#109800 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 6-sep-2010, om 8:53 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > In particular you should read how a concept (which doesn't really > exist) can be said to act by way of object condition, or by natural > decisive support condition. ------- N: By natural support-condition, here we should be very careful. We discussed this and I avoided the word concept here. Like climate, this is actually the element of heat or cold. Friends: actually their right view or wrong view you associate with. Kh Sujin also said: concepts cannot be accumulated. Nina. #109801 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Address of Khun Sujin's Foundation of? tadaomiyamot... Hi Khun Nina: With me, I will take my old passport, which contains a picture of me in a saffron robe. Otherwise, she would never know who I am. (Not only I look much older, but also, instead of a bold-head, I have a red-ish head/hair now.) I will report you the contents of sessions later. I hope I would be able to raise questions in Thai. (When I was in Bangkok this time, local people (who couldn't speak English) were surprised that I could speak decent Thai after not having used it over 30 years. HOWEVER, I was TOTALLY ignored when I spoke in Thai to those who spoke English well.) tadao ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom <...> N: It is nice if you make yourself known to Kh sujin, it is so long ago, and, with you it is as with Bgk: "The Bangkok I know of has totally gone." You look different now, she may not recognize you. You can, also in the Thai sessions, raise any question. I am looking forward to a report about the sessions from you. <...> #109802 From: si-la-nanda Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 6:37 am Subject: Fwd: What_Buddha_Said 1292: Knowing the Origin! silananda_t *Friends:* * Knowing the 5 core aspects of the 5 Clusters:* *The Blessed Buddha once explained:* Friends, the uninstructed, uneducated, and ordinary person does neither understand as it really is the origin, nor the ceasing, nor the satisfaction, nor the danger, nor the escape from these five clusters of clinging: Form, Feeling, Perception, Mental Constructions, and Consciousness! But, friends, the instructed Noble Disciple understands as it really is both the origin, the ceasing, the satisfaction, the danger, and the escape in the case of form, feeling, perception, mental constructions, & consciousness! *How are these 5 aspects of the 5 clusters of clinging to be understood? * The origin of form is nutriment! Ceasing of nutriment is ceasing of form! The satisfaction in form is the pleasure, fun, and joy derived from form. The danger in form is the impermanent and decaying nature of all form. The escape from form is the overcoming of all desire & lust for any form. [Nutriment is here defined as: Food, contact, intention and consciousness!] The origin of feeling, perception and construction is this sense contact. The ceasing of feeling, perception and construction is ceasing of contact. The satisfaction in feeling, perception & construction is the pleasure, and joy derived from feeling, perception and mental construction. The danger in feeling, perception and mental construction is the inherent and inevitable impermanence & therefore immanent dissatisfaction within any feeling, any perception and any mental construction whatsoever! The escape from feeling, perception and construction is the overcoming of all desire and lust for all feeling, perception and mental construction! The initial origin of consciousness is mental construction. The ceasing of consciousness is the ceasing of mental construction. The satisfaction in consciousness is the pleasure and joy derived from consciousness. The danger within consciousness is this impermanence, nature to change, and thus misery characteristic of any form and event of consciousness! The escape from all consciousness is the overcoming & elimination of all desire and lust for any form for consciousness. In this way are these 5 aspects of the 5 clusters of clinging to be fully understood! It is only in this way, that the instructed Noble Disciple indeed really understands, what should be understood... <...> *Source: * The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. *Samyutta Nika-ya* 22:74 III 822 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the *Greatest!* *Bhikkhu Sama-hita <...> #109803 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 2:55 pm Subject: What I heard. About nimitta, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording, about nimitta, no 1. One can listen and understand, but do not think about practice. Sati is anattaa and nobody knows when it will arise; perhaps now, or it will not arise. Elderly people worry whether they will ever be able to practise. Do not practise wrongly, do not be in a hurry to practise. One should first have correct understanding. We all speak about anattaa, but do we understand the meaning? It is that which is not a being, a person, a self. All dhammas are anattaa, there is no exception. When seeing arises it must also be anattaa, but how is it anattaa? Those who have not attained enlightenment cannot help seeing people and things. They do not understand the nature of anattaa of what is appearing through the eyes. How can one develop understanding of anattaa of what appears through the eyes, the ears and the other doorways? How can one understand that it is really anattaa? What we see as being or person is still attaa. We must begin to understand what is seen while seeing. Blind people have no opportunity to see brightness, the nature of brightness that appears through the eyes. This is a reality that appears and that blind people cannot see. For those who are not blind, seeing is very ordinary, very common. When we close our eyes, there is darkness. When we open our eyes there is another world, the world of brightness. We see the shape and form, the nimitta or image of what appears through the eyes and we see details (nimitta and anuvyancana).The nimitta is a dream of what is not true. Shape and form is the nimitta of the four Great Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Colour always arises together with the four Great Elements and with odour, flavour and nutrition. These are the eight inseparable ruupas. Everybody can sit on a chair and touch hard or hot things, but through the eyes you cannot touch the elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. But you can know that they are there because you see the nimitta of what appears through the eyes. The four Great Elements cause the nimitta of different colours to appear through the eyes. Those who have wrong understanding cling to the four Great Elements as different people who are, for example, sitting on a chair. What appears through the eyes is the nimitta referring to the four Great Eelements. It is not a self, person or thing. We see only the nimitta, a sign referring to the four great Elements. -------- Nina. #109804 