in Thailand before I ordained I kept very good sila and was celibate at that time. I had bee celibate for a few months before coming to Thailand, and at other times in my life. People who know me know that when I became a monk I had very, very good sila. I lived the holy life very purely. I never used money, was perfectly celibate, and regarded breaking even the minor rules as something to be avoided whenever possible. I am happy I learned all about nama and rupa from ajahn and the others because it really helped me develop wisdom a great deal. I also believed that intentional sila and samadhi would not help one on the path now. However, my intention to be a monk had been strong for so long and now I was a monk, so even though I believed now that intentional sila may not help one attain nibbana, I wanted to have perfect sila because I was a monk at that point. If I was going to be a monk, I might as well be a good monk whether it would help me develop wisdom or not. That was my thought process. At that time I also practiced meditation-- not because I thought it would help me develop wisdom, but because I found that at least half and hour of it each day helped to calm down my racy mind. I also had to meditate and reflect on the foulness of the body in order to help me keep my celibacy as a monk. You would be surprised at some of the things that happened there. Even as a bhikkhu, women tried to flirt with me. There was one girl, she was in her early twenties, and she was the "girlfriend" of one of the temporarily ordained monks there. She would visit just about everyday to bring food and so forth. She was a very nice person but she was also very flirty. She would visit me when no one was around and give me the sex eye and flirt with me constantly. I kept my eyes down and tried not to engage as much as possible. Another woman would visit and wear short skirts. She would sit in a way in front of me that was intentionally revealing. You would be surprised what some women do. I know that I was handsome but also that I had already turned down hundreds of women in my life. I knew that I could turn down some more, especially if I was a bhikkhu! But because of these and other experiences, I had to meditate on the vileness of the body everyday multiple times in order to refrain from using the hand. Which, I am proud to say, I never did. So, I was learning from Ajahn and believed everything she said, but because of my particular situation I did have perfect sila and I did practice samattha everyday, albeit not to the degree of extremely deep concentration. My satipatthana developed fast in Thaialand. I had many, many moments of satipatthana. I fell into some wrong views concerning Mahayana and I left the monkhood and the country. Even though I had gained some deep satipatthana and a lot of knowledge, I thought that while Theravada was certainly true, that Mahayana was also true, on a different level, and offered the opportunity for me to become a Buddha so I left and followed it. That went on for a few months before I left if and went back to Theravada. Within a few weeks of doing so I attained sotapatti magga and phala. After returning to Theravada, it did not take long for me to attain sotapanna. In fact, I probably would have in Thailand if I would have stayed and not become a Mahayana follower (in Mahayana I tried not to think in terms of realities or develop that line of wisdom) After that happened my wisdom didn't seem to be developing much anymore. In Thailand, my wisdom had developed extremely quickly. When I went back to Theravada it developed extremely quickly and because of the foundation that had been laid, I had penetrated to the dhamma-eye. Now, however, I was hardly having any satipatthana at all, ever. This was the case even though I was contemplating dhamma, learning it and discussing it. It was a big difference. This went on for about five months. That is when I remembered that most of the satipatthana I had in the past was while I was living with the senses restrained and having pure sila and even practicing samattha. I decided to restrain the senses last week. I increased my sila, and guarded the sense doors well for a few days. For a couple of days I meditated on the four elements. The next I did the same meditation and also meditated on death. The next I meditated on death. The last day I meditated on a photo of a corpse. On the fifth night I attained sakadagami magga and phala. I am a sakadagami now since then. Take care, Kevin ___________ #109282 From: Ken O Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana adepts outside of the Buddha sasana do not have belief in control ? ashkenn2k Dear Sukin I may not answer all your questions part by part >> > >Suk: You are introducing the concept of "past" into this discussion. And >you bring in an argument used normally with someone expressing doubt >with regard to the idea of the characteristic of a citta or cetasika >being experienced by the succeeding citta and cetasikas, since >theoretically, they don't exist anymore. But this is not what I'm >talking about. The present moment having "fallen away" is not the same >as saying that it is "past". Of course the present moment is present and >in the only way that it could possibly be, which is that it has arisen >by conditions beyond control, and fallen away already at the time that >there is any knowing of this. > KO:? There must be a present for one to experience something now.? Even the word present coud not be possible to understand without a present citta that has it as a mental object.? It is not about whether the present has fallen away, the present cannot be fallen away if it is to be experience.? An expereince of now is the present and not because the present has fallen away.? This is the contradiction of satipatthana because satipatthana is about now and not present has fallen away.? Present is cause by past condtions, that does not mean the present? cannot be determining as there could be wise attention.? If it is beyond control, then why bother to practise dhamma.? Why bother to read dhamma books.? The nature of dhamma cannot be control, but dhamma can be directed as there are dhammas to perform this function.? No one can control the nature of dhamma, that does not mean no one can direct dhamma. >Suk: As I said, you are introducing the idea of 'past' into the >discussion and projecting an implication not intended by me. But it >sounds also, almost as if you are trying to freeze frame the present >moment with the objective of showing how it influences the future. And >although I do stress the present moment, I see this as being known only >by panna and no reason to think beyond this. And neither do I question >the fact of future cittas arising, all of which like this moment, are >conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. However even when the present >reality is known with the level of wisdom, one which sees that this is >how it has been in the past and will be in the future, this is *based on >the understanding of the present moment being conditioned already*. How >else could such kind of understanding be reached? And why would this >imply 'determining' given especially that the need to understand the >present moment is stressed and the harm of ignorance and craving >otherwise arising, including those conditioning most of our thoughts >about the past, present and future? Perhaps this latter should give you >pause, because even though you do talk about the present moment, you >keep arguing against the fact of it having arisen by conditions beyond >control....... > >But of course, I'm repeating myself and we're going in circles. ;-) > KO:? if the present is beyond control, then would you be interested in reading dhamma books, etc.? There is intention and it is directions.?There is kusala and kusala intentions.? ?I am not going in circles,? I understand what you are saying but do you understand what I am saying.? You sound like Alex to me now :-) > >Suk: And the fact that you are arguing against it, shows that you are >struggling against fully accepting the role of past accumulation in >conditioning the present moment. > >When I talk about the present moment (kusala or akusala) being >conditioned already, this is not saying that accumulations was the only >conditioning factor, nor is it saying that the present has not made a >difference. It is saying that whatever all that is involved, proximity, >conascense, object, root, predominance, repetition condition etc. they >have already done what they have done, including now while thinking >about such things. > >There is no 'concern' with regard to accumulations, but even if there >is, the understanding is of it *having had the influence* and already >fallen away. Indeed understanding conditions is what is being >highlighted and the fact not only of anatta, but also of anicca. > KO:? I am not concern at all about accumulating.? You forget fallen away is past. > >Suk: Again I think that you miss the point. I am using natural as in >arising by conditions beyond control and not as in frequency of >particular types of citta over others. But I'll try to make my point by >that way as well. > >Generally speaking, for someone with very strong accumulations for >ignorance and attachment, for him these arise almost invariably. On the >other side of the spectrum, the arahat can no more have these dhammas >arise, and for him only sobhana dhammas arise. For an average person, it >is mostly akusala which arises in a day but just as this would be >natural, so too would any kusala with or without panna that arises in >between. None of this is saying that at any given moment the citta, >whatever type, is not conditioned by the appropriate mental factors. It >is saying that any of this would include Natural Decisive Support >Condition, without which one in fact, could neither be identified as an >uninstructed worldling on one hand nor an arahat on the other. Indeed >how does any development / change happen if not due to the accumulating >nature of citta and the mental factors? > >So while you caution against falling back on the idea of accumulations >and thereby encouraging determinism, I think that you need to be careful >not push it aside as a result of some idea of control over dhammas. KO:? My determism is different from yours.? My determism means dhamma can be directed.?? Development can happen and can change.? Accumulation plays a part but not all the parts >> > >Suk: And what do you have in mind when you say 'can be directed' and >'for direction'? Do you refer simply, to the possibility of change by >conditions or something more? > KO:? No one ask you to change the nature of dhamma, that is impossible.? One can change directions :-) >> > >Suk: You mean to say that your use of 'natural' and 'beyond control' >applies only to vipaka dhammas and the tilakhana and that mine applies >wrongly, to javana cittas as well? In other words, you are saying that >the arising at any moment of javana cittas are *not* natural and are >controllable. Or are you actually saying that *some* javanas are >controllable and these would then not be considered 'natural'? > >I say that javana cittas are conditioned and beyond control which is >what it's 'nature' is. Your reading this as implying determinism sounds >somewhat like some people's objections when they first hear about Kamma >and it's influence in one's life. At this point you might want to >consider that 'old kamma' is not just the five sense bases which is >where vipaka cittas arise, but also the heart base, where our >accumulated tendencies take effect. > KO:? You mean one cannot change the course of the javana, it can be kusala and akusala :-)? One cannot change the nature of the javana but one can change the dhamma ?that will arise with javana.? Cheers Ken O #109283 From: Ken O Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body ashkenn2k Dear Jon J: My point was that in the suttas the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and >anattaa invariably appear in the context of dhammas and not of conventional >activities. > >(KenO, I made the same point in a message to you just before your last break. >Any comments on this?) KO:? I have been saying to you conventional activities are not possible without dhamma.? If one understand the dhamma that arise with conventional activities, why cant one learn dhamma.? Just like reciting of foulness is to develop understaning of dhamma through a concept.??? Concepts can be used as development of understanding of dhamma just like listening and reading,? If these activites do not help in understanding dhamma, then how do monks of old understand the words of the Buddha it is not about the concepts or conventional activities, it is the understanding of dhamma that arise with the concepts or conventional activities cheers Ken O #109285 From: A T Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. truth_aerator Dear Kevin, Thank you for your post. I will have to re-read it a few times because I don't seem to get exactly what you are trying to say. Is it possible to, lets say, follow KS and be a bhikkhu? Are you saying that bhikkhu state now is irrelevant for attainments? I understand that it is hard to be a bhikkhu, but to me it seems to be more suited than lay life (conditions permitting of course, unfortunately not for me right now, but I keep my fingers crossed). In this lay world one simply has to grasp and possess things. At least a monk can be with very little possessions to worry about and doesn't need to involve as much in certain conventional lay things. As a lay person there are so many hussle and lay things to do which may breach on sila and definately almost impossible to keep most/all 227 rules which MAY help to keep sila. Maybe I am idealizing bhikkhu state, but even with all the ceremonies and rituals it seems to be less complicated (except perhaps some vinaya rules). Again the path is about "letting go", relinquishing and giving up. This in some way goes counter to the lay life, especially when the situation is hard and people have to fight for their place under the sun. Isn't lay life all about owing, holding (house+holder) and possessing things? And if one doesn't grasp them, somebody else will be all to happy to take them. Now the talk about owing things and yet not being attached to them sounds awfully like an excuse to physically possess things. Just try to take lots of salt and not find it salty. Only an Arahant absolutely has no possesiveness, but as you well know, an Arahant (a real one) cannot possess anything other than basic bhikkhu things, and definately cannot remain a houseHOLDER. Household = house + hold! Householder = house + HOLDER. It is certainly possible for a highly developed person (perhaps an aryan and maybe even a higher one) to have things and not be attached, but for most people and in most circumstances attachment is there - even if one doesn't admit that to oneself. >I attained sakadagami magga and phala. That is so good! Congratulations! The more and the higher aryans, the better! Will you re-ordain at some point? If so, why not? Now you have much less desire toward women, so less those girls will tempt you (as you've described in your post). Thank you for your interesting posts! With metta, Alex #109286 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. truth_aerator Dear Kevin, >Alex wrote: > Dear Kevin, > > > Thank you for your post. I will have to re-read it a few times >because I don't seem to get exactly what you are trying to say. Please disregard the above sentence in my post, I seem to get what you've tried to say as I've re-read your post. How do you understand Nibbana-without-remainder? Can you achieve fruition attainment? If so, how do you experience it? With metta, Alex #109287 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:20 pm Subject: Re: seclusion truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: If you would prefer to live in a cave, that's fine. For most >people, instead of having fewer defilements, living in a cave would >lead to extreme anguish. Anguish for defilements that want to possess and acquire. Until one has not suppressed, or even better, eliminated lust & anger for 5 senses - external objects, especially certain kinds, can and will provoke defilements. Defilements (or their intentional production) cannot be used as medicine. >This is why even some devoted bhikkhus who had the Buddha's personal >guidance were advised not to live in forests or caves. This is because some monks may not have heard enough Dhamma. However with all the books we have now the amount of information is not little. Today it is almost closer to "information overload" rather than not enough instruction. > S: Many did and many didn't. What were the possessions, the >acquisitions that the Buddha taught us all to relinquish, regardless >of the life-style? What did he teach was the house-builder? > S: Yes, seclusion from the defilements of the mind. And it seems there are two ways of seclusion from defilements of the mind toward external sense objects a) Suppression through access or higher concentration b) Eradication through path&fruit of Anagami stage or higher. Obviously for most of us option B is hard to accomplish, though the option A is possible and easier. But this does require seclusion at least to start with until access can be reached at will and maintained. It is hard to attain access if one doesn't guard sense faculties and is unskilled in it. And skill in reaching access, like any other skill requires practice, sometimes far from houseHOLD. > .... > S: Is there mental seclusion now from visible object or sound? Only anagamis and Arhats have perfect mental seclusion from 5 sense objects such as visible object or sound. The rest have to suppress it in one way or another. >These are the "material things" that the Buddha taught us about. If >there is no understanding, no calm now, no need to think about >another time, another place or developed samatha. And how without samatha will you reach access or higher? And how without samma-samadhi will you reach Anagami stage? The Dhamma path is about "letting go", relinquishing and giving up. This in some way goes counter to the lay life, especially when the situation is hard and people have to fight for their place under the sun. Isn't lay life all about owing, holding (house+holder) and possessing things? And if one doesn't grasp them, somebody else will be all to happy to take them. It reaches a point where there is conflict of interest. If one is truly secluded from sense-pleasures than why remain a householder and not ordain (conditions permitting, of course)? If one is truly secluded, why not attain Jhana (use it for insight, use it for more kusala, and use it for "ease here and now") which should be easy when one is REALLY secluded from sensuality? If one is unattached to household (house + hold), if one is not a householder (house HOLDER) why remain one? Some say that person can do anything, "anything goes", "live life normally", just don't be attached. However this is not right. You can't eat lots of salt and not have it salty. Self view can actually be more in a houseHOLDER rather than in a renunciant. With metta, Alex #109288 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, Alex: Congratulations! Kevin: Thanks a lot Alex. I appreciate that sentiment. As to your questions, I am having a hard time answering them. I do not know why. Maybe these ones are better left unanswered for the time being. My brain gets foggy when I read them. I don't know why. Please don't hesitate to ask me other questions though. I would like to answer more, if I could. So please ask if you have any or if any come up. These ones though... I don't know. Thank you, Kevin ___________ #109289 From: han tun Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:34 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. hantun1 Dear Sarah, Nina, and Chew, > > > Han: What are the two objects of samatha that are not involved in aramma.n?panijjh?na? > > Nina: I do not know. I think all the meditation subjects of samatha enumerated in the Visuddhimagga are included. What do you think? > Sarah: As I also understand, all objects of samatha are included in arammanupanijjhana. Sometimes the objects of samatha are listed as 38 and sometimes as 40, that's all - just a difference of classification between the suttas and Vism. ---------- Han: Thank you very much , Sarah, for your clarification. I am not well. I had severe pain in abdomen for the last ten days. It was at first treated as Gastro-Intestinal Tract Infection. Now, the ultrasound showed marked distension of the gall bladder with diffuse gall bladder wall thickening, associated multiple small gall-stones. Now, the Surgeon advised me to take out the gall bladder immediately. The problem is whether I can stand the operation and the general anesthesia at my age (83). So Cardiac Evaluation and other tests are being done to determine whether I am fir for the operation. If I am fit for the operation I will undergo the surgery within a few days. with metta and respect, Han #109290 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. truth_aerator Dear Kevin, >K:As to your questions, I am having a hard time answering them. Which ones, about monasticism (109285) or Nibbana (109286)? Since your sakadagami phala, will you ordain again? When you feel better, can you please describe your understanding of: a) Nibbana-without-remainder. b) "Experience of Nibbana" within one's life. c) how they are the same or different. With metta and best wishes, Alex #109291 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:42 pm Subject: Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------------------- <. . .> RE: I think it's a mistake to merge terms to make them have similar meanings when they are not the same. "Meditation" is not a "ritual," and it is not a "rite," it is a practice. ----------------------- That's what you say, Rob. I say it is a ritual. ---------------------- <. . .> RE: > When someone sits down to practice the piano, they are not engaging in a rite or ritual, but a practice. ----------------------- True, but if they were playing the piano in order to escape from samsara, it would be a ritual, wouldn't it? --------------------------------- RE: > They are sitting down to work towards a certain result through development of a skill. If we did not all, every single one of us, engage in such practices, whether we approve of them or not, we would not be able to walk, talk, feed ourselves, or function in our jobs. It is ludicrous to say that it is not possible to practice something and develop a skill. ---------------------------------- Good, we can agree on that much! ------------------------------------- RE: > To say that because realities arise dependent on conditions, it is impossible to practice the dhamma or to have an intention that influences practice, is as nonsensical as to say that we cannot drive our cars with skill because we don't know what the road conditions will be or what the other drivers will do. It is exactly the same. -------------------------------------- Still in agreement! You won't find anyone at DSG denying the need for practice. I can show you countless instances where non-meditators here have said the development of insight is very gradual - needing right understanding to arise "again and again and again." Practice, practice, practice! ---------------------------------- RE: > When we practice meditation or sutta study or any other dhamma-related activity, we do not deny the existence of conditions, but act in accord with them to continue in our activity. ---------------------------------- In what way is meditation a "Dhamma related activity"? How does it contribute to right understanding of the Eightfold Path? How can it possibly be done with right understanding? ----------------------------------------- RE: > We adjust to conditions from moment to moment, quite the contrary of denying them. That is how we do *everything.* We can walk competently down the street without being control freaks suffering from an illusion of control; and we can do the same with meditation. It is just another activity with a set of skills, practices and intentions like anything else. It does not deny any part of the dhamma, including dependent origination. ------------------------------------------ You haven't said what you do in meditation. ----------------------------------------------------- RE: > And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." ----------------------------------------------------- I spoke too soon. :-) Thank you for telling us what you do in meditation. If I understand you correctly, you pay attention to concepts and discern them as being impermanent. The trouble is, Rob, that is not satipatthana (the teaching of the Buddha). If you believe it is satipatthana then you have wrong view. And in that case, your meditation is actually a practice of wrong view. ----------------------------------------------------- RE: > It is a simple and benign practice that was taught and practiced by the Buddha every day of his life. It is mentioned and promoted in countless suttas, and is mentioned and accepted as the norm in the Abhidhamma. To think that you can only understand the conditional nature of dhammas by denying the Buddha's central meditation practice is a strange twist of the teachings. ---------------------------------------------------- What a sad development it is that wrong practice has been substituted for right practice, and right practice is now maligned as a "strange twist of the teachings." I am not singling you out, Robert, you are only stating what has become the majority view. You have the weight of numbers on your side. :-) --------------------------- RE: > Here is a site for instance, that describes the stages of development as described in the Abhidhamma as they are realized in Abhidhamma-based Vipassana meditation: http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_vii.htm --------------------------- I managed to get nearly a third of the way through before the nausea became too much. It was basically quotes from the Abhidhamma interspersed with mumbo-jumbo. That sort of thing is just smoke-and-mirrors, Rob: the teacher has no idea of what he is talking about but pretends otherwise. His students can't understand a word and feel ashamed and inferior. The best they can do is pretend to understand. And maybe become teachers themselves one day. Ken H #109292 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:49 pm Subject: Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH truth_aerator Hello KenH, Sarah, all, Any action that we do has an intention (cetana). One can clean the dishes with or without Self views. One can also meditate, lets say metta or asubha, with or without wrong views. But in the case of daily activities such as washing the dishes, what skill, paramis, accumulations, etc, relevant to liberation you are developing that you cannot develop when meditating? A person can just as easily consider washing dishes as "Self controlling the reality of cleanliness of dishes". When you do lets say metta or asubha meditation you are developing skill at suppressing of anger or lust - it is highly kusala (even if Self views are involved, but they don't have to be involved). If one cannot suppress a negative tendency for a short time and due to deliberate effort - what makes you think that it can be abandoned permanently and without effort? With metta, Alex #109293 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, Alex: Which ones, about monasticism (109285) or Nibbana (109286)? Since your sakadagami phala, will you ordain again? When you feel better, can you please describe your understanding of: a) Nibbana-without-remainder. b) "Experience of Nibbana" within one's life. c) how they are the same or different. With metta and best wishes, Alex Kevin: I think about Monasticism Alex. Sure I will answer your other questions. Since I am.. will I ordain again? Possibly yes. But I can't say for sure. When I came home to America, I promised my mother and family that I would complete school not that I am no longer a monk. I am in the process of doing that now. I made that promise before any attainments occurred. It really means a lot to her and to them so I must do it. So my promise is important. If I would have remained a monk, I would not have made that promise. Perhaps it is a good thing, perhaps it is not. I don't know. So, yes. There is the possibility that I will become a monk again in the future. I will have to see how things go. One needs the right conditions, where the other bhikkhus follow the rules as well. Those aren't always easy to find. There is a possibility that after my parent pass away, I might wander as a homeless person. I don't know. Alex: When you feel better, can you please describe your understanding of: a) Nibbana-without-remainder. Kevin: This refers to an Arahant after His death. During life, even though the defiliments are removed in an Arahant, nama still arises because the sense bases are still in tact. After death, however, there are no conditions for those sense bases to form again. Therefore, nama does not arise anymore. Everything is extenguished including the sense bases. This is how I understand it. But I do not know everything. I may be wrong. b) "Experience of Nibbana" within one's life. Nibbana becomes the object of the citta. It is the deathless state, Alex. It is beyond the four elements and all arising things. It is cessation, peace. Seeing it removes defilements, like attachment and aversion. This is the goal. As far as fruition attainments that you asked about, I cannot experience them at will because I am not a master of jhana, which is needed to accomplish that. Perhaps if I am reborn in the Pure Abode brahma realms when I am an anagami I will be able to do that. I am not sure. I will not lie. It would be nice to have the life span of 1,000 kappas or more and be able to attain fruition attainment whenever one wishes. Anagamis that are reborn without attaining Arahatta first, live in those realms. I do not know if they can attain fruition attainments or not. I am not sure if they can practice jhana either. c) how they are the same or different. During life, nibbana can become the object of citta. After life of the Arahant, no more sense bases form, as far as I understand. No dukkha ever arises again. The defilements have been completely removed and becoming does not occur. Any more questions? Kevin ________ #109294 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. truth_aerator Dear Kevin, Thank you for your replies. With metta, Alex #109295 From: Vince Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" cerovzt@... Dear Kevin you wrote: > Kevin: Interesting Vince. Thank you. Do you mind providing some short quotes, > as I don't have the texts with me? > If I were an Arahant, I don't think I would want to perceive anything as > beautiful. well but this is not a matter of wishes and choices. On cites, same Patika Sutta in example: "- It is hard for you, Bhaggava, holding different views, being of different inclinations and subject to different influences, following a different discipline and having had a different teacher, to attain and remain in the deliverance called "the Beautiful". You must strive hard, putting your trust in me, Bhaggava.? - Lord, even if it is hard for me to attain and remain in the deliverance called "the Beautiful," still I will place my trust in the Lord." there is also this pdf, "From craving to Liberation", Bhikkhu Analayo: http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/FromCraving.pdf in the Chapter 12 "Liberation / Vimutti", he discusses the interpretations of this liberation according Suttas and Atthasalini. Vince. #109296 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, You wrote: Dear Kevin, Thank you for your replies. With metta, Alex I write: Thank you Alex. Kevin ___________ #109297 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" farrellkevin80 Hi Vince, Vince: well but this is not a matter of wishes and choices. Kevin: Vince, there is no need to be so forward. Vince: "- It is hard for you, Bhaggava, holding different views, being of different inclinations and subject to different influences, following a different discipline and having had a different teacher, to attain and remain in the deliverance called *"the Beautiful"*. You must strive hard, putting your trust in me, Bhaggava.’ - Lord, even if it is hard for me to attain and remain in the deliverance called "the Beautiful," still I will place my trust in the Lord." there is also this pdf, "From craving to Liberation", Bhikkhu Analayo: http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/FromCraving.pdf in the Chapter 12 "Liberation / Vimutti", he discusses the interpretations of this liberation according Suttas and Atthasalini. Kevin: Perhaps lofty is still a better translation here? Is it sobhana that it was originally translated from? Kevin ___________ #109298 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:45 am Subject: Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O sukinderpal Hi Ken O, It looks like we keep repeating and going in circles and this may be due to a problem in communication. I therefore decided to start this thread. In the following, please tell me what you agree with and what you don't. 1a- When there is seeing which experiences visible object now, this is conditioned already. 1b- Being conditioned already, this is its nature and nothing can be done to alter this. 1c- This is what it means to be 'beyond control'. == 2a- When anger arises to experience and object now, this is conditioned already. 2b- Being conditioned already, this is its nature and nothing can be done to alter this. 2c- This is what it means to be 'beyond control'. == 3a- Seeing arises and falls away followed by Receiving consciousness, Investigating consciousness and the rest of the cittas in the process. All these do so by conditions beyond control. 3b- Highlighting Determining consciousness in this process, this too is conditioned and beyond control. 3c- The Javana cittas that follow is also likewise conditioned and beyond control. == 4- In the mind door process beginning with the adverting consciousness, all the cittas involved are conditioned and beyond control. == 5a- When anger for example arises, it falls away instantly. 5b- Whether this is followed by more instances of anger or some other kind of citta, each and every one of these are conditioned and fall away instantly. 5c- Whether they constitute cittas arising in a process or process-freed, with reference to the conditioned nature of any instance of citta, they are conditioned already and beyond control. == 6a- Anger normally arises followed by more and more anger, however there can be sati of one level or the other arise at any time which would then make a difference to this normal pattern. 6b- This sati is as in the case of the anger, arises by conditions and is beyond control. 6c- Say, this was of the level of satipatthana, this wouldn't arise if there were no accumulations for it, as it is the case with the anger itself. 6d- Anger and Satipatthana are of the same nature in this regard, namely arising by conditions which include past accumulations, and being beyond control. == 7a- Seeing experiences visible object, and this is present, otherwise it wouldn't happen. 7b- Aversion arises to experience an object and this is either nama, rupa or concept. 7c- The object here again, is present else it would be meaningless to say there is aversion towards something. 7d- When there is aversion to colour at the sense door process, the rupa has not fallen away. 7e- If aversion to colour arise at the mind-door process, this rupa would be a photocopy, so to speak. 7f- If aversion arises towards a nama object, this must necessarily be one which has just fallen away. == 8a- When there is satipatthana, the object is either a nama or a rupa. 8b- As in the case of aversion above in 7d, 7e and 7f, the same principle applies to satipatthana. == 9a- In making a statement about the present moment, this necessarily is about what is just past. 9a- If about the object, it has already fallen away beyond control. 9b- If about the experience itself, this too has already fallen away beyond control. == It feels like I had more to say, but nothing comes to mind now. So I'll await your response to the above. Metta, Sukinder #109299 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:51 am Subject: Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > --------------------- > <. . .> > RE: I think it's a mistake to merge terms to make them have similar meanings when they are not the same. "Meditation" is not a "ritual," and it is not a "rite," it is a practice. > ----------------------- > > That's what you say, Rob. I say it is a ritual. > > ---------------------- Well, okay, then - I guess you can say anything you like. I say that chocolate is vanilla. Why not? > <. . .> > RE: > When someone sits down to practice the piano, they are not engaging in a rite or ritual, but a practice. > ----------------------- > > True, but if they were playing the piano in order to escape from samsara, it would be a ritual, wouldn't it? That does not follow. A ritual is something that is done to commemorate, signify or elevate something by means of ceremonial actions and symbolism, not something that is performed for a practical purpose. There is also a meaning of ritual as a magical endeavor following a formula to produce a magical result, but this would have to include an illogical connection between the actions taken and the results desired, for instance, waving a magical amulet around three times while saying "Kumbaya" in order to achieve rebirth on a California beach. Observing a bird to see what type of bird it is, or observing arising perceptions to see what kinds of perceptions they are, is not a ritual. > --------------------------------- > RE: > They are sitting down to work towards a certain result through development of a skill. If we did not all, every single one of us, engage in such practices, whether we approve of them or not, we would not be able to walk, talk, feed ourselves, or function in our jobs. It is ludicrous to say that it is not possible to practice something and develop a skill. > ---------------------------------- > > Good, we can agree on that much! > > ------------------------------------- > RE: > To say that because realities arise dependent on conditions, it is impossible to practice the dhamma or to have an intention that influences practice, is as nonsensical as to say that we cannot drive our cars with skill because we don't know what the road conditions will be or what the other drivers will do. It is exactly the same. > -------------------------------------- > > Still in agreement! > > You won't find anyone at DSG denying the need for practice. I can show you countless instances where non-meditators here have said the development of insight is very gradual - needing right understanding to arise "again and again and again." Practice, practice, practice! > > ---------------------------------- > RE: > When we practice meditation or sutta study or any other dhamma-related activity, we do not deny the existence of conditions, but act in accord with them to continue in our activity. > ---------------------------------- > > In what way is meditation a "Dhamma related activity"? How does it contribute to right understanding of the Eightfold Path? How can it possibly be done with right understanding? > > ----------------------------------------- Do you think that discernment and insight are contained in a book? That is like thinking that you can only recognize a bird if you see the bird in the book, not the living bird. It is in meditation when one takes a moment, and then another, and then another, to see what is arising and what it consists of. You can have some training from books, just as you can study for your driving exam partially from a book, but then you have to get out on the road and drive, not only to get somewhere, but to practice. Driving to a destination is practical driving, like discerning realities in life. Meditation is practicing driving, taking time to focus on what is happening. Of course it has everything to do with discerning the Dhamma in action, rather than merely on print or in your conceptual understanding. The inability of some people to recognize this just astounds me. It is what the Buddha preached. > RE: > We adjust to conditions from moment to moment, quite > the contrary of denying them. That is how we do *everything.* We can walk competently down the street without being control freaks suffering from an illusion of control; and we can do the same with meditation. It is just another activity with a set of skills, practices and intentions like anything else. It does not deny any part of the dhamma, including dependent origination. > ------------------------------------------ > > You haven't said what you do in meditation. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > RE: > And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I spoke too soon. :-) Thank you for telling us what you do in meditation. If I understand you correctly, you pay attention to concepts and discern them as being impermanent. Absolutely not, that is your prejudiced view. It is the direct observation of experience as it occurs. If this were not possible, the Dhamma could never be realized at all. > > The trouble is, Rob, that is not satipatthana (the teaching of the Buddha). Only in your interpretation. > > If you believe it is satipatthana then you have wrong view. Well I think you do. > And in that case, your meditation is actually a practice of wrong view. I think your opinion of meditation is extremely wrong view, as is your explanation above. I think you are espousing a dogma, not the teachings. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > RE: > It is a simple and benign practice that was taught and > practiced by the Buddha every day of his life. It is mentioned and promoted in countless suttas, and is mentioned and accepted as the norm in the Abhidhamma. > To think that you can only understand the conditional nature of dhammas by denying the Buddha's central meditation practice is a strange twist of the teachings. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > What a sad development it is that wrong practice has been substituted for right practice, and right practice is now maligned as a "strange twist of the teachings." What a sad development that you have formed your own prejudiced view of the Dhamma and cling to it. > I am not singling you out, Robert, you are only stating what has become the majority view. You have the weight of numbers on your side. :-) And you have the weight of some commentaries on commentaries on your side, against sutta and the tradition of practice. > > --------------------------- > RE: > Here is a site for instance, that describes the stages of development as described in the Abhidhamma as they are realized in Abhidhamma-based Vipassana meditation: > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_vii.htm > --------------------------- > > I managed to get nearly a third of the way through before the nausea became too much. It was basically quotes from the Abhidhamma interspersed with mumbo-jumbo. In your most benign opinion, of course. > > That sort of thing is just smoke-and-mirrors, Rob: the teacher has no idea of what he is talking about but pretends otherwise. His students can't understand a word and feel ashamed and inferior. The best they can do is pretend to understand. And maybe become teachers themselves one day. Perhaps the smoke and mirrors is a conceptual understanding of the Dhamma with a refusal to practice from moment to moment, taking the moments as they actually occur instead of drowned out by reams of conceptual philosophy. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109300 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > I became a monk while listening to Ajahn. And after I > became a monk I continued to go to Ajahns classes every week and to discuss > dhamma with my friends from the group. There was a feeling there that people > should only practice the sila that they have natural accumulations for, if I am > not mistaken. Also, that most people don't have the accumulations to practice > samattha correctly and that they are actually just increasing self-view when > they do. I, however, had been trying to practice very good sila for a long > time as a lay-person in preparation for becoming a monk. I wanted to be ready > to handle all the rules of the monks. As a layperson in Thailand before I > ordained I kept very good sila and was celibate at that time. I had bee > celibate for a few months before coming to Thailand, and at other times in my > life. > People who know me know that when I became a monk I had very, very good sila. > I lived the holy life very purely. I never used money, was perfectly celibate, > and regarded breaking even the minor rules as something to be avoided whenever > possible. I am happy I learned all about nama and rupa from ajahn and the > others because it really helped me develop wisdom a great deal. I also > believed that intentional sila and samadhi would not help one on the path now. > However, my intention to be a monk had been strong for so long and now I was a > monk, so even though I believed now that intentional sila may not help one > attain nibbana, I wanted to have perfect sila because I was a monk at that > point. If I was going to be a monk, I might as well be a good monk whether it > would help me develop wisdom or not. > So, I was learning from Ajahn and believed everything she said, but because of > my particular situation I did have perfect sila Dear Kevin On this point of sila you might remember a discussion with khun sujin where we talked about a bhikkhu drinking cocan cola or some other beverage after midday. As I remember the discussion Khun sujin and the pali expert who was an ex monk said this was against vinaya . I think you though a bhikkhu could drink it ? However in your story it slightly sounds like khun sujin would not encourage monks to keep vinaya - in fact the opposite is the case. And she was amazed when I told her some bhikkhus believe that it is allowable to eat chocalate (provided it is 'dark' chocolate, after noon).. On another point I still remain unconvinced about your ariya status: partly because of your apparent imprecision of the objects of awareness at the time of 'attaining' and partly because there are so many people who - dure to view and lobha- deceive themselves. I just read a hilarious thread on dhammawheel where someone thinks he has attained a few stages and he gives recommendations to another meditator that... , well you read it below: """"Re: "advice for stream entry" by nibs ? Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:49 am No probs, Ben. Each to his own. Just out of curiosity since you said you had a similar experience, what happens to you when you flicker your eyelids as you look upwards and you watch the ending of the last sensation of flickering? Anything happen? PM me if something does. Note: Yes, i agree that whatever experience one has needs to be let go, as 1st path is but a rest point into town (4th path), but if a yogi hasn't gotten to 1st path yet, they haven't got 1st path to let go of yet. So will give you my take from my own experience. When you get that first "blip", a brief moment when consciousness and the senses shut down after having been in the highly equanimous state of the 11th nana, where all formations of the mind and body are easily seen from a wide panoramic focus, something happens to the brain. It changes after the mind comes back online. """""endquote Not that I am suggesting that you have such strange ideas, but it does show that people are extremely deluded at these time and can convince themselves of anything. Robert #109301 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body jonoabb Hi KenO (109283) > KO: I have been saying to you conventional activities are not possible without > dhamma. If one understand the dhamma that arise with conventional activities, > why cant one learn dhamma. Just like reciting of foulness is to develop > understaning of dhamma through a concept. Concepts can be used as development > of understanding of dhamma just like listening and reading, If these activites > do not help in understanding dhamma, then how do monks of old understand the > words of the Buddha > > it is not about the concepts or conventional activities, it is the understanding > of dhamma that arise with the concepts or conventional activities > =============== J: I'm not sure what you mean by "dhammas that arise with concepts or conventional activities". If vipassana is all about the understanding of dhammas, then we don't need to canvas the various kinds of concepts and conventional activities. You suggest that certain activities such as reciting the parts of the body will help in developing an understanding of dhammas, and you base this view on the Vism. I do not read the Vism as laying down a practice of recitation in order to assist the development of insight. I read it as describing an activity on the part of monks who are developing samatha to high degree (that is to say, samatha as well as insight). Jon #109302 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:38 am Subject: what is meditation? rjkjp1 Dear all I browsed another buddhist site and found more strange stuff. Here is one comment: ""But mentally ill people should not attempt meditation until they are cured of their illness or their condition will probably get worse." he was referring to "vipassana meditation". Just shows that what most buddhists mean when they say meditation is very different by what is meant by the Pali terms "Bhavana" or "jhayati" as both of these are about mahakusala citta . And how could kusala citta ever be bad. Wrong view and attachment to rule and rituals is all about, that is for sure. robert #109303 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. nilovg Dear Han, Op 19-aug-2010, om 0:34 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Now, the Surgeon advised me to take out the gall bladder > immediately. The problem is whether I can stand the operation and > the general anesthesia at my age (83). So Cardiac Evaluation and > other tests are being done to determine whether I am fir for the > operation. If I am fit for the operation I will undergo the surgery > within a few days. ------- N: All my sympathies and I do wish you will get well, even without operation. Yes, I often think of your advice, Han, rather not have operations. This in respect to Lodewijk's health. There is something with his blood pointing to bone marrow disorder which may be cancer. But at his age (almost 85) the test and then the chemo treatments are so severe. It may not be worth while. That is also what the doctor advised, she said that his health seems stable at the moment, not worsening. I thought of you. Let us know how you are, Nina. #109304 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:02 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 326, sutta 6.17, and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta 17. Walshe DN 33.2.2(17) 'Six elements making for deliverance (nissara.niiyaa- dhaatuyo): Here, a monk might say: (a) "I have developed the emancipation of the heart (ceto-vimutti) by loving-kindness (mettaa), [iii 248] expanded it, made it a vehicle and a base, established, worked well on it, set it well in train. And yet ill-will still grips my heart." He should be told: "No! do not say that! Do not misrepresent the Blessed Lord, it is not right to slander him thus, for he would not have said such a thing! Your words are unfounded and impossible. If you develop the emancipation of the heart through loving-kindness, ill-will has no chance to envelop your heart. This emancipation through loving-kindness is the cure for ill-will." Or (b) he might say: "I have developed the emancipation of heart through sympathetic joy (muditaa), and yet aversion (arati) still grips my heart ..." [iii 249] Or (d) he might say: "I have developed the emancipation of the heart through equanimity (upekhaa), and yet lust (raago) grips my heart." Or (e) he might say: "I have developed the signless emancipation of the heart (animittaa ceto-vimutti), *1103 and yet my heart still hankers after signs (nimittaanusaari hoti) ..." Or (f) he might say: "The idea 'I am' is repellent to me, I pay no heed to the idea: 'I am this.' Yet doubts, uncertainties and problems still grip my heart ..." [iii 250] (Reply to each in similar terms to (a)). ---------- N: As to the words ?illwill overwhelms my heart?, the Tiika states : after having caused the dwindling (parihaapetva) of kusala citta by giving it no opportunity to occur. As to, ?do not say that?, the commentary elaborates : it is a declaration that is untrue. As to the deliverance by mettaa, the Co explains: ?this is the deliverance from illwill. When he has emerged from the third of fourth jhaana, comprehended conditioned realities, reached the third Path (of the anaagaami), there is no more illwill. He sees nibbaana by the third fruition-consciousness, and his citta is completely free from illwill. The meaning should be understood in this manner. ? As to signless deliverance, this means that he has reached the fruition of the arahat. It is called signless, there is absence of the sign of lust etc. , of ruupa, etc. and of permanence. The Tiika: absence of the sign of lust (raga) and of dosa etc. Absence of the sign of ruupa etc, the Tiika: of feeling, etc. of the sa?nkhaara-nimitta, the sign of conditioned realities. N: This refers to the nimitta of each of the five khandhas. Quote from Kh Sujin: -------- Tiika: At the moment of the fruition of the arahat there is no nimtta at all, that is why it is said that there is the absence of nimitta. As to the words of the sutta: "The idea 'I am' is repellent to me, I pay no heed to the idea: 'I am this.' Yet doubts, uncertainties and problems still grip my heart? . The Co explains that the arahat has eradicated the conceit of ?I am? (aham asmi) with regard to the five khandhas. If the arrow of doubt ((katha.mkathaasalla) still arises , the declaration of arahatship is false, since doubt is eradicated by the magga-citta of the first stage of enlightenment. The conceit of ?I am? is eradicated by the magga-citta of the arahat. When nibbaana is realised by the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness of the arahat, there is no more ?I am? conceit. ---------- N: This sutta reminds us that the right cause brings the right result. If one does not cultivate mettaa, but something one takes for mettaa, such as selfish affection, it will not bring the right result and one is still full of dosa. This is true for the cultivation of all the brahmaviharas. If one does not know the citta of the present moment one mistakes akusala for kusala and thus there cannot be any deliverance from akusala. There will not be confidence in kusala. It seems that dhammas last, they have the nimitta of permanence. Only if understanding is being developed of whatever dhamma appears at the present moment, the truth of impermanence will be realised. ------------ Nina. #109305 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:32 am Subject: Re: what is meditation? chandrafabian Dear Robert and all, The statement of Vipassana Teachers was right, It happened in one of Vippassana meditation retreat while I was translating, the meditator can not distinguish illusion and realities, which arises and created by his own mind. Kusala citta and akusala citta are impermanent, they arise and pass away one after another, only to a certain degree Mahakusala citta arises, but before he reach that degree he is falling under his own illusion. Therefore to practice Vipassana meditation a meditator should be mentally healthy, to prevent them to fall under their own illusion, moreover many people who meditate are motivated by expectations, assumptions, "dreams" etc, which could make things worse. Mettacittena, fabian ROBERT: Dear all I browsed another buddhist site and found more strange stuff. Here is one comment: ""But mentally ill people should not attempt meditation until they are cured of their illness or their condition will probably get worse." he was referring to "vipassana meditation". Just shows that what most buddhists mean when they say meditation is very different by what is meant by the Pali terms "Bhavana" or "jhayati" as both of these are about mahakusala citta . And how could kusala citta ever be bad. Wrong view and attachment to rule and rituals is all about, that is for sure. robert -------------------- #109306 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH sukinderpal Hi Rob E (and Ken H), I'm jumping in just to make some comments and won't continue further with the discussion. The thought about our exchange in the past does not give rise to any pleasant feelings. ;-) To be sure, the problem lies in my continued inability to write short responses. ========= > > > <. . .