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body ashkenn2k Dear Jon >> KO: Honestly, if you could separate concepts out of association with sanna, I >> am most happy to learn from you. Maybe you could tell me how could you develop > > >> dhamma without words which are concepts that arise with dhammas and these are >> the words that condition the development of panna. >> =============== > >J: Straw man, Ken ;-)). The question is the idea that concepts are 'used for >development' of the path. They are not. KO:? so then why do you listen to words then, why dont you just hear sounds.? It is not strawman, it is how much you undersand about dhamma and how they work.? If any of you can prove you do not need concepts learning dhamma, then I said you are right.? Dhamma is dhamma but without concepts there is no learning of dhamma. >> >> KO: concepts cannot arise without dhammas :-). >> =============== > >J: Nice try ;-)) But this is not the meaning conveyed by the expression 'a >dhamma that arises with a concept'. KO:? sure then how does the word dhamma comes about, magic :-) or by thinking, if thinking does not arise would concept arise.? Even dreams come from a cause, a dhamma.? it cannot appear without it Ken O #109805 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Part 2 on Intentional development, simplified ashkenn2k Dear Jon >> KO: It cannot be made by undertaking a particular intentional activity then if > > >> one does not go Bangkok intentionallly, how does this going to happen in the >> first place :-))). >> =============== > >J: There will always be intentional activity of some kind or another associated >with an instance of path development. This does not mean, however, that the >undertaking of the intentional activity is a factor in the arising of the path >moment(s) in question. (But you know this already ;-)) KO: if there is no intentional activity at the moment to listen to a dhamma talk, would you go then. Hmm there are many examples of intentional activity in the suttas and texts. Visud are full of them, I dont think I need to repeat that. >> =============== >> >J: Yes, without the appropriate past kamma there will not be the fulfillment >>of >> >> >the individual factors. Past kamma is one of those possible 'unforseen factors >> >> >> >that may intervene'. >> >> KO: So thats mean we leave all to past kamma and then hope for the best :-) >> =============== > >J: But that would not be the middle way, would it ;-)) KO: are you telling me that the middlle way depend on past kamma then :-)) Ken O #109806 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa ashkenn2k Dear Jon > >J: If your concern is a matter of terminology (for example, how to label the >kind of panna being referred to) rather than substance, I may need your >assistance in arriving at the correct term. It was my understanding that the >expression 'mundane panna' is generally used to refer to panna of >satipatthana/vipassana rather than of samatha bhavana. > KO:? where did you get this idea from Jon.? There are many instances of samantha bhavana that arise with satipatthana,? If that is not possible, why bother to teach the meditation subjects. they are all samathana bhavana.? Hmm then all the commentarise and Abhidhamma?about breathing meditation, reciting of parts using concepts,?must be wrong.? are they?:-))? > >J: Your question, as I understand it, concerns the use of the term 'mundane >panna' to refer to panna of satipatthana/vipassana, given that panna also >accompanies jhana citta (whish is also a mundane citta). Is this the point? > >If I were to try and 'perfect' my original statement, I would simply add to it >the words appearing in brackets in the following: > >"In the context of the development of the Path, however, the term 'practice' as >used in the teachings refers to the actual arising of panna (i.e., mundane path >panna) rather than to the undertaking of specific intentional activities." KO:? are you saying after you arrived in Bangkok, the trip you make from your hotel to the foundation to listen to dhamma is not an intentional activity.? I wonder whether you know the difference between intentional activity or an akusala activity.?? Hmm those ancients monks must be wrong, because if they are not intentional going to visit Buddha to learn, how do they listen.? Ken O #109807 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 6:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >------------------- > >Yes, you should read it too. :-) In particular you should read how a concept >(which doesn't really exist) can be said to act by way of object condition, or >by natural decisive support condition. The explanations are given many times in >the books and at DSG. You just have to look for them. > >To cut a long story short: only dhammas (including the dhammas that create >concepts and react to them) actually perform those conditioning functions, the >concepts themselves don't do anything. KO: I am saying concepts can condtion dhamma to arise and concepts must arise in the presence of dhamma. If it does not, pse tell me how you learn dhamma from words. You have yet tell me this. thanks >--------- ><. . .> >KO: > When you read dhamma books, so words in the books concept >or not, does that word condition panna. >--------- > >No, but right understanding (panna) of those words can be the condition for >panna to arise again in the future. > KO: so are these words concepts or not :-). without citta thinking or experiencing about the words, would panna arise to understand the meaning of dhamma. >----------------- >KO: > And does that panna that arise with words not satipatthana. Does panna > >arise with concepts is part of mundane 8NP. You got no text to prove but I have > >many prove of concepts being used for development of panna. I can give you many > >quotes even those arise in Visud, Abhidhamma and commentaries. Buddha never >denied the use of words as part of development and he knows that words are >needed for the development. If there is no word, I wonder how those ancient >disciples in the first place know about dhamma. ESP :-). >------------------ > >In ancient times (just as now) the world was just one moment of nama and rupa. >There was no time for one of the conditioned dhammas in that world to say, "I'll > >just go out and listen to the Dhamma for a while: when I get back we'll have >panna." > KO: why not. I never doubt that. not all are Ven Sariputta. Some learn to listen many times also even when Buddha was around. Also you did not answer my questions, did they went to listen or not. they able to listen to words or they have ESP. Can you listen to word in just one moment of nama and rupa. If you can, pse tell me how. >-------------------------------- >KH: > > Let's get back to my question then. According your understanding of the >Abhidhamma, which particular decision-making tasks can cetana perform? Can >cetana decide, for example, which type of citta it will arise in? Can cetana >decide which object citta will take? > >KO: > citta experience, help by vittaka thinks, chanda purpose, the roots, >cetana just like respect and patience which are virture >and are that any particular dhamma. :-) >---------------------------------- > >:-) I think the answer is: no, cetana can't do either of those things. > KO: Did I said decision making is just cetana, i am saying decision making is an done by dhamma, a set of dhamma and cannot be one. Also cetana can decide which object to take and I am sure of this with the help of the roots and other accompanying cetasikas, if not why would there be kamma, which objects could be a concept or a dhamma. I can also show you text on this :-) very confidently can show you. >--------------- ><. . .