> > > RE: > When someone sits down to practice the piano, they are not > engaging in a rite or ritual, but a practice. > > ----------------------- > > > > True, but if they were playing the piano in order to escape from > samsara, it would be a ritual, wouldn't it? > > That does not follow. A ritual is something that is done to > commemorate, signify or elevate something by means of ceremonial > actions and symbolism, not something that is performed for a practical > purpose. There is also a meaning of ritual as a magical endeavor > following a formula to produce a magical result, but this would have > to include an illogical connection between the actions taken and the > results desired, for instance, waving a magical amulet around three > times while saying "Kumbaya" in order to achieve rebirth on a > California beach. > Sukin: I think about Silabataparamasa which is what is relevant here and do not want to rely on the meaning in some non-Buddhist dictionary. We need to remember that what the Buddha taught must be understood in terms of some paramatha dhamma or the other and its relationship to some other paramatha dhammas. Besides I think that any and everything that we talk about, can in fact be explained in these terms. So taking from your own statement in the above, "ritual as a magical endeavor following a formula to produce a magical result, but this would have to include an illogical connection between the actions taken and the results desired". In Dhamma terms, could we not take this as misunderstanding with regard to the characteristic and function of a particular dhamma yet continuing to 'encourage' it thinking that this is cause that would give rise to some projected result? And this 'encouraging' is in fact wrong practice or Silabataparamasa / rite and ritual? ======= > Observing a bird to see what type of bird it is, or observing arising > perceptions to see what kinds of perceptions they are, is not a ritual. > Sukin: The very fact that you compare the two impresses upon me that you do have a misunderstanding as to the nature of paramatha dhammas, in particular that of satipathana or bhavana or patipatti / practice. Conventionally speaking one can decide to observe birds and can be trained to become increasingly adept at it. This is because one does this with akusala cittas, of which we all have great accumulations for. On the other hand, the accumulation for kusala is so very little and even less is right view. And when it comes to Dhamma and the idea of practice associated, it is not that we will likely have greater frequency of akusala arising while engaged in such things as 'meditation', but the conceiving of practice / patipatti as equivalent to 'formal' meditation is wrong understanding to begin with. Sati and panna, beside the fact that we've accumulated so little of these and that so much more wrong view is there instead which likely mistake lobha or some other dhamma for sati, manifests not as you allude to in your comparison above. There is no sense of an 'observer' given that in fact there is ever only one citta arising at a time to experience one particular object. An enlightened person would not describe his experience in the way you have described since even for him satipatthana arises interspersed in between moments of other kinds of cittas, including the sense door vipaka and bhavanga. Indeed if it seems continuous even lasting a couple of seconds, this must be because it is in fact 'thinking' which is taking place, and all this starts from the initial thinking oneself into 'doing it'. ======= > > > ---------------------------------- > > RE: > When we practice meditation or sutta study or any other > dhamma-related activity, we do not deny the existence of conditions, > but act in accord with them to continue in our activity. > > ---------------------------------- > > > > In what way is meditation a "Dhamma related activity"? How does it > contribute to right understanding of the Eightfold Path? How can it > possibly be done with right understanding? > > > > ----------------------------------------- > Do you think that discernment and insight are contained in a book? > That is like thinking that you can only recognize a bird if you see > the bird in the book, not the living bird. > Sukin: Where did this come from! Oh, I know, a stage created to highlight what follows.... ;-) ======= > > It is in meditation when one takes a moment, and then another, and > then another, to see what is arising and what it consists of. You can > have some training from books, just as you can study for your driving > exam partially from a book, but then you have to get out on the road > and drive, not only to get somewhere, but to practice. > Sukin: Ken does not make a distinction between time to read and time to practice. His Dhamma study which include moments of Suttamaya panna and Cintamaya panna lead him to conclude that at any moment there are only paramattha dhammas. This leaves open the possibility at anytime for Bhavanamaya panna to arise, including when involved in the conventional act of reading books. Failing this kind of understanding is the reason why you and all meditators create this false distinction which serves in fact only to perpetuate the wrong practice being followed. Your idea to put aside the book and get on with the practice takes you further and further away from the possibility of any right understanding at the suttamaya and cintamaya levels arising which are needed before there can ever be any real bhavana. In other words, you have read the Buddha's teachings wrongly which has lead you to the idea of the need to put those same texts aside at some point in preference to an activity which amounts to no more than self-indulgence of a particular kind. ;-) ======= > > Driving to a destination is practical driving, like discerning > realities in life. Meditation is practicing driving, taking time to > focus on what is happening. Of course it has everything to do with > discerning the Dhamma in action, rather than merely on print or in > your conceptual understanding. The inability of some people to > recognize this just astounds me. It is what the Buddha preached. > Sukin: No he did not. But I'm not surprised that you should feel astounded when reading the kind of suggestion. ======= > > > RE: > And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay > attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as > well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative > state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > I spoke too soon. :-) Thank you for telling us what you do in > meditation. If I understand you correctly, you pay attention to > concepts and discern them as being impermanent. > > Absolutely not, that is your prejudiced view. It is the direct > observation of experience as it occurs. If this were not possible, the > Dhamma could never be realized at all. > Sukin: Just because you call chocolate, vanilla doesn't make it so. ;-) And Ken's is not a prejudiced view, it is what is got from a correct understanding of the Teachings, one which will *never* think to put aside such valuable words in preference for something wrongly conceived as being of greater value. ======= > > > The trouble is, Rob, that is not satipatthana (the teaching of the > Buddha). > > Only in your interpretation. > > > > > If you believe it is satipatthana then you have wrong view. > > Well I think you do. > Sukin: In your own words, please tell us what satipatthana is. ====== > > And in that case, your meditation is actually a practice of wrong view. > > I think your opinion of meditation is extremely wrong view, as is your > explanation above. I think you are espousing a dogma, not the teachings. > Sukin: You'd need to have the minimum of correct intellectual understanding of the Dhamma to know that Ken is espousing dogma, which I think you do not. ;-) ====== > > > I am not singling you out, Robert, you are only stating what has > become the majority view. You have the weight of numbers on your side. :-) > > And you have the weight of some commentaries on commentaries on your > side, against sutta and the tradition of practice. > Sukin: No, Ken has the weight of the Suttas, Vinaya and Abhidhamma plus the commentaries and sub-commentaries. His interpretation is such that there occurs no contradiction between these texts. Your own unwillingness to accept the interpretation of those commentators is a result not only of wrong understanding, but serves to increase arrogance as well. Which is what accumulates when following formal meditation anyway, re: the ability to make things happen. ====== > > That sort of thing is just smoke-and-mirrors, Rob: the teacher has > no idea of what he is talking about but pretends otherwise. His > students can't understand a word and feel ashamed and inferior. The > best they can do is pretend to understand. And maybe become teachers > themselves one day. > > Perhaps the smoke and mirrors is a conceptual understanding of the > Dhamma with a refusal to practice from moment to moment, taking the > moments as they actually occur instead of drowned out by reams of > conceptual philosophy. > Sukin: 'Philosophy' is what you invariably conceive all this to be having never had any experience of what is called "Pariyatti" understanding. Sorry to have made such strong comments. No ill-will intended, but just wanted to create some effect. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #109307 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:00 am Subject: Abhidhamma Series 26. The Seven Books of the Abhidhamma (part 3) nilovg Dear friends, The Seven Books of the Abhidhamma (part 3) The third book of the Abhidhamma is the Discourse on Elements, Dhaatu-Kathaa. This book deals with all realities, classified with reference to the khandhas, the aayatanas (translated as bases) and the dhaatus, elements. It deals with realities that are ?included?( sangahita), or not included, that are associated (sampayutta) or dissociated (vippayutta). Only naama can be associated with another naama, such as citta and cetasikas. Ruupa does not have such a close association with naama. The charts added by the translator makes the reading of these classifications easier. But we should not forget that all these classifications pertain to the reality appearing at this moment. The khandhas are citta, cetasika and ruupa arising and falling away at this moment. When seeing arises, there is vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and there are the accompanying cetasikas: vedanaakkhandha, sa~n~naakhandha, sa?nkhaarakkhandha (including other cetasikas apart from feeling and sa~n~naa), and there is eyesense which is ruupa-kkhandha. As to the aayatanas, there are six inward aayatanas and six outward aayatanas. The inner aayatanas are the five senses and mind-base, manaayatana, which includes all cittas. The outward aayatanas are the five sense objects and dammaayatana, which includes cetasikas, subtle r?pas and nibbaana. When we see, hear or think we believe that a self experiences different objects, but in reality there is the association of the inward aayatana and the outward aayatana, the objects ``outside''. As to the elements, these can be classified in different ways, and in this book they are classified as eighteen: the five senses, the five sense objects, the ``five pairs'' of sense-cognitions, experiencing the five sense-objects, and in addition: mind-element (mano-dhaatu), dhamma-dhaatu and mind-consciousness-element (mano-vi~n~naa.na- dhaatu). Mind-element and mind-consciousness-element comprise cittas other than the five sense-cognitions. Dhamma-dhaatu comprises cetasikas, the subtle ruupas (sukhuma ruupas) and nibbaana. In all these classifications concepts such as person or thing have not been included. Only paramattha dhammas have been included. We may think of concepts, but these are not real in the ultimate sense. Thinking itself is citta, it is a reality. If there is no understanding of realities as just elements, we shall continue to cling to the wrong view of self who sees, hears or thinks. Seeing is a dhaatu that experiences an object, it is naama. Visible object is ruupa, it is included in ruupakkhandha. Visible object or colour does not know anything, it is dissociated (vipayutta) from naama, it is completely different from seeing. Dhaatus are not mere names, they have characteristics that can be directly experienced when they appear. We are reminded by the Dhaatukathaa that the teaching on elements pertains to realities appearing at this moment. --------- Nina. #109308 From: "Mike" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:33 am Subject: Re: Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O mikenz66 Hi Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Ken O, > > It looks like we keep repeating and going in circles and this may be due > to a problem in communication. I therefore decided to start this thread. > > In the following, please tell me what you agree with and what you don't. > > 1a- When there is seeing which experiences visible object now, this is > conditioned already. > > 1b- Being conditioned already, this is its nature and nothing can be > done to alter this. > > 1c- This is what it means to be 'beyond control'. How does this differ from the wrong view of Makkhali Gosala, in DN2? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html --------------- Makkhali Gosala: "'Though one might think, "Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it" ? that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.' ---------------- Mike #109309 From: "lawstu_uk" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:00 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. lawstu_uk Dear Han, I hope everything goes well with you, whether to have the surgery or not. Best wishes, Andrew Lai Now, the Surgeon advised me to take out the gall bladder immediately. The problem is whether I can stand the operation and the general anesthesia at my age (83). So Cardiac Evaluation and other tests are being done to determine whether I am fir for the operation. If I am fit for the operation I will undergo the surgery within a few days. > > with metta and respect, > Han > #109310 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. sarahprocter... Dear Han, ? I'm so sorry to hear about your health problems. We've just arrived in Bkk and I just tried to call you, but was told you're not feeling well. Anyway, please let us know if we can help or if you would like to join us anytime for breakfast/coffee or have us visit you in hospital if you go. I know the op is usually a fairly quick and routine one, but as you say, they need to check that you're up to it first. Please let us know. ? Courage, patience and good cheer, as we're always reminded! ? Metta ? Sarah ? p.s I just had to have the hotel nurse come up to give me some medicine for an eye infection! > Han: Thank you very much , Sarah, for your clarification. > I am not well. <...> #109312 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] siila. Was: intentional actions. nilovg Dear Kevin, Thank you for sharing your life story with us. It is very good of you to keep the promise to your parents, continuing your school. It is one of the perfections, the perfection of truthfulness. The Bodhisatta always kept his promises even at the cost of life. Just adding a little thing I may be able to clear up. Op 18-aug-2010, om 20:00 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > And after I > became a monk I continued to go to Ajahns classes every week and to > discuss > dhamma with my friends from the group. There was a feeling there > that people > should only practice the sila that they have natural accumulations > for, if I am > not mistaken. -------- N: This may be said in the context of the monks' siila, perhaps? It depends on accumulations whether one will be a monk or not. People who read this may think that lay people should just keep the siila they have accumulations for, but then let us read what Kh Sujin said in her Perfections. (You have the book? If not I can send it, same address?) It is so inspiring. --- Ch 2: < The transgression of morality, s?la, such as killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, is motivated by akusala: by attachment (lobha), aversion (dosa), and ignorance (moha). When someone commits evil deeds he lacks mett?, loving-kindness towards others. All akusala kammas are conditioned by clinging to visible object, sound, smell, flavour, tangible object and the wrong view that there is self, being or person. The streamwinner who has realized the four noble Truths and attained the first stage of enlightenment, has eradicated the defilements in accordance with that stage of enlightenment. He observes the five precepts perfectly, he cannot transgress them anymore. If one is not a streamwinner which precepts can one observe? Even before we are a streamwinner, we should not transgress the precepts. The coarse defilements can be subdued and worn away until pa??? will be developed to the degree of a perfection and is able to realize the four noble Truths. The perfection of s?la is an excellent quality, a supporting condition for reaching the further shore, namely the eradication of defilements.> N: Metta is an important condition for observing siila. Those flirting girls you wrote about lacked metta, they thought of themselves only. Not of the wellbeing of others. But this was also in the Buddha's time. As you will agree, it is understanding above all that conditions siila of avoidance and siila of observance. Are there other things Kh Sujin said you did not agree with? It is not at all offensive to write about these things. And sometimes it may be a matter of context. That is why discussion in dsg is useful. BTW Saturday I have to take a break for a while. ------- Nina. #109313 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 am Subject: What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi, Ken and all - There is a Pali sutta, a reference for which I cannot find, in which the Buddha reaches a mentally deficient man to meditate by continually rubbing an initially-white cloth between his thumb and finger, paying attention to doing that. This practice lead to attainment. To me, this repetitive practice, done with attention, accomplished two things directly: 1) Calming the mind, and 2) Presenting impermanence and the effect of conditions in a simple and direct way as the initially-clean cloth, as a result of the rubbing, became dirtied. Is this rite and ritual that the Buddha taught, or is it meditation practice? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109314 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken (and all) - In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:07:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Ken and all - There is a Pali sutta, a reference for which I cannot find, in which the Buddha reaches a mentally deficient man to meditate by continually rubbing an initially-white cloth between his thumb and finger, paying attention to doing that. This practice lead to attainment. To me, this repetitive practice, done with attention, accomplished two things directly: 1) Calming the mind, and 2) Presenting impermanence and the effect of conditions in a simple and direct way as the initially-clean cloth, as a result of the rubbing, became dirtied. Is this rite and ritual that the Buddha taught, or is it meditation practice? With metta, Howard ======================================== The name of the monk may be Cula Panthaka. One relating of the story is given at the following link: _http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VDGDDie-jM8J:www.mahin darama.com/e-library/dhammapada2.htm+cula+panthaka&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us_ (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VDGDDie-jM8J:www.mahindara\ ma.com/e-library/dhammapada2.htm+cula+panthaka&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ) I do recall that I originally saw this in a Pali sutta. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109315 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:10 am Subject: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken (and all) - In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:57:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka@... writes: Hi again, Ken (and all) - In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:51:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: The name of the monk may be Cula Panthaka. ============================== The story also appears on page 12 of _http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf_ (http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) ============================== The full story, appearing at _http://www.viet.net/~anson/ebud/dhp/a.htm_ (http://www.viet.net/~anson/ebud/dhp/a.htm) , reads as follows: Verse 25 II (3) The Story of Culapanthaka While residing at the Veluvana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (25) of this book, with reference to Culapanthaka, a grandson of a banker of Rajagaha. The banker had two grandsons, named Mahapanthaka and Culapanthaka. Mahapanthaka, being the elder, used to accompany his grandfather to listen to religious discourses. Later, Mahapanthaka joined the Buddhist religious Order and in course of time became an arahat. Culapanthaka followed his brother and became a bhikkhu. But, because in a previous existence in the time of Kassapa Buddha Culapanthaka had made fun of a bhikkhu who was very dull, he was born a dullard in the present existence. He could not even memorize one verse in four months. Mahapanthaka was very disappointed with his younger brother and even told him that he was not worthy of the Order. About that time, Jivaka came to the monastery to invite the Buddha and the resident bhikkhus to his house for a meal. Mahapanthaka, who was then in charge of assigning the bhikkhus to meal invitations, left out Culapanthaka from the list. When Culapanthaka learnt about this he felt very much frustrated and decided that he would return to the life of a householder. Knowing his intention, the Buddha took him along and made him sit in front of the Gandhakuti hall. He then gave a clean piece of cloth to Culapanthaka and told him to sit there facing east and rub the piece of cloth. At the same time he was to repeat the word "Rajoharanam", which means "taking on impurity." The Buddha then went to the residence of Jivaka, accompanied by the bhikkhus. Meanwhile, Culapanthaka went on rubbing the piece of cloth, all the time muttering the word "Rajoharanam". Very soon, the cloth became soiled. Seeing this change in the condition of the cloth, Culapanthaka came to realize the impermanent nature of all conditioned things. From the house of Jivaka, the Buddha through super normal power learnt about the progress of Culapanthaka. He sent forth his radiance so that (to Culapanthaka) the Buddha appeared to be sitting in front of him, saying: "It is not the piece of cloth alone that is made dirty by the dust; within oneself also there exist the dust of passion (raga), the dust of ill will (dosa), and the dust of ignorance (moha), i.e., the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Only by removing these could one achieve one's goal and attain arahatship". Culapanthaka got the message and kept on meditating and in a short while attained arahatship, together with Analytical Insight. Thus, Culapanthaka ceased to be a dullard. At the house of Jivaka, they were about to pour libation water as a mark of donation; but the Buddha covered the bowl with his hand and asked if there were any bhikkhus left at the monastery. On being answered that there were none, the Buddha replied that there was one and directed them to fetch Culapanthaka from the monastery. When the messenger from the house of Jivaka arrived at the monastery he found not only one bhikkhu, but a thousand identical bhikkhus. They all have been created by Culapanthaka, who by now possessed supernormal powers The messenger was baffled and he turned back and reported the matter to Jivaka. The messenger was sent to the monastery for the second time and was instructed to say that the Buddha summoned the bhikkhu by the name of Culapanthaka. But when he delivered the message, a thousand voices responded, "I am Culapanthaka." Again baffled, he turned back for the second time. Then he was sent to the monastery, for the third time. This time, he was instructed to get hold of the bhikkhu who first said that he was Culapanthaka. As soon as he got hold of that bhikkhu all the rest disappeared, and Culapanthaka accompanied the messenger to the house of Jivaka. After the meal, as directed by the Buddha, Culapanthaka delivered a religious discourse confidently and bravely, roaring like a young lion. Later, when the subject of Culapanthaka cropped up among the bhikkhus, the Buddha said that one who was diligent and steadfast in his striving would certainly attain arahatship. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 25: Through diligence, mindfulness, discipline (with regard to moral precepts), and control of his senses, let the man of wisdom make (of himself) an island which no flood can overwhelm. ====================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109316 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:18 pm Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording. About the beginner: Acharn: ------ Nina. #109317 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken (and all) - In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:51:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: The name of the monk may be Cula Panthaka. ============================== The story also appears on page 12 of _http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf_ (http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109319 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:52 pm Subject: Re: what is meditation? truth_aerator Dear Robert, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear all > I browsed another buddhist site and found more strange stuff. > Here is one comment: > > ""But mentally ill people should not attempt meditation until they are cured of their illness or their condition will probably get worse." > > he was referring to "vipassana meditation". > > Just shows that what most buddhists mean when they say meditation is very different by what is meant by the Pali terms "Bhavana" or "jhayati" as both of these are about mahakusala citta . And how could kusala citta ever be bad. > > Wrong view and attachment to rule and rituals is all about, that is for sure. > robert It depends what is meant by "mentally ill". Of course meditation, as any other thing, needs to be done WITH wisdom and understanding. Even most harmless things can be harmful if misused. It is true regarding sila prior to meditation. If person has done lots of bad deeds, then their meditation may be difficult at the begining. It is generally advised to have good sila first so that one doesn't suffer remorse and regret when they become more sensitive to presently arisen namarupa. Something similar happened to someone on Goenka retreat I was long time ago. Meditation is about developing more and more skill and undertstanding. It has to be done properly for max benefit. With metta, Alex #109320 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. India 2007. nilovg Dear Lukas, I hope you had a good trip home. Op 15-aug-2010, om 16:20 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: I am always thinking about people and things. Whether I act or did something in a proper way. What others think etc. ------- N: Very human. I find it helpful to remember that that is clinging to the self. ------ > L: What about if I react to delishious food. I enjoy the taste > making up a stories of the food. This is not according what Buddha > said, that a food should be only used for sustauin this body not > for pleasure. I had a lot of regrets, that i reacted in such way > not according to Dhamma. But the moment is gone now, is it OK to > let it go? Is it me that reacts to pleasant food. I feel like this > was me who reacyted this or that way. ------ N: This is also very common. Self reacting, having regret, thinking that one should or should not. All such moments are gone immediately, and no use to think again about them. Food as a medicine, long ago Kh Sujin said this to me and before I had never considered this. It may be remembered or not, depending on conditions. ------- Lukas questions. > 15. Maybe I should give more attention to sukkha and dukkha vedana > than to visible object? > > 16. Sukkha/dukkha vedana seems to be more important than any other > rupa. It is painful. > > 17. Maybe if I will observe vedanas there will be less misery, if > learn how to observe and not react? -------- N: It seems you want to select dhammas in order to be aware of them. This is impossible, they arise and appear because of their own conditions. If there is any wish for this dhamma, not that one, there is already lobha. ------- > > L: 18."Leave it to conditions" - this seems to be so wonderful refuge. ------- N: One can say this with akusala citta or with kusala citta. With akusala citta: I can be just lazy, no need to develop understanding. Especially if we think this a wonderful refuge, lobha is around the corner. With kusala citta: we are not thinking of the future nor want to hurry the development of understanding. One can live by the moment, the present moment. ------ Nina. #109321 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O sukinderpal Hello Mike, > > It looks like we keep repeating and going in circles and this may be > due > > to a problem in communication. I therefore decided to start this thread. > > > > In the following, please tell me what you agree with and what you don't. > > > > 1a- When there is seeing which experiences visible object now, this is > > conditioned already. > > > > 1b- Being conditioned already, this is its nature and nothing can be > > done to alter this. > > > > 1c- This is what it means to be 'beyond control'. > > How does this differ from the wrong view of Makkhali Gosala, in DN2? > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html > --------------- > Makkhali Gosala: "'Though one might think, "Through this morality, > this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen > unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it" > --- that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the > wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or > lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of > string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same > way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish > alike will put an end to pain.' > ---------------- > S: Makkhali Gosala said before the above: "Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth." I do not agree with Makkhali Gosala for sure. The three statements you quoted me saying, are those which affirm conditionality. But I think you may be reacting particularly to the conclusion about being 'beyond control'? So what is the difference? Makkhali Gosala did not believe in causes and conditions, but that no matter what one does, in the end samsara will end for everyone regardless. In other words, he had no idea about the Four Noble Truths. He does not know what fuels continued existence and what ends it. My statement about 'no control' refer to the fact of dhammas arising by conditions and falling away immediately. This does not imply that there are no specific conditionality. In other words, what I say does not go against the idea that akusala is one kind of cause and kusala is another kind, but that be it either one of these or any indeterminate reality namely resultants, functional consciousness or material reality, all these arise by conditions and conditions alone. That we think to control, even this is conditioned already and is evidence to the fact of uncontrollable nature of these dhammas. Likewise when one does not think to control, this too is due to conditions. Unlike Makkhali Gosala who thinks that we are all in the process akin to the unwinding of a ball of string thrown, I believe that understanding the present moment which is development of the Path, is the only way that the strings of the ball are loosened. Everything else leads further to entanglement and tightening of knots that are harder and harder to open up. Hope this has helped to clarify some. Metta, Sukinder #109322 From: "Mike" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O mikenz66 Hi Sukinder, Thanks, that's a nice way of looking at it. Mike --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: ... > Unlike Makkhali Gosala who thinks that we are all in the process akin to > the unwinding of a ball of string thrown, I believe that understanding > the present moment which is development of the Path, is the only way > that the strings of the ball are loosened. Everything else leads > further to entanglement and tightening of knots that are harder and > harder to open up. > > Hope this has helped to clarify some. #109323 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:01 pm Subject: Re: what is meditation? epsteinrob Hi Fabian and Robert. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Robert and all, > > The statement of Vipassana Teachers was right, It happened in one of Vippassana meditation retreat while I was translating, the meditator can not distinguish illusion and realities, which arises and created by his own mind. > > Kusala citta and akusala citta are impermanent, they arise and pass away one after another, only to a certain degree Mahakusala citta arises, but before he reach that degree he is falling under his own illusion. > > Therefore to practice Vipassana meditation a meditator should be mentally healthy, to prevent them to fall under their own illusion, moreover many people who meditate are motivated by expectations, assumptions, "dreams" etc, which could make things worse. > > Mettacittena, > fabian > > > ROBERT: Dear all > I browsed another buddhist site and found more strange stuff. > Here is one comment: > > ""But mentally ill people should not attempt meditation until they are cured of their illness or their condition will probably get worse." > > he was referring to "vipassana meditation". > > Just shows that what most buddhists mean when they say meditation is very different by what is meant by the Pali terms "Bhavana" or "jhayati" as both of these are about mahakusala citta . And how could kusala citta ever be bad. > > Wrong view and attachment to rule and rituals is all about, that is for sure. > robert > -------------------- Both the original report and the comment upon it are silly in the sense that they have no rigor, but partake of the equivalent of light gossip with no actual facts about meditation involved at all. This report, and the logic drawn from it, certainly have nothing to do with what committed followers of the Dhamma do either in or out of meditation. Mentally ill people may also have a crash if they try to drive a car while delusional. So what? Does that mean the rest of us should not drive? This has nothing to do with meditation. The problem with references to bhavana that are only "mahakusala cittas" is that they assume that one is having a single specific moment of mahakusala and do not deal with all the other moments that may precede or follow it that are akusala, which for all of us is almost invariably the case. So what is one moment of being struck by lighting of mahakusala going to do for you or for the mentally ill? It is unrealistic to the point of absurdity to think that a mentally ill person could experience this wonderful bhavana safely but not what we call meditation, because if they happened to be lucky enough to experience mahakusala bhavana it "could only be for the good." But what conditions would allow a mentally ill person to experience mahakusala pure bhavana? It is not going to happen, since that level of high bhavana, which you just call "bhavana," period, is caused by the correct conditions, like everything else, and so the chances of the right conditions being there if one has the kamma and conditions to remain mentally ill, are rather slim. So you bring up an example like this as though it has something to do with meditation, and it does not. Meditation is real "bhavana," practical bhavana that one can actually do, not just dream about while reading commentaries and waiting for the right conditions to tap you on the head. It is the practice that over time will *create* true bhavana, not through one's own efforts, or self-view, as many here would insist, but by creating the correct conditions, as you would espouse, through working with conditions of attentiveness and quietness that have been recommended and taught by the Buddha. This prejudice against meditation - practice of bhavana - is so thick and irrational, it is really amazing. One would rather avoid bhavana because of superstition against "bad" bhavana that is somehow going to sneak up through the bogeyman of unidentified "wrong view" and bite you on the head while you are cluelessly meditating. It is just sad that one will not practice because of fear of self-view, but has no fear of self-view in adopting such extreme beliefs. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109324 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH epsteinrob Hi Sukin. Well the only way this will avoid a conversation is if you don't reply. That's up to you! Ha ha, this is quite fun though. I guess my akusala tendencies are enjoying your own akusala expressions. A very unwholesome interaction all told! ;-) I will be back later with specific comments. Ha ha, this really tickles me. I especially love your comment at the end: "'Philosophy' is what you invariably conceive all this to be having never had any experience of what is called "Pariyatti" understanding." You just couldn't help yourself, but of course it is all in good fun! :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Rob E (and Ken H), > > > I'm jumping in just to make some comments and won't continue further > with the discussion. The thought about our exchange in the past does not > give rise to any pleasant feelings. ;-) To be sure, the problem lies in > my continued inability to write short responses. . . . #109325 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:45 pm Subject: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially kenhowardau Hi Howard, Thanks for finding this sutta. It is the same one that Fabian mentioned in a recent discussion - and also a DSG perennial, of course. I think you are likening it to what I was describing to Robert E as a ritual practice. In that instance, Robert and I were talking about two specific cases. There was the unlikely one of a person playing a piano in the belief it would bring about the end of samsara. And there was one of someone concentrating on concepts, and seeing them as impermanent, in the belief it would lead to concentrating on conditioned dhammas and seeing them as anicca. I don't deny that the Culapanthaka example is superficially similar to those ritual practices. For that matter so are hundreds of stories contained in the Sutta-pitaka. Not least of them is one that non-meditators often like to quote. That is, the one where a woman saw she had accidentally burnt the curry, and immediately had anicca insight followed by magga-citta. The point is, however, that the woman did not deliberately burn the curry in the belief it would lead to enlightenment. I would strongly suggest that Culapanthaka did not rub the piece of cloth with expectations of enlightenment, nor did he do it in the belief that cloth-rubbing was the way to enlightenment. He simply did what he was told, and he did it in the normal, kusala way that came naturally to him. He was, after all, a great man with the accumulated wisdom to become an arahant in the present lifetime. A very rare individual! And so it was not surprising that the accumulated panna manifested at that time. It just needed one more condition, as foreseen by the Buddha. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Ken (and all) - > > In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:57:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > Upasaka@... writes: > > Hi again, Ken (and all) - > > In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:51:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > The name of the monk may be Cula Panthaka. > ============================== > The story also appears on page 12 of > _http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf_ (http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf) > > #109326 From: han tun Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. hantun1 Dear Nina and Lodewijk, Thank you very much for your kind words. I am also worried about the health of Lodewijk. Being almost the same age, I can imagine how he would feel. I will be finishing the tests today, and the Surgeon will advise me the line of treatment. I am always against major operations at this age. But I do not know what the Surgeon might say. As the dull pain is persisting, making the life miserable, I will, this time, agree if the Surgeon wants to operate on me. I will keep you posted. with best wishes and respect to you and Lodewijk, Han #109327 From: han tun Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. hantun1 Dear Andrew, Thank you very much for your kind words and good wishes. Kid regards, Han #109328 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Hi Rob, Thanks for you message. Some points of vinaya are hard to find answers to. I know my sila wasn't perfect. Perhaps I did drink coca-cola after noon. For the most part though, my sila was quite good. I think it did help me. We can't stop unwholesome cetasikas from arising, but if we refrain from unwholesome actions, we see how they only help to support self-view everytime we do them because they are based in delusion. Unconvinced is OK. I am a sakadagami and my mind is very pure now. I need no more convincing after this attainment. I agree though that many people delude themselves. The citta knows an object so briefly when satipatthana occurrs. There is no doubt about the object during that moment, but in the conceptual processes that follow, I think the exact object is not always remembered, though the impression left by panna knowing the aspect is. P.S. For my take on sila, read this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/109279 . Thanks. With metta, Kevin ___________ #109329 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:42 pm Subject: if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana truth_aerator Hello Sukinder, allm Any action that we do has to have an intention (cetana). It is one of the universal cetasikas. As for views: one can clean the dishes with or without Self views - but the action itself doesn't have to involve wrong views. Wrong views are extra and are not beneficial, unless one uses them for right views. One can also meditate, lets say metta or asubha, with or without wrong views. Metta or Asubha in and of itself doesn't require wrong view and it (especially metta) was praised so much by the Buddha that maybe it is good and beneficial?... Whenever we do something it is generally for a purpose. In the case of daily activities such as washing the dishes, what skill, paramis, accumulations, etc, relevant to liberation you are developing that you cannot develop (to the same level or even better) when meditating? A person can just as easily consider washing dishes as "Self controlling the reality of cleanliness of dishes" as one can do so in meditation. But which meditation teacher teaches about Self (atta) and control of realities? Don't most of them teach developing UNDERSTANDING? There may be different valid pathways to understand the Dhamma more. When you do, lets say metta or asubha meditation, you are developing skill at suppressing of anger or lust - it is highly kusala (even if Self views are involved, but they don't have to be involved and no teacher that I know of endorces Self Views). Metta & Asubha are directly relevant for Nibbana (one counteracts anger, another lust) while washing dishes does not. One can say about using washing dishes as something to do with right views, but such can also done in the case of metta, asubha, anapanasati, etc - highly kusala activity. If one cannot suppress a negative tendency for a short time and due to deliberate effort - what makes you think that it can be abandoned permanently and without effort? With metta, Alex #109330 From: Vince Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" cerovzt@... Dear Kevin you wrote: > Kevin: Perhaps lofty is still a better translation here? Is it sobhana that it > was originally translated from? really I don't know because I don't know well Pali. Although looking dictionaries, in the case of sobhana probably it is would be well translated by "beautiful". It is what shows the PTS and also the Pali Glossary in the Zolag website I suppose from Nina. Maybe she can confirm that. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:530.pali http://www.zolag.co.uk/downloads/pali_glossary.pdf best regards, #109331 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] siila. Was: intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Nina, Thanks a lot! Yes, I have the book. Thank you. I especially like this quote your provided: Khun Sujin in Survey of Paramattha Dhamas: "Even before we are a streamwinner, we should not transgress the precepts. The coarse defilements can be subdued and worn away until pa??? will be developed to the degree of a perfection and is able to realize the four noble Truths. The perfection of s?la is an excellent quality, a supporting condition for reaching the further shore, namely the eradication of defilements.>" Kevin: I agree fully. I think we should refrain from all unwholesome actions, even if we have a strong urge to do them. Thanks for you comments about Truthfulness... All the best, Kevin ___________ #109333 From: Vince Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially cerovzt@... Dear Howard, you wrote: > Is this rite and ritual that the Buddha taught, or is it meditation > practice? this is another Sutta on this issue; Buddha convert a ritual of paying respects to the six direction into a meaningful practice: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html best, #109334 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:19 am Subject: health truth_aerator Dear Nina, Han, all, > N: This in respect to Lodewijk's health. There is something > with his blood pointing to bone marrow disorder which may be >cancer. > But at his age (almost 85) the test and then the chemo treatments >are > so severe. It may not be worth while. That is also what the doctor > advised, she said that his health seems stable at the moment, not > worsening. I thought of you. > Let us know how you are, > Nina. I hope Lodewijk and Han gets better. Don't ever do chemo, and please do as much research before commencing any harsh treatments! It is terrible poisoning of the body. People die from it faster than from "cancer" itself. The only reason chemo "works" is that it kills person quicker than cancer "does". Some say that cancer itself doesn't kill, there is no reason why it should. It doesn't stop the heart, it doesn't block or obstruct any vital things - it is just some tissue growth, that is all. I would never recommend chemo to anyone. Some of modern medicine's treatments are still barbaric: "cut, burn, and poison". Cut the tissue because it looks bad (but has no reason to be fatal), burn it or poison it so it goes away. With that poisoning, the body is poisoned as well... Not a good trade off. This is only slightly more civilized and technologically advanced than using the axe to cut the hurt leg, as it was done in Medieval Europe. Expensive chemicals are profitable and some people like the money... With metta, Alex #109335 From: Sukinderpal Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] health sukinderpal Dear Nina, Han, Lodewijk and Alex, I don't have the kind of knowledge as Alex does about any of this and so can't give any suggestions. All I can do is wish that the best choice is made and the good that Han and Lodewijk have done in the past bear fruit at this time of your lives. More importantly, that your understanding of the Dhamma help to guide you through any unavoidable difficulties. Best wishes, Sukinder #109336 From: Kevin F Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" farrellkevin80 Hi Vince, Vince: really I don't know because I don't know well Pali. Although looking dictionaries, in the case of sobhana probably it is would be well translated by "beautiful". It is what shows the PTS and also the Pali Glossary in the Zolag website I suppose from Nina. Maybe she can confirm that. Kevin: Thanks a lot for you post. Lofty is also mentioned as a translation of sobhana in the PTS dictionary I believe. Sometimes it is translated as beautiful. I still think that lofty is a better translation here, as things are not said to be beautiful. But who knows, maybe I am wrong... Thanks a lot for you post. Kevin ___________ #109337 From: Sukinderpal Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana sukinderpal Hi Alex, You wrote: > > > Any action that we do has to have an intention (cetana). It is one of > the universal cetasikas. As for views: one can clean the dishes with > or without Self views - but the action itself doesn't have to involve > wrong views. > S: In the case of washing the dishes I'd say just plain lobha is involved usually. Unless of course, one is a follower of Thich Nhat Hahn. ;-) ====== > > Wrong views are extra and are not beneficial, unless one uses them for > right views. > S: I'd say wrong view is never beneficial, in fact very harmful. When there is understanding of wrong view as wrong view, it is the right view which is to be given credit. ===== > > One can also meditate, lets say metta or asubha, with or without wrong > views. Metta or Asubha in and of itself doesn't require wrong view and > it (especially metta) was praised so much by the Buddha that maybe it > is good and beneficial?... > S: I think that you should seriously consider this difference between moments when metta or asubha actually arises from when one is involved in trying to make it arise which as you say, could be with self-view. First of all, why would you seek to have more metta when there are conditioned dhammas arising and falling away all the time and most of which is accompanied by ignorance? Why then be attracted to some 'formal practice' which you know to invariably involve self-view? There can be some level of intellectual understanding much needed at any given moment, why overlook this? ==== > > Whenever we do something it is generally for a purpose. > In the case of daily activities such as washing the dishes, what > skill, paramis, accumulations, etc, relevant to liberation you are > developing that you cannot develop (to the same level or even better) > when meditating? A person can just as easily consider washing > dishes as "Self controlling the reality of cleanliness of dishes" as > one can do so in meditation. But which meditation teacher teaches > about Self (atta) and control of realities? Don't most of them teach > developing UNDERSTANDING? There may be different valid pathways to > understand the Dhamma more. > S: If I were to try washing the dishes with any such aim, the kind that you suggest, then it would indeed be wrong practice, even while having the background knowledge of the need to develop understanding of realities. ==== > > When you do, lets say metta or asubha meditation, you are developing > skill at suppressing of anger or lust - it is highly kusala (even if > Self views are involved, but they don't have to be involved and no > teacher that I know of endorces Self Views). > S: Apparently they do not really understand self view or recognize it when it pops its head. So when they preach against it, they may in fact end up falling prey to it, as in trying to rid of self with 'self'. ==== > Metta & Asubha are directly relevant for Nibbana (one counteracts > anger, another lust) while washing dishes does not. One can say about > using washing dishes as something to do with right views, but such can > also done in the case of metta, asubha, anapanasati, etc - highly > kusala activity. > S: This is perhaps why you keep arguing. You do not really understand what some of us have been saying all along. If you think that we are 'prescribing' washing the dishes with mindfulness and understanding, then this would in fact be little different from what we characterize formal meditation. Which is why the distinction has to be made *now* between reality and concepts such that one knows not to follow any conventional activity with the idea of then understanding realities. There is no 'person' who 'wash the dishes', 'trying to understand realities'. There are only dhammas such as seeing, visible object, hearing, hardness, feeling. ignorance, attachment, understanding, aversion, metta. etc., etc. ==== > > If one cannot suppress a negative tendency for a short time and due to > deliberate effort - what makes you think that it can be abandoned > permanently and without effort? > S: First of all the Path is not about suppression but involve detachment from the very outset. Indeed this works to oppose any tendency to seeking results, the kind leading people to follow this or that practice. it is this that leads to the defilements being eradicated, the direct relationship is here and not in practices which involve suppression. Effort is also a dhamma and therefore needs to be recognized as such from the very beginning. Because otherwise we fall prey to an attitude with regard to effort which in fact takes us in the opposite direction, namely when it is taken for 'self', such as in "I make an effort to be mindful". Metta, Sukinder #109338 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:14 pm Subject: Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/19/2010 5:45:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, Thanks for finding this sutta. It is the same one that Fabian mentioned in a recent discussion - and also a DSG perennial, of course. I think you are likening it to what I was describing to Robert E as a ritual practice. In that instance, Robert and I were talking about two specific cases. There was the unlikely one of a person playing a piano in the belief it would bring about the end of samsara. And there was one of someone concentrating on concepts, and seeing them as impermanent, in the belief it would lead to concentrating on conditioned dhammas and seeing them as anicca. I don't deny that the Culapanthaka example is superficially similar to those ritual practices. For that matter so are hundreds of stories contained in the Sutta-pitaka. Not least of them is one that non-meditators often like to quote. That is, the one where a woman saw she had accidentally burnt the curry, and immediately had anicca insight followed by magga-citta. The point is, however, that the woman did not deliberately burn the curry in the belief it would lead to enlightenment. ---------------------------------------------------- In this case, the practice was deliberate and specifically given by the Buddha. --------------------------------------------------- I would strongly suggest that Culapanthaka did not rub the piece of cloth with expectations of enlightenment, nor did he do it in the belief that cloth-rubbing was the way to enlightenment. ---------------------------------------------------- I'm not surprised that you would think this, but I don't see any evidence for it. Quite the contrary, in fact. --------------------------------------------------- He simply did what he was told, and he did it in the normal, kusala way that came naturally to him. He was, after all, a great man with the accumulated wisdom to become an arahant in the present lifetime. A very rare individual! And so it was not surprising that the accumulated panna manifested at that time. It just needed one more condition, as foreseen by the Buddha. -------------------------------------------------- Ken, among the things that people cling to are views. We all do have views, but we should not cling to them. It is always possible that our views are incorrect, and we should be genuinely open to that possibility. --------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109339 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: In the case of washing the dishes I'd say just plain lobha is > involved usually. Unless of course, one is a follower of Thich Nhat > Hahn. ;-) And what is good in deliberately engaging in what is just plain lobha and doesn't help Nibbana? > S: I'd say wrong view is never beneficial, in fact very harmful. Unless one examines its harmfulness and abandons wrong view. > > One can also meditate, lets say metta or asubha, with or without wrong > > views. Metta or Asubha in and of itself doesn't require wrong view and > > it (especially metta) was praised so much by the Buddha that maybe it > > is good and beneficial?... > > > > S: I think that you should seriously consider this difference >between moments when metta or asubha actually arises And how will it ever arise if one doesn't put in causes for it? If someone were to be dropped in a deep lake and not move a finger to alter the sinking to the bottom, would s/he better swim to safety to survive and avoid drowning? Would reliance on buoyancy conditions alone make one swim to safety? Swimming is conditioned, sure. But it doesn't mean that actions WITHIN conditioned reality doesn't occur. >from when one is involved in trying to make it arise which as you >say, could be with self-view. OR WITHOUT Self View. In any case, metta is highly Kusala. It is also one of paramis. I am not so sure about washing dishes. > First of all, why would you seek to have more metta when there are > conditioned dhammas arising and falling away all the time and most >of which is accompanied by ignorance? If someone were to be dropped in a deep lake and not move a finger to alter the sinking to the bottom, would s/he better swim to safety to survive and avoid drowning? Why would one bother with putting in deliberate effort to swim to safety and avoid drowing? Why not just cross one's arms and pray that conditions save one? Or the same applied to burning house. Why put any sort of special effort to escape it? Why not remain in it and hope some miracle or understanding to save one? Proper actions save one, not inaction. Same with Dhamma. Proper action with Kusala saves one and inaction only when it comes to bad deeds - and this may require a lot of effort at first to stop the kilesas. >Why then be attracted to some 'formal practice' which you know to >invariably involve self-view? What about escaping from a burning building or putting in effort to swim to safety and avoid being drowned? >There can be some level of intellectual understanding much needed at >any given moment, why overlook this? Then why aren't Buddhist Scholars Arhats? Would intellectual understanding alone carry one to safety? And meditation methods that I have read about DO focus on developing wisdom. Wisdom doesn't grow on trees, it is not easily gained. Certain causes must be planted for certain fruits to emerge. With metta, Alex #109340 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:00 am Subject: Re: what is meditation? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > > > Therefore to practice Vipassana meditation a meditator should be mentally healthy, to prevent them to fall under their own illusion, moreover many people who meditate are motivated by expectations, assumptions, "dreams" etc, which could make things worse. > > > > Mettacittena, > > fabian > > > > > The problem with references to bhavana that are only "mahakusala cittas" is that they assume that one is having a single specific moment of mahakusala and do not deal with all the other moments that may precede or follow it that are akusala, which for all of us is almost invariably the case. So what is one moment of being struck by lighting of mahakusala going to do for you or for the mentally ill? > > It is unrealistic to the point of absurdity to think that a mentally ill person could experience this wonderful bhavana safely but not what we call meditation, because if they happened to be lucky enough to experience mahakusala bhavana it "could only be for the good." But what conditions would allow a mentally ill person to experience mahakusala pure bhavana? >Meditation is real "bhavana," practical bhavana that one can actually do, not just dream about while reading commentaries and waiting for the right conditions to tap you on the head. It is the practice that over >time will *create* true bhavana.. Dear Robert and fabian I may be wrong but you seem to be suggesting that during 'meditation' there is more chance for kusala citta to arise than during normal life (provided we leave aside mentally ill people) or when studying buddhist texts or contemplating what one has heard. Am I reading you both correctly? If so I would like to discuss this more. Or if I am reading wrongly that is fine too but could you verify that. robert #109341 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] health upasaka_howard Hi, Alex, Nina, and Han - In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:17:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Nina, Han, all, > N: This in respect to Lodewijk's health. There is something > with his blood pointing to bone marrow disorder which may be >cancer. > But at his age (almost 85) the test and then the chemo treatments >are > so severe. It may not be worth while. That is also what the doctor > advised, she said that his health seems stable at the moment, not > worsening. I thought of you. > Let us know how you are, > Nina. I hope Lodewijk gets better. Don't ever do chemo! It is terrible poisoning of the body. People die from it faster than from "cancer" itself. The only reason chemo "works" is that it kills person quicker than cancer "does". Some say that cancer itself doesn't kill, there is no reason why it should. It doesn't stop the heart, it doesn't block or obstruct any vital things - it is just some tissue growth, that is all. ----------------------------------------------------- I would say that cancer is a bit more than "just some tissue growth." ----------------------------------------------------------------- I would never recommend chemo to anyone. Some of modern medicine's treatments are still barbaric: "cut, burn, and poison". That is only slightly more civilized and technologically than using the axe to cut the hurt leg, as it was done in Medieval Europe. With metta, Alex =================================== First, Han, I'm very sorry you are not well! Secondly, Alex, you are of course correct about chemo being poison, but I do believe that it is wise to go through it in many cases. As far as an older person is concerned, however, cancer is slower in progression than in a young person, and thus an argument against chemotherapy does hold some weight, I think, and, of course, quality of life is not unimportant. Nina & Lodewijk, soliciting several medical opinions would, IMO, be the most sensible approach. Lodewijk, my most heartfelt, good wishes to you! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) . #109342 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi, Vince - In a message dated 8/19/2010 8:17:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cerovzt@... writes: Dear Howard, you wrote: > Is this rite and ritual that the Buddha taught, or is it meditation > practice? this is another Sutta on this issue; Buddha convert a ritual of paying respects to the six direction into a meaningful practice: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html ----------------------------------------------------- This is good. Redirecting meaningless and useless actions (i.e., mindless rite & ritual) to meaningful and useful ones! ---------------------------------------------------- best, ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109343 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:16 am Subject: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 8/19/2010 5:45:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for finding this sutta. It is the same one that Fabian mentioned in > a recent discussion - and also a DSG perennial, of course. > > I think you are likening it to what I was describing to Robert E as a > ritual practice. In that instance, Robert and I were talking about two specific > cases. There was the unlikely one of a person playing a piano in the > belief it would bring about the end of samsara. Ken, the piano example was an analogy, obviously. I don't go fly-fishing to cook my vegetables either. Playing piano to reach enlightenment is not the same thing as meditating to practice meditation. It is analogous to playing the piano to practice the piano. And there was one of someone > concentrating on concepts, and seeing them as impermanent, in the belief it > would lead to concentrating on conditioned dhammas and seeing them as anicca. I don't know what this was referring to, but if it is in reference to reading commentaries to reach enlightenment, that is as unlikely, in and of itself, as getting a nutritious meal by reading a recipe. To be of value, the readings have to be applied in practice. Just understanding them on paper is limited. . . . > --------------------------------------------------- > > He simply did what he was told, and he did it in the normal, kusala way > that came naturally to him. He was, after all, a great man with the > accumulated wisdom to become an arahant in the present lifetime. A very rare > individual! And so it was not surprising that the accumulated panna manifested at > that time. It just needed one more condition, as foreseen by the Buddha. > -------------------------------------------------- > Ken, among the things that people cling to are views. We all do have > views, but we should not cling to them. It is always possible that our views > are incorrect, and we should be genuinely open to that possibility. > --------------------------------------------- Howard, I am getting the feeling that Ken does not think I have the potential to become an arahant in this lifetime. I feel a little hurt. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109344 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:39 am Subject: Re: what is meditation? epsteinrob Hi Robert. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: Robert E. wrote: > >Meditation is real "bhavana," practical bhavana that one can actually do, not just dream about while reading commentaries and waiting for the right conditions to tap you on the head. It is the practice that over >time will *create* true bhavana.. > > Dear Robert and fabian > > I may be wrong but you seem to be suggesting that during 'meditation' there is more chance for kusala citta to arise than during normal life (provided we leave aside mentally ill people) or when studying buddhist texts or contemplating what one has heard. > > Am I reading you both correctly? If so I would like to discuss this more. Or if I am reading wrongly that is fine too but could you verify that. > robert Let me try to be as clear as I can, without saying things that I really don't know or think. It bothers me that we seem to have this sense that one can never know whether an experience is kusala or not, that we are likely to be so misled by wrong view without knowing it that we are groveling in akusala like a pig in mud and think we are experiencing nibbana because the ignorance is so deep. While I don't think we are always on top of what is wholesome or not, I do think that if one pays attention it is discernible. One always feels some discomfort, stress, or uncenteredness in an akusala state or situation, and there are moments when one feels truly released and clear. There are moments when one can see what normally can't be seen, and then things become cloudy again. I don't think we are totally oblivious to these kinds of changes. I also think that, even though we exist in the terms of conventional reality in many cases, that conventional reality reflects in a grosser form the passage of the actual moments of reality. They are not two different things, but one is an imperfect way of experiencing the other. So in my opinion, if we do real things to create conditions that are conducive to relaxation, observation, lack of distraction and contemplative investigation, we are going to create conditions, conventional though they may be at first, to experience more of these things. To think that the correct conditions for kusala discernment and understanding can only come from a mystical process of some kind totally removed from our lives, I just think is wrong. What we do or don't do matters. We may be more or less skillful at observing realities in everyday life, but setting up improved conditions for relaxation and observation will lead the mind towards sati and samatha. It is not a totally mysterious process that has nothing to do with our actions. Our sitting down and taking a breath in quiet conditions is not going to suddenly promote a special outgrowth of akusala self-view. I think that is total nonsense, and it is wrong and hurtful for people to keep making that claim out of ignorance and often a lack of personal knowledge, just repeating what they have heard with no real evidence for whether it is right. Of course one may have self-concept or other images and beliefs get in the way of direct discernment, and this may vary from moment to moment, but that doesn't mean that our doing x or y is meaningless, or has to be akusala or foster self-concept instead of having a positive impact. I am not monolithic in this thinking. I don't think there is only one way to develop. I can imagine someone studying the descriptions of nama and rupa and comparing them to what arises in everyday life and having that be their fruitful path to awakening. I can imagine someone doing both Abhidhamma study and meditation. There are many people around the world who do both, study sutta or Abhidhamma and apply it in meditation. I do think it depends on the individual. What bothers me is seeing valid dispositions of sincere practitioners ruled akusala, useless and fruitless out of hand because of the long-standing prejudice against them in this selective philosophy, refusal to heed the Buddha's words on practice, though he says practice, practice, practice, over and over, and selective translations of bhavana and other terms to somehow box out the obvious disposition of the Buddha toward practice and meditation. It is a twisting of the Buddha's own repeated words, and that really seems to be wrong view insisting it is right view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109345 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:16 am Subject: Re: Difference between conventional and unconventional actions ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Thanks for the extra info. > S: yes, and I think that if you check, by "the body becoming wieldy", it is the cetasikas referred to - cittas and cetasikas, not physical body. That wasn't the Buddha's concern. > > In other words, kaya-kammannata is the the wieldy state of the (mental) body, while and citta-kammannata is the wieldy state of consciousness. > > pt: Though > > it's another matter how does one become energetic in the first place... > ... > S: Again, Right View is the Forerunner....:) pt: I thought as much :) Best wishes pt #109346 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:35 am Subject: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------- <. . .> KH: > > I would strongly suggest that Culapanthaka did not rub the piece of cloth with expectations of enlightenment, nor did he do it in the belief that cloth-rubbing was the way to enlightenment. > > H: > I'm not surprised that you would think this, but I don't see any evidence for it. Quite the contrary, in fact. --------- Neither of us is surprised. As always, we are interpreting the sutta in accordance with our respective understandings of the Dhamma as a whole. You understand the Dhamma to be a set of instructions for attaining enlightenment. I understand it to be a description of the way things are. Therefore, in your opinion Culapanthaka was looking to a future time when he would be enlightened. Accordingly, he would have had the impression of following instructions. In my opinion Culapanthaka was understanding the realities of the present moment. He was verifying what he had been taught. He had no aspirations for any hypothetical, future time. ------------------ H: > Ken, among the things that people cling to are views. We all do have views, but we should not cling to them. It is always possible that our views are incorrect, ------------------ Clinging is always wrong, regardless of the object, and so I agree we should not cling to views. :-) As to whether it is "always possible" our views are incorrect, I cannot agree. What about when our views are the ones taught by the Buddha? ---------- H: > and we should be genuinely open to that possibility. ---------- I think I know what you mean. (Although I can never be sure!) :-) But what do you think about being genuinely open to the possibility that Right View is, in fact, wrong? According to my understanding, that would inevitably be akusala. Not only would it be akusala, it would also be wrong view. And (all other things being equal) wrong view is worst kind of akusala. Ken H #109347 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:38 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi Jon and KenH, > J: Firstly, pt, many thanks for posting this series of quotes from Vism and its commentary. A very interesting subject to consider. pt: Thanks for reminding me to continue with the series, there's still more than half to go through. > J: For what it's worth my understanding is as follows: > - A cetasika experiences the same object as the citta it accompanies; thus the object of panna is the dhamma that is the object of the citta > - What panna knows is the characteristic of the dhamma presently being experienced. pt: Hm, you mean panna knows the characteristic of the dhamma (that has just fallen away) by way of navattabba, right? > J: As to whether a dhamma can be regarded as being anything more than it's characteristics, I'm not sure how or why this particular question arises. Do you see it has having any practical significance? pt: Perhaps KenH can clarify there - I think he mentioned that dhamma is not exactly the same as its characteristics, and he based that opinion on something you've said some time ago, hence I was curious to know what your opinion exactly was. I presume that KenH's opinion would probably have to do with the navattabba business - i.e. characteristics of a dhamma being experienced by way of navattabba, even though the dhamma has, strictly speaking, fallen away. Hence an argument can be made that there's something more to a dhamma at the time of its arising, aging and falling, compared to the its characteristics only which are evident to panna by way of navattabba after that dhamma has already fallen away. But yes, I think for practical purposes, panna knows the characteristics, not something more extra, so in my book "dhamma" is the same as the experience of the characteristic(s). Best wishes pt #109348 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:26 am Subject: Re: what is meditation? chandrafabian ROBERT: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: <......> Dear Robert and fabian I may be wrong but you seem to be suggesting that during 'meditation' there is more chance for kusala citta to arise than during normal life (provided we leave aside mentally ill people) or when studying buddhist texts or contemplating what one has heard. Am I reading you both correctly? If so I would like to discuss this more. Or if I am reading wrongly that is fine too but could you verify that. robert FABIAN: Dear Robert, During Vipassana meditation we create condition for kusala citta and Mahakusala citta to arise by practicing noble eightfold path. We are refraining from doing things against Noble Eightfold Path. Even for many mentally health person, under qualified teachers, sometimes they don't really understand how to practice Noble Eightfold Path correctly, what would the result for mentally ill person? But for mentally health person who meditate with patience, courage, faith, obedience etc, under qualified teachers for longer period (considering we are neyya puggala), most likely they would succeed. Mettacittena, fabian #109349 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:37 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Jon and pt, I had planned to respond to Jon's message, but forgot. Better do so now before I forget again . . . Jon wrote: ------ > For what it's worth my understanding is as follows: - A cetasika experiences the same object as the citta it accompanies; thus the object of panna is the dhamma that is the object of the citta - What panna knows is the characteristic of the dhamma presently being experienced. ------ On previous occasions when we have discussed samatha, you and others have explained that the panna that arises with samatha is the type of panna that knows kusala from akusala. That sounds right to me, but the object of samatha is usually a concept, isn't it? And concepts are neither kusala nor akusala. I have my own ideas on how this can be so. I have discussed them with Howard on occasions (and also with pt if I remember correctly). But what is the official explanation? What, if anything, does samatha-panna know about the object of samatha? ----------------- <. . .> > J: As to whether a dhamma can be regarded as being anything more than it's characteristics, I'm not sure how or why this particular question arises. Do you see it has having any practical significance? pt: Perhaps KenH can clarify there - I think he mentioned that dhamma is not exactly the same as its characteristics, and he based that opinion on something you've said some time ago, hence I was curious to know what your opinion exactly was. ----------------- I might have muddied the waters by bringing that up. Years ago, when I was completely new to the Abhidhamma, Jon explained that characteristics were not, themselves, paramattha dhammas. They were things that paramattha dhammas had. He was simply saying that anatta (for example) was not a paramattha dhamma, it was one of the charactersitics of a paramattha dhamma. So it was probably not particularly relevant to the present conversation. ------------------------- Pt, I presume that KenH's opinion would probably have to do with the navattabba business ------------------------- No, pt, my opinion was based on my own uncertain understanding of the term "characteristic". Does it cover everything that a dhamma is? Is it an all-embracing term, or can a dhamma have characteristics *and* other features as well? We know that a dhamma performs its own specific functions, and has its own manifestations etc. Is all of that sort of thing - everything that makes one dhamma different from another - explained by its characteristics? (I have asked these questions before and received in-depth explanations. But now I have completely forgotten. Sorry!) Ken H #109350 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Susima sutta, dry insight? sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, You asked some good Qus: --- On Mon, 16/8/10, epsteinrob wrote: R:> If one becomes disenchanted with the chain of khandas, all the way up to consciousness, what then is the relationship to consciousness? .... S: I don't consider the khandhas as a "chain" or understand what you mean by "all the way up to consciousness". The khandhas refer to every nama and rupa which arises and falls away - all unsatisfactory thereby and not worth clinging to. The four nama khandhas (sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana) arise and fall away together. The other khandha is of course rupa khandha. Rupas also arise and fall away according to conditions as well. Vinnana khandha is not nibbana and doesn not include nibbana. Please let me know if I've missed your point. .... >Once nibbana is perceived, does consciousness then continue to experience nibbana and the 'higher cittas' more and more frequently? .... S: Nibbana is perceived by the lokuttara cittas (or vinnana). These cittas, like all other cittas, arise and fall away instantly. After the magga and phala cittas have experienced nibbana, mundane cittas continue to arise and fall away again - seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. "Higher cittas", adhi cittas arise with satipatthana. However, nibbana will only be experienced again, by phala samapatti cittas, if jhana was the basis for enlightenment. .... > What is the state of a Buddha or arahat in this regard? ... S: We often read about the Buddha dwelling in the fruits of seclusion, or some similar wording. This refers to the phala samapatti cittas which experience nibbana again and again. In the case of other arahats, it'll depend on their accumulations and in particular, how arahatship was attained. Anagamis and arahats may also experience nirodha samapatti, the temporary cessation of cittas. ... >What is the definition of "fully released," and is it a permanent condition, ie, beyond the changing conditions of samsara/The All? ... S: It refers to the attainment of arahatship - fully released from defilements and thereby, the continuation of samsara, the cycle of birth and death at the end of that last life. Yes, "fully released" means there will never again be the conditions for birth or further experience of dukkha. .... >And...finally, in my chain of questions that are far more advanced than I am, what is the nature of parinibbana. Do you consider it to be the complete cessation of any and all experience, including the experience of nibbana? ... S: As a result of being "fully released', at the end of the life of the arahat, there is a final extinguishing of the khandhas, no more conditions for patisandhi citta (birth consciousness). This is parinibbana. It is the complete cessation of all experience, which means there can no longer be any experiencing of nibbana either. You can read a good summary here, including the distinction between kilesa-parinibbaana and khandha-parinibbaana: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nibbaana.htm Please let me know if any of this isn't clear. Metta Sarah ======== #109351 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] siila. Was: intentional actions. nilovg Dear Kevin, Op 20-aug-2010, om 1:41 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > Khun Sujin in Survey of Paramattha Dhamas: > > "Even before we are a > streamwinner, we should not transgress the precepts. ------ N: The quote is from 'The Perfections', not Survey. I guess you have the Perfections? If you want we can send you my book on the Conditions. Yesterday I was looking into the looking glass and thought of your reminder: we often think that 'I' a looking pale etc. Good reminder. Nina. #109352 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:50 am Subject: Health nilovg Dear Alex, Sukin, Howard, Thank you for your good wishes. At the moment Lodewijk does a lot of kusala, going to the post office and sending out copies of my book on the Conditions. I told him that kusala citta moves the hand writing all those addresses. Kusala helps one's health, although we do not perform kusala in order to get something. Nina. #109353 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" nilovg Dear Vince and Kevin, Op 20-aug-2010, om 1:44 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > Although looking > dictionaries, in the case of sobhana probably it is would be well > translated by "beautiful". It is what shows the PTS and also the Pali > Glossary in the Zolag website I suppose from Nina. Maybe she can > confirm that. ------- N: More important than translations is understanding the meaning of sobhana. We cannot deny that it represents good qualities. if you like you can translate it by pure. The sobhana cetasikas assist the kusala citta to perform its function in the wholesome way. Sobhana covers a wider range than kusala because sobhana cetasikas can also accompany vipaakacittas and kiriyacittas, the kiriyacittas of the arahat. The arahat does not perform kusala anymore, there cannot be new vipaaka for him again. Nina. #109354 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IV,78. Attention Scott. nilovg Dear Han Op 20-aug-2010, om 1:08 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As the dull pain is persisting, making the life miserable, I will, > this time, agree if the Surgeon wants to operate on me. > I will keep you posted. > > with best wishes and respect to you and Lodewijk, ----- N: Thank you, Han. We are with you in our thoughts, Nina. #109355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. nilovg Dear Kevin, Op 20-aug-2010, om 1:22 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > The citta knows an object so briefly when satipatthana occurrs. ----- N: Good you stress the brevity of the moment. Sati if it arises, also is very brief. In 'what I heard' I shall transcribe now a Thai recording about this subject which is good for a beginner like me. Nina. #109356 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:16 am Subject: Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Thanks for taking the time to do the quiz. > > pt: if I attempt to develop samatha, but in the process end up just engaging in akusala, then - is that as bad as washing the dishes while disliking it? > > S: Worse, because there's unlikely to be any wrong view involved in the second example. > > pt: Or how about the difference between: (a) engaging in akusala while trying to develop samatha believing that it's the path that leads to awakening, > > S: Seriously misguided... > > pt: and (b) compared to simply trying to develop samatha as a sort of a hobby (so not believing it's the path to awakening)? > > S: More subtle, but still mis-guided... > > Better to stick to washing the dishes imo! pt: All right, full points so far. And now for the million dollar question :) Suppose I'm developing samatha (as in assuming Sukin's favorite posture, physical seclusion, and the rest of the formal stuff), and I'm doing it as in the last (b) case - as a a sort of a hobby. But unlike before, suppose in this case there might be a little bit of panna recognising kusala moments (of the samatha kind) arising from time to time, interspersed with plenty of akusala like in any other mundane activity (lobha, dosa, self-view, etc), but importantly, there's no wrong view that it is a practice leading to awakening. Now, how is this sort of activity any different to some other mundana activity like washing the dishes, or practicing piano? To me it seems in all three cases the chances for a/kusala are roughly the same. Best wishes pt #109357 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:37 am Subject: Re: q. sarahprocter... Dear Fabian, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > SARAH: What do they or you mean by "practicing meditation"? Are they referring to bhavana or mental development? Doesn't bhavana always refer to the present moment? > > FABIAN: Dear Sarah, that's true I mean Bhavana. Yes Bhavana should always at the present moment. .... S: And can we say that bhavana must refer to kusala cittas (with pa~n~naa) at the present moment? ..... > SARAH: Can there be "practicing meditation" now? Is there singleness of mind now? > > FABIAN: Theoretically yes, but in practical depends on how far we have developed our concentration and awareness. > > If we have never practice mental development before and then try to live at the present moment at work, at home etc, it is almost impossible, especially if we are busy working person, or our job require us to make a lot of social gathering. .... S: Can we say that there is only ever the present moment, whether we be at work, home or at a social gathering, so there can only ever be bavana now. By hearing, considering and reflecting more on seeing, visible object, likes and dislikes now, bhavana can arise, sati can be aware now. ..... > ------------------- > > <....