> >KO: > definitely there are no books and no people but concepts only exist when >dhamma arise and they could condition dhamma to arise >--------------- > >Can you give an example of how a word conditions a dhamma to arise? > KO: Object conditioning that arise with the dhamma, is that good enough. If not pse read conditionality again. >----------------------------------- > >Past action is kamma, isn't it? I think accumulations are formed by all kinds of > >past dhammas. They explain why different people behave differently in apparently > >identical circumstances. E.g., one child may be frightened the first time he >sees a dog, while his identical twin may be delighted. It's due to different >accumulations (including traumatic experiences with dogs) from previous >lifetimes. KO isn;t that explain because accumlations is from past experiences. But does is that determining or the roots Ken O #109808 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Nina concept can never accumulate that is right because it is not a dhamma.?? You know well enough that?concept could conditioon the arising of dhamma unless you can show me the text there is no such thing.? Why did you fear to use concepts. Maybe I should explan that? it is?sanna that associated with concepts can condition many things :-)? that is why we have recitation of body parts, it is to?eradicate association of pleasant objects as pleasureable.? It is the sanna we are looking at and not the concepts.? Concepts are means to an end.?? When satipatthana arise, it does not matter whether the object of the citta is a concept or not, it is the dhamma that arise with the?object of the citta?which panna understands the?characteristics of the dhamma.? if one would to say that satipatthana only exclusive arise when the objects of the citta that?must be a?name or rupa?in the mundane level or before vipassana level, please show me the text? Ken O #109809 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken O (and Ken H, and Jon) - In a message dated 9/6/2010 2:04:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: Dear Ken H >------------------- > >Yes, you should read it too. :-) In particular you should read how a concept >(which doesn't really exist) can be said to act by way of object condition, or >by natural decisive support condition. The explanations are given many times in >the books and at DSG. You just have to look for them. > >To cut a long story short: only dhammas (including the dhammas that create >concepts and react to them) actually perform those conditioning functions, the >concepts themselves don't do anything. KO: I am saying concepts can condtion dhamma to arise and concepts must arise in the presence of dhamma. If it does not, pse tell me how you learn dhamma from words. You have yet tell me this. thanks ------------------------------------------------ My two cents on this matter: It is thinking, an activity that does occur, and not concepts, that does the conditioning. Thinking is observable, but concepts are not to be found. There is thinking-of-cars and there is thinking-of-attending-Dhamma-talks, mental activities, but nowhere can we find as part of that thinking those thought-of objects, and the alleged in-the-world cars and attendings of Dhamma talks, as mind-independent phenomena, are not to be found either. (I'm not maintaining that such thinking is baseless or useless, but it must be seen for exactly what it is, just thinking,-based on sense-door experiences, but still only thinking. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109810 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 1:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Repeating things three times? tadaomiyamot... Hi Azita: I REMEMBER you. We would meet with each other sometime in the near future. tadao #109811 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 2:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question about alms-gathering in Bangkok tadaomiyamot... Hi Nina: I totally agree with what you say below about the handling of money by monks. tadao ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom <...> ------ N: It is not correct, neither in former times nor now. Kh Sujin says we should help the monks and never give money. They may have a lay helper and he can handle money if necessary. bUt anyway, then the cash does not belong to the individual monk, but to the Sangha. Nina. #109812 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message tadaomiyamot... Hi Kevin and Sarah: I have no intention of getting into the issue, which I feel somewhat 'messy.' But I would like to point out one thing, which is based totally on my faint memory. I may be wrong but, (at least) according to the Theravada tradition, one who has attained the second stage of enlightenment would not be able to stay in the status of Ghara-vaasa (home-bound living) due simply to do with his/her high state of purity. tadao ________________________________ From: sarah abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 9:49:53 PM Subject: [dsg] Kevin's message Hi Kevin, --- On Fri, 3/9/10, Kevin F wrote: >I am learned in the Tipitika. I have studied much of the Three Pitikas and their Commentaries, all to a degree. I am no expert. However, I am not a fool. I understand the correct Dhamma. I have verified it with the texts. This should be known. I am a sakadagami of the second degree of enlightenment. .... S: Regardless of whether this is true or not, (and there seems to be a fair degree of scepticism in this regard), what is the point of mentioning it repeatedly? What are the cittas when one sends a message like this? Surely, when there is a real appreciation of dhammas as anatta, there is no clinging to oneself as being an anything? <...