> > SARAH: Perhaps we can say one present moment object at a time. Rather than talk about "body activity", perhaps it's more useful to talk about namas and rupas, don't you think? > > FABIAN: Even though I understand what you mean, the notion nama-rupa is too theoretical for me, that's why I prefer to say mind and body activity. > --------------- S: If we are precise, what is "mind and body activity" if not various cittas, cetasikas and rupas, commonly taken for "my mind and body activity"? .... > > <......> > FABIAN: Thinking of any kind is still thinking, and thinking is not meditating > > SARAH: Good point! ... > FABIAN: Thank you Sarah. The problem in daily routine is we have to think, .... S: I don't see this as any problem at all. Even the Buddha thought in between the sense door processes.... ... > therefore it is very hard if not to say almost impossible, to develop Bhavana during our worldly daily activities at home or at work under special circumstances. .... S: I don't think this is true. During any activities whatsoever, there are conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. Right understanding can know any dhamma at all which appears without having to perform any special activities. This is why the Buddha taught us to develop satipatthana whilst getting dressed, walking, eating, going to the bathroom, anytime at all. Now, is there seeing, hearing or thinking? Life just exists in one moment, one citta. Can there be awareness now? Metta Sarah ========= #109358 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:03 am Subject: What I heard. About the beginner: no 2. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording. About the beginner: no 2. One may consider with sati seeing that experiences colour. Not being forgetful is good, but there are conditions to think about seeing, about ?the story? of seeing. Sati is not yet aware precisely of the characteristic of the reality that experiences, different from that what appears through the eyes. Listen, listen, listen, and understand, understand, time and again. This is sa?nkhaarakkhandha (N: including all sobhana cetasikas that accumulate) that conditions sati to be aware, not just on the level of thinking, but to go straight to the characteristic of the element that experiences, that sees what appears through the eyes. This needs time, it needs thousands of aeons of listening and of developing sati. When we hear and understand about the characteristic of sati there is a condition for satipa.t.thaana to clearly understand and be aware of the reality that is appearing. When satipa.t.thaana is developed the four noble Truths can be attained. One must truly know oneself with regard to the extent of one?s understanding. Sati may arise but it is not yet aware of the characteristics of realities. There may be awareness through the eyes, but there is still thinking about seeing, it is not yet known as an element that experiences, different from what appears through the eyes. Dhamma does not appear yet as dhamma, as not self, being or person. --------- Nina. #109359 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Little selves? ptaus1 Hi Howard, I'm having trouble understanding you: > Howard: The word 'real' is a very loaded one and is dangerous, like a snake > that may be wrongly grasped. What is dependent for it's very existence is not > a separate reality and is merely conventional, and when one adds to this > that it has no duration and changes while standing, we are not left with a > "reality". ... > Concepts are imagined, not existent. Thinking occurs, but concepts are > imagined things. pt: So, I guess you're saying that concepts do not really occur, while dhammas do, right? If dhammas do occur, then how are they conventional, since to me "conventional" indicates a concept (which doesn't really occur)? I mean, I take it dhammas are conditioned, and they do change while standing (aging sub-moment), but then, they do occur, don't they? I.e. their characteristics can be experienced by panna, right? Best wishes pt #109360 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:34 am Subject: Re: intentional actions. ptaus1 Hi Alex (and Sarah), My comments on some of the issues you raise: > > Sarah: Better to stick to washing the dishes imo! > > Alex: The ideas here seem to be something like this: > All meditation (kusala!) is bad as it is intentional action that just reinforces "the self view" (which is grossly incorrect and meditation teachers themselves teach not to have self views). pt: I don't think that's what Sarah was saying. Firstly, note that my example was concerned with only akusala arising during samatha. Secondly, even if we assume it's not all akusala, I think Sarah generally advises against intentional meditation because an average person today can't tell the difference between a/kusala that well. Meaning that it's very easy to fall into doing a wrong practice (as in with wrong view) even though one sincerely believes he's in fact doing the right practice and following exactly what the Buddha was saying. > Alex: And it seems there are two ways of seclusion from defilements of the mind toward external sense objects > > a) Suppression through access or higher concentration > b) Eradication through path&fruit of Anagami stage or higher. pt: And there's another very important category that's missing above - seclusion from akusala at the moment of any kusala citta. Which means that your category (a) is redundant really. I mean, why bother with jhana-type samatha practice to suppress akusala, if kusala citta (and hence seclusion from akusala) can happen at anytime, anywhere? A moment of kindness, being generous, discussing Dhamma, etc, providing it's really kusala, suppresses akusala at the time. > Alex: When you do, lets say metta or asubha meditation, you are developing skill at suppressing of anger or lust - it is highly kusala. pt: Yes, but that is the case only if we assume that one can actually engage in these practices in a kusala manner. So, it's not that these practices are under dispute for being kusala. What's under dispute is the ability of an average person today to engage in these practices in a kusala manner. > Alex: Metta & Asubha are directly relevant for Nibbana (one counteracts anger, another lust) while washing dishes does not. pt: But again, while one is washing the dishes, or doing any other mundane activity, there's always a possibility for a kusala citta to arise, like metta for example. Or even a moment satipatthana. So, the point is made that one doesn't need to engage in a specific practice like asubha to suppress akusala. Every time a kusala citta arises, there's no akusala arising. > Alex: If one cannot suppress a negative tendency for a short time and due to deliberate effort - what makes you think that it can be abandoned permanently and without effort? pt: Again, I think you're missing the point that a kusala citta can arise anytime, anywhere. It doesn't require a specific practice/effort for that to happen. And every time a kusala citta arises, there's no akusala arising. So there's seems to be no need for jhana, asubha or whatever other practice, if all you want is to suppress akusala. Best wishes pt #109361 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change sarahprocter... Hi Pt, --- On Fri, 20/8/10, ptaus1 wrote: >pt: All right, full points so far. ... S: Few would agree with your scoring, but I'm happy to see it! ... >And now for the million dollar question :) >Suppose I'm developing samatha (as in assuming Sukin's favorite posture, physical seclusion, and the rest of the formal stuff), .... S: Before we go on, this seems like a very big "suppose". What about samatha now? Is it really understood and developing now? If not, why would there be any chance of it developing anywhere else? .... >and I'm doing it as in the last (b) case - as a a sort of a hobby. .... S: Not samatha... .... >But unlike before, suppose in this case there might be a little bit of panna recognising kusala moments (of the samatha kind) arising from time to time, interspersed with plenty of akusala like in any other mundane activity (lobha, dosa, self-view, etc), but importantly, there's no wrong view that it is a practice leading to awakening. .... S: So what is the purpose of the practice? Isn't it a trying to have more kusala, more calm? Isn't there an idea that by setting up these conditions there will be more kusala, more calm that doesn't arise in the busy, household life? .... >Now, how is this sort of activity any different to some other mundana activity like washing the dishes, or practicing piano? To me it seems in all three cases the chances for a/kusala are roughly the same. .... S: The difference is in the view about the practice and understanding/misunderstanding of samatha bhavana. In the case of the dishes and piano practice, there's no wrong view involved - no idea that such practices will lead to more kusala and calm. However, by pursuing the "samatha hobby" in physical seclusion, there is an idea of setting up conditions and trying to have more samatha - all for "Me". If one likes to go to a quiet place and likes to focus on particular objects, that's fine - but let's call it our attachment-hobby, just like the piano, swimming, yoga or anything else. If we're talking about bhavana of any kind, it always has to come back to the understanding now. How's the score now? Metta Sarah ============ #109362 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:13 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH (and Jon), > KenH: No, pt, my opinion was based on my own uncertain understanding of the term "characteristic". Does it cover everything that a dhamma is? Is it an all-embracing term, or can a dhamma have characteristics *and* other features as well? pt: As far as I understand, there are individual and general characteristics to a dhamma, that's it. > KenH: We know that a dhamma performs its own specific functions, and has its own manifestations etc. Is all of that sort of thing - everything that makes one dhamma different from another - explained by its characteristics? pt: I think that would be the individual characteristics - specific to a certain dhamma. General characteristics are common to all conditioned dhammas - anicca, dukkha and anatta. Best wishes pt #109363 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change ptaus1 Hi Sarah, ... > If we're talking about bhavana of any kind, it always has to come back to the understanding now. > > How's the score now? Hey! Wait a minute! That was an illegal move! Game suspended until further notice :)) Seriously, I have to consider your response for a bit. Hope Bangkok is going well. Best wishes pt #109364 From: han tun Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:31 am Subject: Gall bladder surgery hantun1 Dear Nina, Sarah, Chew, Andrew, Sukin, Howard, and all my friends, I was declared fit for operation by the Cardiologist on Friday morning. The Surgeon and I agreed to do Open Cholecystectomy (i.e. not Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy) on Saturday. Once so decided, there were various tests and investigations all throughout the day, until late in the evening. When I arrived home I was already dead tired. I will have to leave my house for the hospital early tomorrow morning at 6:30 a.m. I will take rest now. I will be taking with me all your metta, karuna, and good wishes into the operation theatre. So, I am not worried. I will be brave. I will contact you as soon as I get back to my house, after my discharge from the hospital, i.e. about seven days from now. with metta and respect, Han #109365 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Gall bladder surgery sarahprocter... Dear Han, We'll be thinking of you and looking forward to hearing from you when you return home. May we all learn from your brave and accepting attitude. One moment at a time.... Very best wishes to you and your family Metta Sarah (& Jon) --- On Fri, 20/8/10, han tun wrote: >I will contact you as soon as I get back to my house, after my discharge from the hospital, i.e. about seven days from now. #109366 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:55 am Subject: Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Ken) - In a message dated 8/20/2010 12:20:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Howard, I am getting the feeling that Ken does not think I have the potential to become an arahant in this lifetime. I feel a little hurt. =============================== ;-)) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109367 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:59 pm Subject: Re: q. chandrafabian Dear Sarah and all, Dear Fabian, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" <.....> S: And can we say that bhavana must refer to kusala cittas (with pa~n~naa) at the present moment? FABIAN: Dear Sarah, theoretically your argument is correct, but in order to maintain kusala cittas with panna at the present moment, you need effort, usually for beginner who is not used to meditate, they can maintain present moment only first few minutes at the beginning, and then the mind start wandering around. Wandering mind is never at the present moment. To keep the mind always at the present moment is what we need to achieve in meditation. You may try for yourself, sit and meditate for half an hour, how long your mind can be at the present moment uniterruptly? A meditator who has reached Jhana or magga-phala Nana can maintain their "present moment-ness" for hours even days continuously and uninterruptly. ---------------------- <.....> S: Can we say that there is only ever the present moment, whether we be at work, home or at a social gathering, so there can only ever be bavana now. By hearing, considering and reflecting more on seeing, visible object, likes and dislikes now, bhavana can arise, sati can be aware now. FABIAN: Again I should say theoretically the possibility is extremely slim. how can you speak, think and moving your limbs at the same time with singleness of mind...? ------------------------- <....> S: If we are precise, what is "mind and body activity" if not various cittas, cetasikas and rupas, commonly taken for "my mind and body activity"? FABIAN: Thinking, feeling, planning, memorizing, anger, jealousy, greed etc, is what I mean mind (nama) activity, these mind activity we should be aware of their arising. ------------------ <......> S: I don't see this as any problem at all. Even the Buddha thought in between the sense door processes.... FABIAN: That is true, but soon after thinking (kiriya citta) over, His mind (Buddha) stop thinking. Puthujana on the other hand keeps on thinking, almost never stop. -------------------- <....> S: I don't think this is true. During any activities whatsoever, there are conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. Right understanding can know any dhamma at all which appears without having to perform any special activities. This is why the Buddha taught us to develop satipatthana whilst getting dressed, walking, eating, going to the bathroom, anytime at all. Now, is there seeing, hearing or thinking? Life just exists in one moment, one citta. Can there be awareness now? Metta Sarah FABIAN: Dear Sarah, That is true again "Right understanding can know any dhamma at all which appears without having to perform any special activities". Why don't you try and see how long you can do activities with the mind always at the present moment, uninterruptly without thinking mind arises? Can you do that let's say for five minutes? Again with singleness of mind? In theory you learn life exists in one moment, one citta. Can you see when your citta start arising? If you can not, how do you know the theory you have learned was correct..? Could it be just a conceptual false...? Smart or scam philosopher just made it up...? Mettacittena, fabian #109368 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:10 am Subject: Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] What is not Rite and Ritual/Ken Especially upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/20/2010 1:36:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I think I know what you mean. (Although I can never be sure!) :-) But what do you think about being genuinely open to the possibility that Right View is, in fact, wrong? ================================ Of course, tautologically, right view is right, and not wrong. What we cannot be certain of is our correct knowing of which is which, and not being omniscient demands, I believe, that we be open to the possibility of our being mistaken in our interpretations and understandings. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109369 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Little selves? upasaka_howard Hi, pt - In a message dated 8/20/2010 5:16:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Howard, I'm having trouble understanding you: > Howard: The word 'real' is a very loaded one and is dangerous, like a snake > that may be wrongly grasped. What is dependent for it's very existence is not > a separate reality and is merely conventional, and when one adds to this > that it has no duration and changes while standing, we are not left with a > "reality". ... > Concepts are imagined, not existent. Thinking occurs, but concepts are > imagined things. ---------------------------------------------- These two statements of mine are separate assertions, though related of course. --------------------------------------------- pt: So, I guess you're saying that concepts do not really occur, while dhammas do, right? ------------------------------------------------ From my perspective, everything but nibbana is a matter of convention. As I see it, there are actually no separate "realities," but just a single reality. The paramattha dhammas are far simpler than the gross "objects of the world," and, for that reason, are closer to being justifiably referred to as "realities." But even they are matters of convention. What changes while standing and whose very existence is contingent is not a separate "reality." ------------------------------------------------- If dhammas do occur, then how are they conventional, since to me "conventional" indicates a concept (which doesn't really occur)? ------------------------------------------------------------ Dhammas are thought of as discrete entities with own being and separate existence, and yet consisting of parts and changing. This is something conceived of but not observed without thought. That makes them matters of convention. We imagine them as discrete entities with exact starting and ending points, but no aspect of reality is graspable in such a fashion. This is merely a useful mode of thinking, especially for "navigating" at the more gross, worldly level. But even at the "paramattha-dhamma level," neither sights nor sounds nor tastes nor odors etc are actually graspable as separate entities, but are merely conceived of in such a fashion. For example, the aspect of the flow of experience that we call "a physical pain," as if it were an isolable thing, has no precise starting and ending points, and it changes, going through crescendo, peaking, and decrescendo stages, and varying in (vedanic) feel. It is thus merely a matter of convention to consider it a separate "thing". ------------------------------------------------------------ I mean, I take it dhammas are conditioned, and they do change while standing (aging sub-moment), but then, they do occur, don't they? I.e. their characteristics can be experienced by panna, right? Best wishes pt =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109370 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:29 pm Subject: What I heard. About the beginner: no 3. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording, About the beginner: no 3. In the case of someone who develops satipa.t.thaana correctly, there are conditions for the arising of sati to be aware of reality through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense and the mind- door. No matter when satipa.t.thaana arises, it can be aware and consider the characteristic of the element that experiences or of the ruupa element that appears through whatever doorway at that moment. That person knows the characteristic of satipa.t.thaana and the characteristics of all dhammas so that it is understood that everything is dhamma. This is according to the Buddha?s words: sabbe dhammaa anattaa, all dhammas are non-self. Apart from dhamma there is nothing that is real. No matter through which doorway the characteristic of dhamma appears, it is truly dhamma, not a being, person or self. All dhammas should be understood as anattaa. If that is not so, there may sometimes be dhamma, sometimes not. When sati is aware but something is not realised as dhamma, at that moment pa~n~naa is not developed that knows that only dhamma is appearing. When there is seeing through the eyes, hearing through the ears, when there is happy or unhappy feeling, lobha, dosa, avarice, all these dhammas are anattaa. One must listen again, develop understanding again, so that one knows what the practice is in order to really understand that all dhammas are anattaa, just as all disciples and the Enlightened One realised the truth. When listening, one should listen to saddhamma, true dhamma. If that is not so, there will be wrong view and wrong practice. The ?Attha saalinii? mentions that one of the causes of wrong view is the desire not to see ariyans and not listening to true dhamma, saddhamma. One does not listen to a person, but to Dhamma. ****** Nina. #109371 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound. was: Jhana moment is just mentality nilovg Dear Vince, Op 17-aug-2010, om 1:40 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > Just one doubt: all these realities are not substantial, > therefore in depth we are not dealing with realities but with > characteristics. It means we are under a delusion of a plurality > of substantial things in where we endow them with their own individual > nama and rupa for each one. ------- N: We do not endow realities with something, we do not do anything. They show their own characteristics, each one different, when they appear. ------- > > V:However, rupa is rupa and seeing is seeing; there is not "your" > seeing and "my" seeing, not "this" rupa and "that" rupa... Etc. > > Both views are not contradictory? ------- N: The above is correct. No contradiction. ------- > > V: I think the understanding of what happens in such and such > phenomena > drive to a progressive detachment. However, I'm thinking here in the > existence of a bypass to overcome defilements. > > And this involve and old question I made you some time ago: > > How do you understand the cultivation of the understanding of all > things of the whole reality as nama and rupa but at one time for all?. > > I mean, taking the complete picture of the here and now as the object > of contemplation instead to be focused in the characteristics of such > and such object. ------- N: There is no bypass. No person who can do anything. Realities just appear one at a time, but when we are still deluded there seem to be wholes of person or thing. By listening understanding can grow and this is a condition for right awareness and right understanding of one reality at a time. That is the only way leading to detachment. ------- Nina. #109372 From: Ken O Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body ashkenn2k Dear Jon >J: I'm not sure what you mean by "dhammas that arise with concepts or >conventional activities". If vipassana is all about the understanding of >dhammas, then we don't need to canvas the various kinds of concepts and >conventional activities. > >You suggest that certain activities such as reciting the parts of the body will >help in developing an understanding of dhammas, and you base this view on the >Vism. > > >I do not read the Vism as laying down a practice of recitation in order to >assist the development of insight. I read it as describing an activity on the >part of monks who are developing samatha to high degree (that is to say, samatha > >as well as insight). > KO: Dhammas arise with any objects. there is a need for concepts and conventional activities, without them, one cannot understand dhamma. Are you telling me those monks in the Buddha can listen the words of dhamma without listening and understanding the words :-) which are concepts and conventionals activities. I just find amusing that you cannot get over that it is not the concept that matters, it is the dhamma that arise with the concepts that matters. things and methods that are said in the vism are meant for people who wish to develop insight. I dont have an issue with this, I think you cannot even disclaim in any commentaries or any suttas that reciting is wrong or not a method :-). your claim it is an activity not a method is base on your preferences and thinking. The suttas, Abhidhamma texts and commentaries are very clear they are methods and practise. Meditation is a practise and not a activity. Wake up in the morning, pay respects are part of a ritual. any wrong in this :-) Do all ritual are wrong or only those that arise with aksuala. Ken O #109373 From: Ken O Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O ashkenn2k Dear Sukin > >It looks like we keep repeating and going in circles and this may be due >to a problem in communication. I therefore decided to start this thread. > >In the following, please tell me what you agree with and what you don't. > >1a- When there is seeing which experiences visible object now, this is >conditioned already. > >1b- Being conditioned already, this is its nature and nothing can be >done to alter this. > >1c- This is what it means to be 'beyond control'. > KO: hmm you forget something, the five sense cittas are just vipakas. I am more interested in the javanas :-0. there are the one that develops cheers ken O #109374 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] health truth_aerator Dear Nina, Howard, all, > ----------------------------------------------------- >H: I would say that cancer is a bit more than "just some tissue >growth." > ----------------------------------------------------------------- The chemo is worse than "cancer" itself. Conventional medicine likes to create such issues to sell more poison. "An investigation of the records of 1.2 million cancer patients revealed that the death rate attributed to non-cancer death shortly after treatment was 200% higher than would normally be expected. Two years after diagnosis and treatment, this excess death rate had fallen to 50%. The most common cause for the excess death rate was listed as heart and respiratory failure. This means that, instead of dying several years later from cancer, these patients died from the effects of the treatment and helped greatly improve the cancer statistics because they did not strictly die of cancer.13 This misleading reporting of cancer deaths has led to demands for more honest statistics.14 ... Perhaps the situation is even worse than a case of just ineffective treatments. A group of respected researchers reviewed all the published statistical evidence on the outcome of medical treatments, and showed that the medical system is now the leading cause of death and injury in the USA. Deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 were 699,697, for cancer the figure was 553,251, while for medical interventions it was 783,936 per year! Appropriately, the tide of this study is "Death by Medicine".32 http://www.learninggnm.com/documents/last.html 13. Brown, B.W., Brauner, C, Minnotte, M.C., "Noncancer deaths in white adult cancer patients", J. Nat. Concerto. 85:979-987 (1993) 14. Welch, H.G., Black, W.C., "Are Deaths Within 1 Month of Cancer-Directed Surgery Attributed to Cancer?", J. Nat. Can. Inst. 94:1066-70 (2002) 32. Null, G., Dean, C. et al., "Death by Medicine", Nutrition Institute of America, November 2003, With metta, Alex #109375 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:21 pm Subject: Re: intentional actions. truth_aerator Hello Pt, Sarah, KenH, Sukinder, all >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and Sarah), > > My comments on some of the issues you raise: > > > > Sarah: Better to stick to washing the dishes imo! > > > > Alex: The ideas here seem to be something like this: > > All meditation (kusala!) is bad as it is intentional action that just reinforces "the self view" (which is grossly incorrect and meditation teachers themselves teach not to have self views). > > pt: I don't think that's what Sarah was saying. Firstly, note that >my example was concerned with only akusala arising during samatha. When would akusala arise more often and be more unwholesome, as one washes the dishes or does bhavana like Metta or Asubha or Anapanasati? >Secondly, even if we assume it's not all akusala, I think Sarah >generally advises against intentional meditation because an average >person today can't tell the difference between a/kusala that well. Same could be said about washing dishes. Akusala can arise just as much and it may be even worse than during refined meditations. But what is one accomplishing when washing dishes? Any useful paramis for Nibbana that one can't do just as well (or even better) when one does Bhavana (metta, asubha, anapanasati)? >Meaning that it's very easy to fall into doing a wrong practice (as >in with wrong view) even though one sincerely believes he's in fact >doing the right practice and following exactly what the Buddha was >saying. Right. One needs to be honest and discerning this. But if the argument is "don't try it because you can't be 100% perfect" then it is strawman. Nobody is perfect on the first try. That is why one doesn't become an Arahant the next moment after first coming into contact with the teaching. > 2 > > > Alex: And it seems there are two ways of seclusion from defilements of the mind toward external sense objects > > > > a) Suppression through access or higher concentration > > b) Eradication through path&fruit of Anagami stage or higher. > > pt: And there's another very important category that's missing >above - seclusion from akusala at the moment of any kusala citta. And when is kusala citta more likely to arise and be stronger? During lets say metta bhavana or washing dishes? >Which means that your category (a) is redundant really. I mean, why >bother with jhana-type samatha practice to suppress akusala, if >kusala citta (and hence seclusion from akusala) can happen at >anytime, anywhere? You are forgeting such variables as INTENSITY of kusala moment and DURATION. Metta pre access concentration and metta AFTER Jhana are of far greater intensity levels. If you are so holy that you don't need strong force to counteract kusala, GOOD FOR YOU! I am so happy. But some of us are not perfect to that degree. A second of kusala may be enough for some to counteract their weak akusala tendency. A long time in samatha may be needed for some people... >A moment of kindness, being generous, discussing Dhamma, etc, >providing it's really kusala, suppresses akusala at the time. To what strength and duration? > > > > Alex: When you do, lets say metta or asubha meditation, you are developing skill at > suppressing of anger or lust - it is highly kusala. > > pt: Yes, but that is the case only if we assume that one can >actually engage in these practices in a kusala manner. So. Washing dishes, watching TV, etc is right - but doing metta, asubha or anapanasati is wrong? >So, it's not that these practices are under dispute for being >kusala. What's under dispute is the ability of an average person >today to engage in these practices in a kusala manner. If one can't do anapanasati (universal subject of meditation) than what hope does one have about "Awakening moment while cooking" ? >Every time a kusala citta arises, there's no akusala arising. For what duration and intensity? Are one's defilements so weak that a little split second thought can make a lasting influence? I hope that you understand what I am trying to say about cittas. Not every citta is the same. Kusala can be stronger or weaker, longer or shorter. Not everyone has so little defilements and so much accumulation of kusala that a brief moment can do much. How can one expect to make progress rather than even regress if kusala arises 100 per 1 kusala moment? If one can't suppress 5 hindrances for more than perhaps a second, how can one expect to permanently eradicate them? Only perhaps if that Kusala moment is MUCH MUCH stronger than 100 kusala moments. Jhanic states would fit. With metta, Alex #109376 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] health nilovg Dear Alex, Thanks. Yes, we know. My brother who passed away is such a case. At the moment Lodewijk's health is reasonable. Nina. Op 20-aug-2010, om 18:01 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > The chemo is worse than "cancer" itself. #109377 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:36 pm Subject: Re: Gall bladder surgery kenhowardau Dear Han (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Han, > > We'll be thinking of you and looking forward to hearing from you when you return home. > > May we all learn from your brave and accepting attitude. > > One moment at a time.... > > Very best wishes to you and your family > > Metta > Yes, Han - as Sarah said, one moment at a time. It's not always easy, but to show our support for you we should all do the same thing and live one moment of citta and cetasika at a time (no self). Get well soon. Ken H #109378 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 3:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH jonoabb Hi RobEp (and Howard and KenH) Good to see you back again, Rob. Butting in if I may ;-)) (109251) > I think it's a mistake to merge terms to make them have similar meanings when they are not the same. "Meditation" is not a "ritual," and it is not a "rite," it is a practice. ... > > And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." It is a simple and benign practice that was taught and practiced by the Buddha every day of his life. It is mentioned and promoted in countless suttas, and is mentioned and accepted as the norm in the Abhidhamma. To think that you can only understand the conditional nature of dhammas by denying the Buddha's central meditation practice is a strange twist of the teachings. > > Here is a site for instance, that describes the stages of development as described in the Abhidhamma as they are realized in Abhidhamma-based Vipassana meditation: > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_vii.htm > > =============== J: We can perhaps agree that the development of the Path is nothing more than the development of understanding of dhammas as they truly are, including their characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anattaa. (This BTW seems to be the view of the author of the article you cite, who writes: "It is only on the basis of the knowledge of the ultimates [J: i.e. dhammas] that final vipassanā wisdom can be obtained. For example, meditation on the anicca, dukkha, anattā characteristics of conventional things (pa??atti) cannot produce magga Wisdom."). The question is how, according to the Buddha, this knowledge/understanding is to be developed. One view of the Buddha's teaching on that question might be this: Dhammas are observable by anyone who has a basic grasp of the teachings; the Buddha prescribed a set practice of 'observing dhammas' (or similar) designed to bring about the arising of understanding at the time of such practice. Another view might be this: Dhammas are not observable except by panna that accompanies a moment of awareness/insight; awareness/insight occurs when accumulated (i.e., previously developed) awareness/insight is conditioned to (re-)arise; the conditions for such (re-)arising include hearing and appropriately reflecting on the way things are as taught by the Buddha; any (re-)arising of awareness/insight will occur at a time and with an object not of one's choosing. On the question of rite and ritual, I think you'd agree that if the second view is correct, then what is seen as a set practice in the first will be ineffectual as regards the development of the path, since the object of attention will not be dhammas but will be the practitioner's concept of what dhammas are. The actions of the set practice will thus be ritualistic, in the sense of not having any connection with the purpose for which they are done (i.e., the development of insight). Jon #109379 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O sarahprocter... Dear Ken O (& Sukin), --- On Fri, 20/8/10, Ken O wrote: >1a- When there is seeing which experiences visible object now, this is >conditioned already. > >1b- Being conditioned already, this is its nature and nothing can be >done to alter this. > >1c- This is what it means to be 'beyond control'. > >KO:? hmm you forget something, the five?sense cittas?are just vipakas.? I am more interested in the javanas :-0.? there are the one that develops ... S: Too impatient as usual:-) So, is that a 'yes, I agree' or 'no, I disagree' with 1a, 1b, and 1c? Pls make this clear and then proceed with the next session of Sukin's quiz. Don't worry, you'll find plenty of javanas if you proceed patiently;-) For me, it was easy. I thought it was a great quiz and agreed with every point, so let's read which points you object to, let's 'pin down' your objections for a change and be specific - no more eel-wriggling like in your comment above and like you tried to do with my "anatta quiz" before:-)). Metta Sarah ======== #109380 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Susima sutta, dry insight? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > You asked some good Qus: > > --- On Mon, 16/8/10, epsteinrob wrote: > > R:> If one becomes disenchanted with the chain of khandas, all the way up to consciousness, what then is the relationship to consciousness? > .... > S: I don't consider the khandhas as a "chain" or understand what you mean by "all the way up to consciousness". The khandhas refer to every nama and rupa which arises and falls away - all unsatisfactory thereby and not worth clinging to. The four nama khandhas (sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana) arise and fall away together. The other khandha is of course rupa khandha. Rupas also arise and fall away according to conditions as well. Vinnana khandha is not nibbana and doesn not include nibbana. > > Please let me know if I've missed your point. I think you re-framed my point, which is useful to me. > .... > >Once nibbana is perceived, does consciousness then continue to experience nibbana and the 'higher cittas' more and more frequently? > .... > S: Nibbana is perceived by the lokuttara cittas (or vinnana). These cittas, like all other cittas, arise and fall away instantly. After the magga and phala cittas have experienced nibbana, mundane cittas continue to arise and fall away again - seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. > > "Higher cittas", adhi cittas arise with satipatthana. > > However, nibbana will only be experienced again, by phala samapatti cittas, if jhana was the basis for enlightenment. > .... > > What is the state of a Buddha or arahat in this regard? > ... > S: We often read about the Buddha dwelling in the fruits of seclusion, or some similar wording. This refers to the phala samapatti cittas which experience nibbana again and again. In the case of other arahats, it'll depend on their accumulations and in particular, how arahatship was attained. > > Anagamis and arahats may also experience nirodha samapatti, the temporary cessation of cittas. > ... > >What is the definition of "fully released," and is it a permanent condition, ie, beyond the changing conditions of samsara/The All? > ... > S: It refers to the attainment of arahatship - fully released from defilements and thereby, the continuation of samsara, the cycle of birth and death at the end of that last life. Yes, "fully released" means there will never again be the conditions for birth or further experience of dukkha. > .... > >And...finally, in my chain of questions that are far more advanced than I am, what is the nature of parinibbana. Do you consider it to be the complete cessation of any and all experience, including the experience of nibbana? > ... > S: As a result of being "fully released', at the end of the life of the arahat, there is a final extinguishing of the khandhas, no more conditions for patisandhi citta (birth consciousness). This is parinibbana. It is the complete cessation of all experience, which means there can no longer be any experiencing of nibbana either. > > You can read a good summary here, including the distinction between kilesa-parinibbaana and khandha-parinibbaana: > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nibbaana.htm > > Please let me know if any of this isn't clear. Although I don't understand all of the specifics that you have given me, I get the sense of most of it, and I find it very helpful. I will also look at the link that you have given me for the parinibbanas. Thanks very much for all the good info! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109381 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:20 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt, ------- > pt: As far as I understand, there are individual and general characteristics to a dhamma, that's it. ------- Thanks, I remember now we have had this conversation before and you have explained it at least once, maybe twice. It's very straightforward, I don't know why I have so much trouble remembering it. Ken H #109382 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:17 am Subject: Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobEp (and Howard and KenH) > > Good to see you back again, Rob. > > Butting in if I may ;-)) > > (109251) > > I think it's a mistake to merge terms to make them have similar meanings when they are not the same. "Meditation" is not a "ritual," and it is not a "rite," it is a practice. ... > > > > And meditation practiced for its purpose, which is to pay attention to what is arising in the moment and discern it as it is, as well as allowing the body and mind to calm down and reach a relative state of peace, is not a "strenuous vigil" or a "ritual." It is a simple and benign practice that was taught and practiced by the Buddha every day of his life. It is mentioned and promoted in countless suttas, and is mentioned and accepted as the norm in the Abhidhamma. To think that you can only understand the conditional nature of dhammas by denying the Buddha's central meditation practice is a strange twist of the teachings. > > > > Here is a site for instance, that describes the stages of development as described in the Abhidhamma as they are realized in Abhidhamma-based Vipassana meditation: > > > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_vii.htm > > > > =============== > > J: We can perhaps agree that the development of the Path is nothing more than the development of understanding of dhammas as they truly are, including their characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anattaa. I would say that's a most important component of the path's development, but I'm not sure I want to 100% sign on to "nothing more than." I think that there are many activities - reading dhamma, contemplation, meditative discernment, jhana for some, etc., that help develop the path. > (This BTW seems to be the view of the author of the article you cite, who writes: "It is only on the basis of the knowledge of the ultimates [J: i.e. dhammas] that final vipassanā wisdom can be obtained. For example, meditation on the anicca, dukkha, anattā characteristics of conventional things (pa??atti) cannot produce magga Wisdom."). Well I may not agree with everything that author may write, but I certainly agree that discerning the anatta, anicca and dukkha aspects of arising phenomena is a necessity for awakening. > > The question is how, according to the Buddha, this knowledge/understanding is to be developed. > > One view of the Buddha's teaching on that question might be this: Dhammas are observable by anyone who has a basic grasp of the teachings; the Buddha prescribed a set practice of 'observing dhammas' (or similar) designed to bring about the arising of understanding at the time of such practice. I don't know about "observable by anyone," but I would agree that the Buddha prescribed a set of practices that would gradually develop the capacities and conditions that will lead to understanding. He also, as you point out, prescribed attention and observation during everyday activities and throughout life. The two are not mutually exclusive. > Another view might be this: Dhammas are not observable except by panna that accompanies a moment of awareness/insight; awareness/insight occurs when accumulated (i.e., previously developed) awareness/insight is conditioned to (re-)arise; the conditions for such (re-)arising include hearing and appropriately reflecting on the way things are as taught by the Buddha; any (re-)arising of awareness/insight will occur at a time and with an object not of one's choosing. One doesn't necessarily choose the object or try to control the arising of insight. One can meditate and understand it is a part of the practice of creating conditions, and that one still doesn't control how and when panna arises or discerns the characteristics of the moment. The question is whether adopting such a practice develops only akusala self-view as you seem to think, or whether it is a process by which akusala is sorted out and kusala is gradually developed. I have never understood why reading, studying and contemplating dhamma seems immune form self-view, but bhavana as practice seems automatically fraught with self-view. The two views do not accord in my opinion. Either everything is subject to self-view and ruined before you start, or there is possibility of using all these occasions to develop insight. > On the question of rite and ritual, I think you'd agree that if the second view is correct, then what is seen as a set practice in the first will be ineffectual as regards the development of the path, Well I don't see it as black and white as you do. I don't think that it is one or the other. I think that insight can arise anytime, but it is more likely to accumulate thorugh activities that are Dhamma-related, such as studying sutta, contemplating dhammas, or creating a state that is conducive to clear observation in meditation. I don't see the contradiction as you may. > ...since the object of attention will not be dhammas but will be the practitioner's concept of what dhammas are. I don't agree with this and think this is one of the great presuppositions you have present here, without examining it. You assume that somehow the intention to meditate and inquire into the moment with mindful awareness is going to create concepts of dhammas in a way that sutta, Abhidhamma and talking to like-minded Dhamma friends will not. I don't see the distinction, and no one has ever adequately explained why you may feel that way. It simply doesn't add up. One is just as likely to have concepts as object reading an Abhidhamma commentary as one is when sitting and practicing mindfulness. They are both human activities with the intention to learn, focus, understand, and awaken. The faith one has is that through sincere effort such concepts will eventually be seen through, not that whatever akusala is there will breed more akusala eternally, and that the qualities of sati, vipassasna, and panna have no way to break through, even in such a sincere effort. It has always seemd to me, and still does, that there is a simple prejudice in favor of certain activities over others, even though Buddha supported them all. I will never understand this, as you cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why you make the distinction. In my view: because there isn't one. It's simply a doctrinal predisposition against something you have been taught to be suspicious of. Again, why would you be less likely to promote self-view, akusala intention or wrong concept of Dhamma when reading Adhidhamma as opposed to sitting and practicing mindfulness? It is not as though there is no intention in reading sutta or Abhidhamma. It doesn't happen by accident. One does it purposely to advance in understanding, same as meditation. When mahakusala bhavana comes, it comes. Simple. > The actions of the set practice will thus be ritualistic, in the sense of not having any connection with the purpose for which they are done (i.e., the development of insight). Well I disagree. I think you can do something that has a functional relationship to the path, and it will develop whether you have a few obstacles in the way or not. And I also think that the "set practice" of reading commentaries every day, or exchanging information on this list, can be equally ritualistic to sitting in meditation, in fact I am sure it often is. I ask again: what on earth is the difference? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109383 From: Vince Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound. was: Jhana moment is just mentality cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > N: We do not endow realities with something, we do not do anything. > They show their own characteristics, each one different, when they > appear. well.. but here you says "They show" but below you agree there is just nama, just rupa and just citta. >> V:However, rupa is rupa and seeing is seeing; there is not "your" >> seeing and "my" seeing, not "this" rupa and "that" rupa... Etc. >> Both views are not contradictory? > ------- > N: The above is correct. No contradiction. > ------- so if there is only rupa there is not rupa following another rupa. Therefore, How can be possible the arising and falling of succesive cittas? Because if we accept that there is just nama and just rupa, then also we should accept that there is just citta, not successive cittas arising and falling. > N: There is no bypass. No person who can do anything. Realities just > appear one at a time, but when we are still deluded there seem to be > wholes of person or thing. By listening understanding can grow and > this is a condition for right awareness and right understanding of > one reality at a time. That is the only way leading to detachment. Maybe I don't explain myself when I say "whole reality". Inside Suttas we read "What is the All? the seeing and the seer, the hearing and the hearer,...(etc)". However, the Time doesn't belongs to this description. Suttas describes a flux of dhammas existing devoid of time. Time is our experience of the relation between dhammas, and such experience arise because the ignorance of their true nature. We believe this plurality is substantial, and in this way endow individuality to the dhammas. In this plurality, we say: "this Citta falls... next citta arises.." despite there is just citta, not different cittas. Is this not contradictory? If there are just nama, rupa and citta, then the succession of dhammas is delusion. Also the Time would exist as a delusion, just a distorted representation of a natural flux of activity which exists by itself and devoid of time. This atemporal flux become a temporary succession of dhammas "to us" in dependence of the notion of a self. And there are other questions from here: Is not right to say the cittas speed would vanish when there is a Cease?. And if the cease is nibbana, Is not right to say that *any speed* would be a delusion of successive cittas because there is just citta?. So my question was about this whole reality: I mean about the possibility to contemplate and investigate dhammas but including the delusion of Time, knowing that we endow substance into paramattha-dhammas in order to conceive them. It can be similar when somebody say "the air comes here". This is not a lie but at same time this is a non-sense because the air is already here. So I point that we know "this citta falls" and "next citta arise" in a similar way; this is not a lie although we are forgetting there is just citta, just nama, just rupa. Maybe I explain myself better now?. What do you think about this point of view?. lot of thanks for your thoughts, (and hope Lodewijk will be better soon) Vince. #109384 From: "philip" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:05 am Subject: Re: Gall bladder surgery philofillet Dear Han Our thoughts are with you! More importantly than that I know the Dhamma is with you... Get well soon. Phil > I will contact you as soon as I get back to my house, after my discharge from the hospital, i.e. about seven days from now. > > with metta and respect, > Han > #109385 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana sukinderpal Hi Alex, ===== > > > S: In the case of washing the dishes I'd say just plain lobha is > > involved usually. Unless of course, one is a follower of Thich Nhat > > Hahn. ;-) > > And what is good in deliberately engaging in what is just plain lobha > and doesn't help Nibbana? > Suk: I said 'usually' and not 'always'. The point of the Dhamma is to understand whatever realities that appear and know that they do so already. It is not about trying to change the present reality or follow some projected good. A more conventional way of saying this, is that the Dhamma is for the purpose of coming to understand "who we are" and not "what we want to be". ==== > > > S: I'd say wrong view is never beneficial, in fact very harmful. > > Unless one examines its harmfulness and abandons wrong view. > Suk: In that case, no dhamma is not useful. So what is your point in particularly highlighting wrong view? ==== > > > > One can also meditate, lets say metta or asubha, with or without > wrong > > > views. Metta or Asubha in and of itself doesn't require wrong view > and > > > it (especially metta) was praised so much by the Buddha that maybe it > > > is good and beneficial?... > > > > > > > S: I think that you should seriously consider this difference > >between moments when metta or asubha actually arises > > And how will it ever arise if one doesn't put in causes for it? > Suk: All dhammas arise by causes and conditions. I think however, that here you have in mind 'deliberate sitting in order to make metta arise' as being cause. This to me is *not* the right cause and so I could ask you, how do you then expect metta to ever arise and be developed? ==== > If someone were to be dropped in a deep lake and not move a finger to > alter the sinking to the bottom, would s/he better swim to safety to > survive and avoid drowning? > > Would reliance on buoyancy conditions alone make one swim to safety? > Suk: I would think not. ==== > > Swimming is conditioned, sure. But it doesn't mean that actions WITHIN > conditioned reality doesn't occur. > Suk: There are