> #109813 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message truth_aerator Hello Tadao, >Tadao Miyamoto wrote: > > Hi Kevin and Sarah: > > I have no intention of getting into the issue, which I feel somewhat 'messy.' > But I would like to point out one thing, which is based totally on my faint > memory. > > I may be wrong but, (at least) according to the Theravada tradition, one who has > attained > the second stage of enlightenment would not be able to stay in the status of > Ghara-vaasa (home-bound living) > due simply to do with his/her high state of purity. Anagami can be a householder. Ex: Potter Ghatikara http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/081-ghatikara-\ e1.html Even a layperson can become an arhat, the only thing is that according to Orthodoxy one has to ordain or die within 7 days. With metta, Alex #109814 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 10:49 pm Subject: Re: intentional activities truth_aerator Hello KenO, Jon, all, > > > >J: Straw man, Ken ;-)). The question is the idea that concepts are >'used for development' of the path. They are not. > > KO:? so then why do you listen to words then, why dont you just >hear sounds.? It is not strawman, it is how much you undersand about >dhamma and how they work.? If any of you can prove you do not need >concepts learning dhamma, then I said you are right.? Dhamma is >dhamma but without concepts there is no learning of dhamma. Exactly, Ken. Without paying attention to concepts, one won't be able to read and understand anything said in this sentence. The point is not to misinterpret what is read or heard and not to cling. >J: There will always be intentional activity of some kind or another >associated with an instance of path development. This does not mean, >however, that the>undertaking of the intentional activity is a >factor in the arising of the path moment(s) in question. (But you >know this already ;-)) Jon, even to move a finger intentional activity is required. Even to hear Dhamma talk there needs to be an intention to do it. If all and any intention is an expression of Self View, then don't eat or drink then. It is an intentional and deliberate activity! Arahants and Aryans ate food and drank water just fine, without the attachment to anything being required. Attachment is bad, I agree. But does non-attachment always means non-doing? In that case don't be attached to the idea of Self that eats and don't eat. I hope you understand the silliness in that assertion. Do what needs to be done for Awakening (but not for the other goal, of sensual indulgence), but without theoretical views of Self or Self's property. IMHO. With metta, Alex #109815 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 10:56 pm Subject: concepts cannot be accumulated? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: Kh Sujin also said: concepts cannot be accumulated. What about worldly sciences (math, biology, physics, etc)? A person may acquire a lot of worldly knowledge. Isn't that the same as saying that one accumulates concepts? Concepts can be (object & natural decisive support) conditions for lobha, dosa or moha. So more congition of concepts may be cause for more lobha, dosa or moha being accumulated if somehow the theoretical concepts cannot be accumulated themselves. With metta, Alex #109816 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 11:20 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Ken O, This discussion began several weeks ago when you argued that the Buddha taught "methods." You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. ------------ <. . .> KO:?? I am saying concepts can condtion dhamma to arise and concepts must arise in the presence of dhamma.? ------------- We are all using similar words, but with different meanings. You seem to mean that there is no essential difference between concepts and dhammas: they both arise and fall, and they both perform conditioning functions. I think you have been forced to take that unfortunate stance in your defence of "methods." ----------- KO: > If it does not, pse tell me how you learn dhamma from words.? You have yet tell me this.? thanks ----------- Panna (right understanding of the a presently arisen dhamma) develops gradually, and through stages. At first it is weak, and the only stage in can arise in is pariyatti (right understanding of a concept of a presently arisen dhamma). But that doesn't mean we should see concepts as part of a method for gaining more panna. In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no need of a method for gaining anything. Ken H #109817 From: Vince Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Time. cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > N: There should be awareness and understanding of the present moment, > and no need to think of time. if one find an explanation on the present moment using "past citta" and "next citta". the Time is involved. Getting some understanding of Time and the Time role becomes quite logical. Don't you agree?, Why? > N: But we do not choose anything, impossible. We cannot 'sustain' > contemplation of it, that is pa~n~naa's task. And that is just for a > brief moment, but this is the way pa~n~naa accumulates. Maybe you can explain better. Why we cannot sustain it?. Contemplation is just the seeing. In fact there is not need to sustain it but just to be aware then the Seeing itself becomes an object of contemplation. Why we cannot sustain it?. I think anyone can do it. > N: Yes, correct. But will only become > more clear after a long time. First: naama and ruupa are just > realities, dhammas. Everything is dhamma. long time or short time... so you are thinking in time at all > N: Awareness of one dhamma at a time, not otherwise. Each citta > experiences only one object at a time, and so does sati accompanying > citta. when we say "each citta experiences only one object" it's clear the phrase "each citta" implies other cittas. How can somebody conciliate this view with the understanding of the delusion of many cittas? > N: Good question. It is deluded thinking which assumes that there are > many objects that can be experienced at a time. This is common, we > all do. but one can be aware of endless objects by taking all them in only one: "He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind[...] ..singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html all-reality can become an object of contemplation and from here panna arises regarding this object. I think under that need to understand the multiple three-cittas schema, there is also the need to add substance to the past, present and future objects, which are supporters for the explanation itself. It seems confusing at all. How to conciliate this? > When you touch a cup, hardness may appear, or cold, or oscillation, > not several objects at the same time. hardness appears when we touch but it doesn't mean that oneself is the creator of hardness. I'm right? Therefore, it means citta builds the Reality of the one-by-one object just for the self. This reality belongs to the self, not to the final truth. When we touch a cup we know hardness. Now hardness is here together with seeing, thinking, hearing... In fact there is a flow all the time but depending of citta we know this or that. We can touch the cup with our open eyes, and then there is seeing and hardness. But we can say "no, they arise one-by-one according the cittas arising and falling". However, the dhammas flow in itself is not a creation of multiple cittas arising and falling. Both citta and nama-rupa arise in a co-dependent way, there are not multiple cittas neither multiple nama-rupa. Therefore, the "one-object at same time" schema only can belongs to the delusion land, to the -self. This schema only is being supported by giving substance to the multiplicity. Don't you agree? > There is a lot of thinking after seeing, hearing, touching, that form > up ideas of the world, of different things, of persons. We do not try > to stop thinking, but we may understand, even intellectually, that > through eyes just visible object appears, and that there is no > person, no thing in visible object. I agree, I try the same. > We do not try to sustain mindfulness of one object, that is not according to > reality. Each object falls away and so does citta with sati. > I heard Kh Sujin say that someone had problems in life. We all have: > with in-laws, parents, neighours, etc. Kh Sujin said that the person > with problems was only thinking about situations. Instead of thinking > about situations, we should study cittas, then we do not mind any > situation we are in. That is why the Buddha stressed all the time > seeing and visible object, and the different cittas arising on > account of visible object, kusala or akusala. Is this not practice? yes it is. Situations lacks of meaning in themselves but unfortunately there is a self to add tons of meanings, thoughts, feelings, etc...Existence is so crazy that one must be disenchanted to survive and preserve some inner joy that finally doesn't belongs to the world. In fact everybody try the same thing the best we can, so following Dhamma becomes a complete gift for that. best, Vince. #109818 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 12:15 am Subject: The Powers of Progress! bhikkhu5 Friends: The 5 Abilities are Caused by Conditions! The origin of the ability of Faith is the desire to make a decision! The origin of the ability of Energy is the longing for exertion! The origin of the ability of Awareness is the wanting to establish! The origin of the ability of Concentration is yearning for non-distraction! The origin of the ability of Understanding is the wish to see! <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #109819 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 5:08 am Subject: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > KO:? are you saying after you arrived in Bangkok, the trip you make from your > hotel to the foundation to listen to dhamma is not an intentional activity.? I > wonder whether you know the difference between intentional activity or an > akusala activity.?? Hmm those ancients monks must be wrong, because if they are > not intentional going to visit Buddha to learn, how do they listen.? Their past accumulations transport them there. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #109820 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 5:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken O (and Ken H, and Jon) - > > In a message dated 9/6/2010 2:04:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > ashkenn2k@... writes: > > Dear Ken H > > > >------------------- > > > >Yes, you should read it too. :-) In particular you should read how a > concept > >(which doesn't really exist) can be said to act by way of object > condition, or > >by natural decisive support condition. The explanations are given many > times in > > >the books and at DSG. You just have to look for them. > > > >To cut a long story short: only dhammas (including the dhammas that > create > >concepts and react to them) actually perform those conditioning > functions, the > >concepts themselves don't do anything. > > KO: I am saying concepts can condtion dhamma to arise and concepts must > arise > in the presence of dhamma. If it does not, pse tell me how you learn > dhamma > from words. You have yet tell me this. thanks > ------------------------------------------------ > My two cents on this matter: It is thinking, an activity that does > occur, and not concepts, that does the conditioning. Thinking is observable, > but concepts are not to be found. There is thinking-of-cars and there is > thinking-of-attending-Dhamma-talks, mental activities, but nowhere can we find > as part of that thinking those thought-of objects, and the alleged > in-the-world cars and attendings of Dhamma talks, as mind-independent phenomena, > are not to be found either. (I'm not maintaining that such thinking is > baseless or useless, but it must be seen for exactly what it is, just > thinking,-based on sense-door experiences, but still only thinking. > ================================ I think we have talked about this before, but what actually takes place while concepts are being included in the thought-process, and what would thinking consist of without concepts? Could it take place at all? I agree that the supposed objects that the concepts are about do not actually exist. I think that is what you are saying. "Concept as concept" is not really anything, but "the thought about it" does take place. So what actually happens when a concept is thought of? What does exist? There is a always an image, a language substitute or definition, or other thought-event that bolsters the supposed reality of the concept within the thought. So if I think "I am going to drive my car to the store" I have an image of car and an image of store that accompanies the language "car" and "store." And/or there is an implicit definition that is underlying those nouns, eg, "A car is a vehicle I drive in to get somewhere." [Leaving aside the infinite regress of more concepts being part of the definition.] Those images and those elements of language do take place as part of thought and are actual moments within the thought-process, but the supposed concept they supposedly invoke does not exist. Would that accord with your sense of this? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109821 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 6:38 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Ken O, > > This discussion began several weeks ago when you argued that the Buddha taught "methods." You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. Only according to the Buddha. Of course if you bend over backwards and twist to an improbable degree, you can read him as saying that all his detailed methods just happen by circumstance, and that you don't have to do anything. > ------------ > <. . .