in fact only those conditioned realities arising and falling away immediately after having performed their specific functions. ==== > > >from when one is involved in trying to make it arise which as you > >say, could be with self-view. > > OR WITHOUT Self View. In any case, metta is highly Kusala. It is also > one of paramis. I am not so sure about washing dishes. > Suk: And the whole argument is about whether what you call metta development is in fact what it is. I say not only that it isn't, but indeed the worst of all kinds of akusala, namely that it is wrong view conditioning wrong practice. ==== > > > First of all, why would you seek to have more metta when there are > > conditioned dhammas arising and falling away all the time and most > >of which is accompanied by ignorance? > > If someone were to be dropped in a deep lake and not move a finger to > alter the sinking to the bottom, would s/he better swim to safety to > survive and avoid drowning? > Suk: But what if you are in fact moving your eyelids and calling that swimming? ;-) ==== > > > Why would one bother with putting in deliberate effort to swim to > safety and avoid drowing? Why not just cross one's arms and pray that > conditions save one? > Suk: The idea of 'praying' is due to your misconception of what is going on. I believe that I am actually using my arms for the purpose, only that I also accept that I've only just begun to learn and don't have any strength. But then I know also not to be starting to move my eyelids to help me. ;-) ==== > > Or the same applied to burning house. Why put any sort of special > effort to escape it? Why not remain in it and hope some miracle or > understanding to save one? > Suk: I do not say that there can't be understanding of realities while running away from the fire. Please understand that 'no control' does not mean one becomes a vegetable; actions through body, speech and mind will continue as normal. To decide not to take any action because of the idea of 'no control' would be in fact due to 'perversion of view' rather than understanding the present moment. ==== > > Proper actions save one, not inaction. > Same with Dhamma. Proper action with Kusala saves one and inaction > only when it comes to bad deeds - and this may require a lot of effort > at first to stop the kilesas. > Suk: What you consider inaction in the case of bad deeds is in fact action through speech or body accompanied by right effort. And this should cause you to give some serious thought about this matter. What you think to be 'lot of effort' is reference to certain "doings" / conventional actions, but in terms of the nature and characteristic of realities, there likely is no kusala / right effort involved, but instead akusala / wrong effort. ==== > > >Why then be attracted to some 'formal practice' which you know to > >invariably involve self-view? > > What about escaping from a burning building or putting in effort to > swim to safety and avoid being drowned? > Suk: At this stage there may be little occasion for right effort, and most of the time it will be akusala with wrong effort. We'll most definitely continue being in samsara for a long, long time to come. Meditation however does not make short this continued existence, but being that it is motivated by wrong view, in fact takes us further in the opposite direction and hence the journey much longer than it otherwise would. ==== > > >There can be some level of intellectual understanding much needed at > >any given moment, why overlook this? > > Then why aren't Buddhist Scholars Arhats? Would intellectual > understanding alone carry one to safety? > Suk: Because development of understanding at the level of hearing is not the same as scholarly study. Pariyatti does not do the job which only patipatti can do, not to speak of pativedha. But patipatti can't arise without pariyatti having been developed to a good extent and this does not equate with what you and others call 'meditation'. The latter brings with it such ideas as 'time to study' and 'time to practice' which reflects indeed the lack of this very pariyatti understanding much needed. On the other hand, correct pariyatti, does not think to only read, listen or study, but while being motivated to do these things, leaves open the possibility in fact of real patipatti arising at anytime, including when reading or writing. ==== > > And meditation methods that I have read about DO focus on developing > wisdom. Wisdom doesn't grow on trees, it is not easily gained. Certain > causes must be planted for certain fruits to emerge. > Suk: Ignorance is ignorance of the 4NT and wisdom when it arises, understands this. The idea of another time, place and posture is reflection of the 4th NT being wrongly understood. And of "developing wisdom" can very well be entertained by those who have such kind of misunderstanding. But because in fact it is wrong practice which is being followed, wrong view is what increases instead of right view. Correspondingly, the sense of urgency which one speaks of is more akin to an invitation to jump into the fire, since in reality if there is any real sense of urgency this would be an instance in fact of panna having arisen and the attention would be towards the present moment and not some idea wrongly conceived, about formal meditation. Hope the above helps you to see where some of us are coming from. Metta, Sukinder (Not-Sarah) ;-) #109386 From: Ken O Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O ashkenn2k >... >S: Too impatient as usual:-) > >So, is that a 'yes, I agree' or 'no, I disagree' with 1a, 1b, and 1c? Pls make >this clear and then proceed with the next session of Sukin's quiz. Don't worry, >you'll find plenty of javanas if you proceed patiently;-) > >For me, it was easy. I thought it was a great quiz and agreed with every point, >so let's read which points you object to, let's 'pin down' your objections for a > > >change and be specific - no more eel-wriggling like in your comment above and >like you tried to do with my "anatta quiz" before:-)). > KO:? there is no need to agree or disagree because vipakas are result and not cause.? It is not about being impatient, it is about looking at dhamma which is the?crux of development.? why look at result of kamma ?:-)? where does craving arise? :-).? so why are you and Sukin looking at the wrong place for dhamma.? Anyway, panna only arise in javanas :-) and not in vipaka. Ken O #109387 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 8/21/2010 8:54:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: Suk: I said 'usually' and not 'always'. The point of the Dhamma is to understand whatever realities that appear and know that they do so already. It is not about trying to change the present reality or follow some projected good. A more conventional way of saying this, is that the Dhamma is for the purpose of coming to understand "who we are" and not "what we want to be". ============================= Coming to understand something is a changing of present reality, and intending to do so and studying Abhidhamma has as much sense of self involved in it as anything else. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109388 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 3:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana truth_aerator Hello Sukinder, Sarah, All, > Suk: The point of the Dhamma is to understand whatever realities >that >appear and know that they do so already. I 100% agree with the above. The difference is HOW this understanding is obtained. Sure one may learn Abhidhamma by heart. But does this mean that one really knows and understands the realities that appear as they do? > It is not about trying to change the present reality or follow some >projected good. And how is studying this book or that book different from trying to change the present reality??? I mean doesn't unlearned person becomes learned as s/he reads the "Abhidhamma in Daily Life", "Survey" and so on? Doesn't one know more after having read and memorized those wonderful books? There you go, changing the reality. > Suk: All dhammas arise by causes and conditions. Sure. Swimming is conditioned and one of the conditions is to exert effort with hands and feet according to the way one knows in order to swim. > I think however, that > here you have in mind 'deliberate sitting >in order to make metta arise' as being cause. It is one of conditions, not a *single* cause. >This to me is *not* the right cause and so I could ask you, how do >you then expect metta to ever arise and be developed? Through adverting, through skillful desire for it chanda, through resolution adhimokkho for it, and through attention manasikaro for metta - for example. > Suk: I do not say that there can't be understanding of realities >while running away from the fire. Please understand that 'no >control' does not mean one becomes a vegetable; actions through >body, speech and mind will continue as normal. To decide not to take >any action because of the idea of 'no control' would be in fact due >to 'perversion of view' rather than understanding the present moment. Why can't one meditate with understanding of realities and no control? I do not say that there can't be understanding of realities while meditating. Please understand that 'no control' does not mean one becomes a non-meditator; actions through body, speech and mind will continue as normal, whatever that normal is for that person. For some people doing drugs may be normal activity, for some meditating may be normal... To decide not to take any action such as meditation because of the idea of 'no control' would be in fact due to 'perversion of view' rather than understanding the present moment. With metta, Alex #109389 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:50 pm Subject: nature and function of understanding truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Lets take two cases: A) A person knows a paragraph of Dhamma and becomes an Arahant, ex: Bahiya. B) A person knows 1000 paragraphs of Dhamma (including the above paragraph) and isn't even a stream enterer. Question: What is the difference, what is disparity, in the nature of understanding between Person A vs Person B? They both may know the same amount of right theory, in fact a person "B" may know 1000x as much as person "A", and not be Awakened like Person "A". Why not? What makes the understanding of person "A" qualitatively different from understanding of person "B" ? With metta, Alex #109390 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] siila. Was: intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Nina, Nina: N: The quote is from 'The Perfections', not Survey. I guess you have the Perfections? If you want we can send you my book on the Conditions. Yesterday I was looking into the looking glass and thought of your reminder: we often think that 'I' a looking pale etc. Good reminder. Nina. Ah, it was Perfections, my mistake! Yes, I have read both Perfections and Survey. I also printed out Conditions some time ago and read most of it. It is an excellent book. :) Kevin ___________ #109391 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Beatufiul cetasikas" farrellkevin80 Dear Nina, Nina: N: More important than translations is understanding the meaning of sobhana. We cannot deny that it represents good qualities. if you like you can translate it by pure. The sobhana cetasikas assist the kusala citta to perform its function in the wholesome way. Sobhana covers a wider range than kusala because sobhana cetasikas can also accompany vipaakacittas and kiriyacittas, the kiriyacittas of the arahat. The arahat does not perform kusala anymore, there cannot be new vipaaka for him again. Kevin: Dear Nina, great post! Kevin ___________ #109392 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intentional actions. farrellkevin80 Dear Nina, N: Good you stress the brevity of the moment. Sati if it arises, also is very brief. In 'what I heard' I shall transcribe now a Thai recording about this subject which is good for a beginner like me. Nina. Yes every moment is so brief. Samsara is a constant barrage of incessant moments rising and falling away. All it is is infinitesimal realities of nama and rupa falling away ligtning fast-- no doer or thing in any of them. The reality that can be insighted is the reality at this moment. I look forward to seeing what you transcribe. Kevin ___________ #109393 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH farrellkevin80 Dear Rob, Rob Ep: I don't agree with this and think this is one of the great presuppositions you have present here, without examining it. You assume that somehow the intention to meditate and inquire into the moment with mindful awareness is going to create concepts of dhammas in a way that sutta, Abhidhamma and talking to like-minded Dhamma friends will not. I don't see the distinction, and no one has ever adequately explained why you may feel that way. It simply doesn't add up. One is just as likely to have concepts as object reading an Abhidhamma commentary as one is when sitting and practicing mindfulness. They are both human activities with the intention to learn, focus, understand, and awaken. The faith one has is that through sincere effort such concepts will eventually be seen through, not that whatever akusala is there will breed more akusala eternally, and that the qualities of sati, vipassasna, and panna have no way to break through, even in such a sincere effort. It has always seemd to me, and still does, that there is a simple prejudice in favor of certain activities over others, even though Buddha supported them all. I will never understand this, as you cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why you make the distinction. In my view: because there isn't one. It's simply a doctrinal predisposition against something you have been taught to be suspicious of. Again, why would you be less likely to promote self-view, akusala intention or wrong concept of Dhamma when reading Adhidhamma as opposed to sitting and practicing mindfulness? It is not as though there is no intention in reading sutta or Abhidhamma. It doesn't happen by accident. One does it purposely to advance in understanding, same as meditation. When mahakusala bhavana comes, it comes. Simple. Kevin: Hello Robert. Nice to speak with you here. Just to be clear, the Visuddhimagga makes it clear that there is no specific exercise or meditation method for bringing about wisdom. That is why vipassana is not presented as a practice in the Visuddhimagga. The Vism does make it very clear ,however, about how to go about it. It speaks of the imoprtance of both sila and samattha meditation. Samattha is said to be helpful in developing wisdom. However, without proper understanding it will not result in wisdom. As far as developing wisdom is concerned, the book talks about the "soil", which is certain things one should understand, for example, about nama and rupa, and the "trunk". The "trunk" has five purifications. The first is concerns becoming clear about the difference of nama and rupa and recognizing things in that way. It is an excellent summary of the path in my opinion. Have you read it? Nanamoli's translation is available to view online at www.scribd.com. Kevin ___________ #109394 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body farrellkevin80 Dear Jon, You wrote: You suggest that certain activities such as reciting the parts of the body will >help in developing an understanding of dhammas, and you base this view on the >Vism. > > >I do not read the Vism as laying down a practice of recitation in order to >assist the development of insight. I read it as describing an activity on the >part of monks who are developing samatha to high degree (that is to say, samatha > > >as well as insight). Kevin: The Commentary explains that samattha should be developed in certain ways. One of those ways is by "going past or beyond the concept". When I read this I first thought it was talking about satipatthana. But in the section on Repulsiviness meditation with the body parts, it clearly says that the above part means going beyond just the concept of whatever body part you are meditating on and seeing the concept of repulsiveness, instead of just the body part. All the best, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ #109395 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana sukinderpal Hi Howard, > Suk: I said 'usually' and not 'always'. > The point of the Dhamma is to understand whatever realities that appear > and know that they do so already. It is not about trying to change the > present reality or follow some projected good. A more conventional way > of saying this, is that the Dhamma is for the purpose of coming to > understand "who we are" and not "what we want to be". > ============================= > Coming to understand something is a changing of present reality, and > intending to do so and studying Abhidhamma has as much sense of self > involved in it as anything else. > The change of accumulations happens with each citta in a process arising and falling away. With regard to intention, it arises with all cittas. So it depends on the accompanying cetasikas, particularly the roots, whether this is right or wrong. Metta, Sukinder #109396 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of the Present Moment - for Ken O sukinderpal Hi Ken, > >... > >S: Too impatient as usual:-) > > > >So, is that a 'yes, I agree' or 'no, I disagree' with 1a, 1b, and 1c? > Pls make > >this clear and then proceed with the next session of Sukin's quiz. > Don't worry, > > >you'll find plenty of javanas if you proceed patiently;-) > > > >For me, it was easy. I thought it was a great quiz and agreed with > every point, > > >so let's read which points you object to, let's 'pin down' your > objections for a > > > > > >change and be specific - no more eel-wriggling like in your comment > above and > >like you tried to do with my "anatta quiz" before:-)). > > > > KO: there is no need to agree or disagree because vipakas are result > and not > cause. It is not about being impatient, it is about looking at dhamma > which is > the crux of development. why look at result of kamma :-) where does > craving > arise :-). so why are you and Sukin looking at the wrong place for > dhamma. > Anyway, panna only arise in javanas :-) and not in vipaka. > Suk: You are interested only in talking about the javana cittas. But as Sarah pointed out, I did mention the javana cittas in my original post, if only you read further and saw. It is fine if you want to respond only to those particular questions, although I think it important that we should also include the vipaka cittas as well as rupas in our discussion. Metta, Sukinder #109397 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and Ritual/KenH sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep. and Sarah, Sarah said that it was somewhat unkind what I wrote, in particular regarding feeling unpleasant at the thought of our past exchanges and especially since you are such a kind and gentle person. There were of course akusala cittas motivating my writing throughout the post. But know that this was to a large extent with my own limitations in mind although coupled with the fact that you, like me tend to give long explanations. I like to discuss Dhamma, but hate to write posts even if they are short. The longer ones in addition however, causes my back to ache , which is why I try to avoid it if I can. Regarding the akusala in other contexts, you'd see that it happens towards everyone, so I expect you not to take those personally. ;-) Best wishes, Sukinder #109398 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] if one does something, it may as well be for Nibbana sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > Suk: The point of the Dhamma is to understand whatever realities > >that >appear and know that they do so already. > > I 100% agree with the above. The difference is HOW this understanding > is obtained. Sure one may learn Abhidhamma by heart. But does this > mean that one really knows and understands the realities that appear > as they do? > S: Developing understanding at the level of Pariyatti is not the same as reading and memorizing. A few words understood deeply could be a result of Bahusutta, whereas studying and being able to recite the full Abhidhamma texts could be the feat of an uninstructed worldling. ========= > > It is not about trying to change the present reality or follow some > >projected good. > > And how is studying this book or that book different from trying to > change the present reality??? > S: It could be with interest, one which is essentially no different from when driven to read any other text, those that do not speak about realities or anything Dhamma. Like now when engaging in the discussion with you, although there is the background understanding of the Dhamma as the only useful teaching, there is no thought to 'change the present reality' / 'control'. ======== > I mean doesn't unlearned person becomes learned as s/he reads the > "Abhidhamma in Daily Life", "Survey" and so on? > > Doesn't one know more after having read and memorized those wonderful > books? There you go, changing the reality. > S: Each arising of a citta in a process conditions change in the accumulations. And there is a difference in this regard between reading with right understanding and reading with wrong understanding. Two people reading say, the full Dhammasangani, will remember differently the different part of the texts, even when both do or do not have right understanding. The intention to read thinking that this activity will bring about right understanding would be in fact wrong understanding, and is different from reading with an interest in and desire to understand what the texts say. ======= > > Suk: All dhammas arise by causes and conditions. > > Sure. Swimming is conditioned and one of the conditions is to exert > effort with hands and feet according to the way one knows in order to > swim. > S: And in the case of swimming one could do so with fear of drowning or one could do it out of enjoyment, and in fact there could be understanding of these and other realities in between. In the case of developing understanding of the present moment, this is the function of panna and panna alone. And the sad thing is that there is this particular dhamma, namely wrong view, which gives the impression of correct knowing / understanding when in fact it is just the opposite. ====== > > > I think however, that > here you have in mind 'deliberate sitting > >in order to make metta arise' as being cause. > > It is one of conditions, not a *single* cause. > S: Where is "deliberate sitting in order to make metta arise" is said to be one of the cause? Or in your reasoning, how do you see the connection between the intention to make metta arise and its actual arising? ====== > > >This to me is *not* the right cause and so I could ask you, how do > >you then expect metta to ever arise and be developed? > > Through adverting, through skillful desire for it chanda, through > resolution adhimokkho for it, and through attention manasikaro for > metta - for example. > S: Kusala chanda, adhimokkha, yoniso manasikara, all play their part at some time. But the question is, how do you know that in fact this is what is involved when one decides to 'meditate'? ====== > > Suk: I do not say that there can't be understanding of realities > >while running away from the fire. Please understand that 'no > >control' does not mean one becomes a vegetable; actions through > >body, speech and mind will continue as normal. To decide not to take > >any action because of the idea of 'no control' would be in fact due > >to 'perversion of view' rather than understanding the present moment. > > Why can't one meditate with understanding of realities and no control? > S: Because the very idea is a denial of the possibility that such understanding can arise now regardless of the conventional activity being performed. This is clearly a case of having taken the particular conventional activity of sitting in a particular posture etc. as being 'cause' when in fact causes and conditions are between paramattha dhammas only. This means that you start off with wrong understanding expecting right understanding to arise, which is wrong cause for the expected result. ====== > > I do not say that there can't be understanding of realities while > meditating. > S: If it does, it would be due to the fact of panna having been accumulated and arising now by natural decisive support condition. But if one thinks that it is the 'sitting to meditate' which is the cause, then more of the unwanted dhammas, in particular wrong view, is what accumulates now and likely will arise more often in the future. ====== > Please understand that 'no control' does not mean one becomes a > non-meditator; actions through body, speech and mind will continue as > normal, whatever that normal is for that person. > S: Being a 'meditator' or not being one has no relevance in one's life, given the understanding that in reality there are only paramattha dhammas arising and falling away. ===== > > For some people doing drugs may be normal activity, for some > meditating may be normal... To decide not to take any action such as > meditation because of the idea of 'no control' would be in fact due to > 'perversion of view' rather than understanding the present moment. > S: I could be running everyday and call myself a long-distance-runner, this is fine. But for someone who understands that in reality, there are only paramattha dhammas, to think to become a 'meditator' for the purpose of developing this understanding, this is a contradiction. Metta, Sukinder #109399 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:40 am Subject: Re: Little selves? ptaus1 Hi Howard, Thanks for replying. Your position seems a bit different to what I've encountered so far, so I'll ask a few more questions to get a better understanding of your position. > Howard: From my perspective, everything but nibbana is a matter of convention. > As I see it, there are actually no separate "realities," but just a single > reality. pt: What do you mean by "single reality"? > H: The paramattha dhammas are far simpler than the gross "objects of > the world," and, for that reason, are closer to being justifiably referred > to as "realities." But even they are matters of convention. What changes > while standing and whose very existence is contingent is not a separate > "reality." pt: I'm still not clear what you are saying - are you saying that (characteristics of) a dhamma cannot be experienced by panna, but can only be thought about? E.g. when the Buddha says "feeling is anatta", is he encouraging us to think about feeling in philosophical terms, or is he encouraging an actual experience of insight (where panna for a brief instant recognises the arisen feeling as having the characteristic of anatta), or something else? > H: Dhammas are thought of as discrete entities with own being and separate > existence, and yet consisting of parts and changing. This is something > conceived of but not observed without thought. That makes them matters of > convention. We imagine them as discrete entities with exact starting and ending > points, but no aspect of reality is graspable in such a fashion. This is > merely a useful mode of thinking, especially for "navigating" at the more > gross, worldly level. pt: What then, in your opinion, is insight actually? At the moment, it seems that you're saying that insight is the same as (or maybe a bit more subtle form of) thinking about things, since dhammas are really just matters of convention. Why can't we then think our way to nibbana? Why was there the need in the texts to differentiate between various philosophical views (thinking about things) and actual insight like "feeling is anatta"? How wold you explain the difference between insight and thinking about things? > H: But even at the "paramattha-dhamma level," neither sights > nor sounds nor tastes nor odors etc are actually graspable as separate > entities, but are merely conceived of in such a fashion. pt: Hm, so you mean when the texts are talking about different sense objects (rupas) - they are encouraging us to do what? To think about those things? I mean, you seem to be denying the possibility that panna can actualy experience a rupa and recognise it as having the tilakkhana charteristics. So, in that case, if panna cannot really recognise form (or any of the other aggregates as a distinct dhamma/reality), then what are anicca, anatta and dukkha actually the characteristics of? Are they characteristics of thinking? Best wishes pt