> > KO:?? I am saying concepts can condtion dhamma to arise and concepts must arise in the presence of dhamma.? > ------------- > > We are all using similar words, but with different meanings. > > You seem to mean that there is no essential difference between concepts and dhammas: they both arise and fall, and they both perform conditioning functions. > > I think you have been forced to take that unfortunate stance in your defence of "methods." Satipatthana and anapanasati are not concepts; they are practices. > ----------- > KO: > If it does not, pse tell me how you learn dhamma from words.? You have yet tell me this.? thanks > ----------- > > Panna (right understanding of the a presently arisen dhamma) develops gradually, and through stages. At first it is weak, and the only stage in can arise in is pariyatti (right understanding of a concept of a presently arisen dhamma). And why should that not apply to other practices as well? > > But that doesn't mean we should see concepts as part of a method for gaining more panna. In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no need of a method for gaining anything. The entire path is to see through delusion and let go of clinging and craving; so the fact that there is "no sufferer" does not mean there is no method necessary. Buddha developed all his methods so that people could discover exactly that, not as a concept, but as a reality. Your argument is misdirected. Buddha's methods are not directed towards gaining anything, but towards realization and freedom. I should not have to argue the merits of Buddhist practice to a Buddhist, but there you are! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109822 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 7:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message nilovg Dear Tadao, Op 6-sep-2010, om 16:49 heeft Tadao Miyamoto het volgende geschreven: > I may be wrong but, (at least) according to the Theravada > tradition, one who has > attained > the second stage of enlightenment would not be able to stay in the > status of > Ghara-vaasa (home-bound living) > due simply to do with his/her high state of purity. ------ N: I agree with Alex that he can still be ahouseholder. As to Anaagaami, he does not wish to live in a house. He is not attached at all to any sense object. I do not know whether this means that he necessarily has to become a monk. The Potter Ghatikaara became an anaagaami shortly before he was killed by a cow. Nina. #109823 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 8:29 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Ken O), ----- <. . .> KH: > > You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. RE: > Only according to the Buddha. Of course if you bend over backwards and twist to an improbable degree, you can read him as saying that all his detailed methods just happen by circumstance, and that you don't have to do anything. ----- I and others have tried to explain that there is no self who can do, or not do, anything. There are only dhammas. It's not always an easy reality to explain, but that's the way it is. ------------ <. . .> RE: > Satipatthana and anapanasati are not concepts; they are practices. ------------ They are conditioned dhammas. ----------- KH: > > Panna (right understanding of the a presently arisen dhamma) develops gradually, and through stages. At first it is weak, and the only stage in can arise in is pariyatti (right understanding of a concept of a presently arisen dhamma). RE: > And why should that not apply to other practices as well? ----------- Sorry, I don't understand the question. --------------- <. . .> KH: > > But that doesn't mean we should see concepts as part of a method for gaining more panna. In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no need of a method for gaining anything. RE: > The entire path is to see through delusion and let go of clinging and craving; so the fact that there is "no sufferer" does not mean there is no method necessary. --------------- We are talking about a "method" in the conventionally known sense. So I have to ask you, why would a method necessary? If there is no sufferer then how could there be a method (in the conventional sense) for ending suffering? Vipassana is, of course, the way that leads to the end of suffering, but there is nothing conventional about vipassana. ----------------- RE: > Buddha developed all his methods so that people could discover exactly that, not as a concept, but as a reality. Your argument is misdirected. Buddha's methods are not directed towards gaining anything, but towards realization and freedom. I should not have to argue the merits of Buddhist practice to a Buddhist, but there you are! ----------------- There I am indeed! I am in a tiny minority of Buddhists who believe in a profound, difficult to see, non-conventional Dhamma. And profoundly grateful to be there! Ken H #109824 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 8:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/7/2010 1:16:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I think we have talked about this before, but what actually takes place while concepts are being included in the thought-process, and what would thinking consist of without concepts? Could it take place at all? ------------------------------------------------ When we "think about a tree," for example, there is an enormously complex thinking process going on, itself a part of the ongoing experiential flow, that part conventionally viewed by (other) thought as "a process of thinking," and involving sense-door recollection (mostly visual) and modifying of such memories in novel ways, internally picturing leaves and branches swaying in a breeze, and perhaps also some recollecting and renewing of grass smells or pine odors or fresh loam odor, etc, etc, etc. Where in all this processing are these alleged concept-things? ------------------------------------------------- I agree that the supposed objects that the concepts are about do not actually exist. ------------------------------------------------- Yes, well, of course. But I'm saying more. I'm saying there is thinking activity but not mind-things analogous to matter-things. I don't buy *either* of these. ------------------------------------------------- I think that is what you are saying. "Concept as concept" is not really anything, but "the thought about it" does take place. -------------------------------------------------- Yes. ------------------------------------------------- So what actually happens when a concept is thought of? What does exist? There is a always an image, a language substitute or definition, or other thought-event that bolsters the supposed reality of the concept within the thought. ---------------------------------------------------- There is thinking. And the thinking may be verbal, visual, tactile, auditory, olfactory, etc, etc, etc, involving remembering and imagining etc, etc, etc. ---------------------------------------------------- So if I think "I am going to drive my car to the store" I have an image of car and an image of store that accompanies the language "car" and "store." ---------------------------------------------------- We say there is a car image, but I think there is a process of "car imaging." I think it should be thought of in terms not of things but of mental events and processes, all a part of ongoing experience. ---------------------------------------------------- And/or there is an implicit definition that is underlying those nouns, eg, "A car is a vehicle I drive in to get somewhere." [Leaving aside the infinite regress of more concepts being part of the definition.] ---------------------------------------------------- Yes, for that way madness lies! LOL! ---------------------------------------------------- Those images and those elements of language do take place as part of thought and are actual moments within the thought-process, but the supposed concept they supposedly invoke does not exist. -------------------------------------------------- Even "the images" are fictitious, I think - there being instead a process of imaging. ------------------------------------------------- Would that accord with your sense of this? ------------------------------------------------ I think we are very close on this. ----------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109825 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 2:35 pm Subject: What I heard. About nimitta, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording, about nimitta, no 2. When there is not yet right awareness we think that we see people and beings. We do not yet realise that we see the nimitta, the sign, referring to the four Great Elements. Then one has not understood the meaning of anattaa. If there is no seeing do we know where the four Great Elements are? When we see visible objects through the eyes, we know where they are, because where colour is, there are also the other inseparable ruupas that arise together with it in a group. The colour that appears through the eyes is the nimitta, the sign referring to the Great Elements that are there. When we see the nimitta of this or that person called by such or such a name, this is not the realisation of anattaa. When pa~n~naa arises it is known that through eyes shape and form appears and that this is a nimitta of the four Great Elements, not of people and things. The four Great Elements are true, they are not people or things. The different colours of shape and form appearing through the eyes causes one to cling to an idea of different things and persons. Through eyes the four Great Elements cannot be seen. Colour arises together with these Great Elements and this is a condition to know the nimitta of them. These are not persons. The ariyan still perceives people, but he knows that when he sees the nimitta that this is a sign referring to the Great Elements which arise and fall away. He knows conventional truth, concepts of what appears through the mind-door. He does not cling to the nimitta as a person. There is a great variety of the four Great Elements, they have different degrees of hardness, softness, heat or cold. This causes the nimittas to be varied. ---------- Nina. #109826 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message tadaomiyamot... Hi Khun Nina: The story must be from Sutta-nipaata. (Am I right?) I will re-read it. Thank you for the piece of information. tadao ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 4:52:20 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message Dear Tadao, Op 6-sep-2010, om 16:49 heeft Tadao Miyamoto het volgende geschreven: > I may be wrong but, (at least) according to the Theravada > tradition, one who has > attained > the second stage of enlightenment would not be able to stay in the > status of > Ghara-vaasa (home-bound living) > due simply to do with his/her high state of purity. ------ N: I agree with Alex that he can still be ahouseholder. As to Anaagaami, he does not wish to live in a house. He is not attached at all to any sense object. I do not know whether this means that he necessarily has to become a monk. The Potter Ghatikaara became an anaagaami shortly before he was killed by a cow. Nina. #109827 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 1:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message tadaomiyamot... Hi Alex: Thank you for your clarification. tadao #109828 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 8:19 pm Subject: Perceiving the Transience... bhikkhu5 Friends: The Experience of Change uproots Egoism! At Savatthi the blessed Buddha said: Bhikkhus, when the perception of impermanence is developed & cultivated, then it eliminates all sense desire, it eliminates all lust for becoming into something else, it also eliminates all ignorance, and finally it uproots even this deep self-deception that "I Am"... Just as, bhikkhus, in the autumn, when the sky is ultra clear and cloudless, then the rising sun dispels all darkness from all the space where it shines, so too when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated, then it eliminates all sense desire, it eliminates lust for renewed becoming into something else, and it also evaporates and eliminates all ignorance... Finally it even uproots this core conceit that "I Am"! And how, bhikkhus, is perception of impermanence developed & cultivated so that it eliminates all sense desire, lust for becoming, ignorance & egoism? Such is form, such is the arising of form, such is the ceasing of form.. Such is feeling, such is the arising of feeling, such is the ceasing of feeling.. Such is perception, such is the arising of perception, such is its cessation.. Such is construction, such is the arising of construction, & such its ceasing. Such is consciousness, such is the arising of consciousness, & such its ceasing. That is how the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated so that it eliminates all sense desire, all lust for becoming something else, all ignorance, and so that it finally uproots this conceit that "I Am"... Causes cause emergence when present, while ceasing when they are absent: Body is caused by food, ignorance, form lust, & intention resulting in form. Feeling arises from contact, ignorance, desire for feeling, & prior intention. Perception is caused by contact, ignorance, lust for perception, and kamma. Mental Construction arises caused by contact, past ignorance, desire for mental construction, and prior intention = kama resulting in construction. The causes of consciousness are mentality-&-materiality, prior ignorance, desire for being conscious, and kammic intention resulting in consciousness. Ignorance is Not Knowing: Suffering, Craving as the cause of Suffering, No Craving as the End of Suffering, and the Noble Way to end Suffering... Whether going along, above, across or back, wherever he goes in this world let him carefully scrutinize the arising & ceasing of all constructed things... Itivuttaka 120 More on the Universal Fact of Impermanence: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Transient_formations.htm <. . .> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:102 III 155-7 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Perceiving the Transience... #109829 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 9:16 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E (and Ken O), > > ----- > <. . .> > KH: > > You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. > > RE: > Only according to the Buddha. Of course if you bend over backwards and twist to an improbable degree, you can read him as saying that all his detailed methods just happen by circumstance, and that you don't have to do anything. > ----- > > I and others have tried to explain that there is no self who can do, or not do, anything. There are only dhammas. It's not always an easy reality to explain, but that's the way it is. That is not in dispute. Yet this conversation is still taking place, with no one there to have it, so how is that? Well, it just takes place anyway, and citta arises to experience it. That does not change the fact that these things take place. Not only is reading, walking and conversing possible, but practice also takes place. If one has the accumulations to practice, why should it be akusala? This is something that cannot be explained because it is illogical. > ------------ > <. . .> > RE: > Satipatthana and anapanasati are not concepts; they are practices. > ------------ > > They are conditioned dhammas. Different dhammas participate in different relations and patterns. There are dhammas arising in reading, eating and thinking; yet reading, eating and thinking take place. In the case of eating, food goes down the throat and gets digested. You can break that down to dhammas too, but they do get generated. And sitting meditation takes place as well for those who do it because of conditions, and that is not akusala. It is not akusala for satipatthana and anapanasati to take place within the context of sitting meditation. If akusala cittas arise, they will arise. But it is just as likely that kusala cittas will arise. It is also important to consult those who have experienced satipatthana and who have experienced anapanasati - mindfulness arising in relation to the breath as object - in order to find out what actually takes place and how it takes place, not just consult texts and philosophy. > ----------- > KH: > > Panna (right understanding of the a presently arisen dhamma) develops gradually, and through stages. At first it is weak, and the only stage in can arise in is pariyatti (right understanding of a concept of a presently arisen dhamma). > > RE: > And why should that not apply to other practices as well? > ----------- > > Sorry, I don't understand the question. Why can't one begin with pariyati of what takes place in sitting meditation and gradually gain right understanding. If one starts with concepts in any context, that can develop equally well. > > --------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > But that doesn't mean we should see concepts as part of a method for gaining more panna. In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no need of a method for gaining anything. > > RE: > The entire path is to see through delusion and let go of clinging and craving; so the fact that there is "no sufferer" does not mean there is no method necessary. > --------------- > > We are talking about a "method" in the conventionally known sense. So I have to ask you, why would a method necessary? Even though there is no doer, dhammas and cittas are organized in patterns in order to make progress and accumulate and pass on what they learn. It is in organized patterns, not random ones, that conditions develop in clarity and that they move from akusala to kusala. It may not have a "self" involved, but neither is it random. One should not adopt a view of randomness just to make certain they are not involving self-view. That is going from the illusion of control to the illusion of chaos. Both are equally bad. The "method" is the aligning of right intention with right action, etc. to create an organized accumulation and progression of bhavana and kusala qualities that lead to awakening. Even though there is no "self" this organization and accumulation has to be allowed. If the accompanying factors that arise are prejudiced against this or that form of activity, they can prevent the accumulations that lead to real sati, panna, etc., and one can get stuck in an intellectual philosophy instead of being free to make real progress. The idea that no one can make real progress anyway and that only pariyati is available in this lifetime is yet another akusala concept to prevent the acceptance of higher qualities being developed here and now. One should not adopt a philosophy that is *against* the effectiveness of the path and that is content with conceptual half-measures of intellectual understanding, waiting for a future lifetime to make real progress. > If there is no sufferer then how could there be a method (in the conventional sense) for ending suffering? > > Vipassana is, of course, the way that leads to the end of suffering, but there is nothing conventional about vipassana. One should not use the concept of "conventional reality" to block the real arising of non-conventional, actual vipassana. Are you really in a position to cast judgment on whether the arising of insight is conventional or not, or do you have to experience it clearly in order to know that? Such presumption is not helpful to the path. > > ----------------- > RE: > Buddha developed all his methods so that people could discover exactly that, not as a concept, but as a reality. Your argument is misdirected. Buddha's methods are not directed towards gaining anything, but towards realization and freedom. I should not have to argue the merits of Buddhist practice to a Buddhist, but there you are! > ----------------- > > There I am indeed! I am in a tiny minority of Buddhists who believe in a profound, difficult to see, non-conventional Dhamma. And profoundly grateful to be there! It may be that your view is prejudiced and that your tiny minority is wrong. You ought to have a way of checking out your beliefs against some kind of actual experience so that you can tell whether you are experiencing intellectual dhamma that is not conducive to actual experience of the path. Telling yourself that you understand the noble as opposed to the mundane path instead of actually following the path would be a major error and would hold you back for many lifetimes when you could be experiencing realities instead of concepts. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109830 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 10:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/7/2010 1:16:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > I think we have talked about this before, but what actually takes place > while concepts are being included in the thought-process, and what would > thinking consist of without concepts? Could it take place at all? > ------------------------------------------------ > When we "think about a tree," for example, there is an enormously > complex thinking process going on, itself a part of the ongoing experiential > flow, that part conventionally viewed by (other) thought as "a process of > thinking," and involving sense-door recollection (mostly visual) and modifying > of such memories in novel ways, internally picturing leaves and branches > swaying in a breeze, and perhaps also some recollecting and renewing of > grass smells or pine odors or fresh loam odor, etc, etc, etc. Where in all this > processing are these alleged concept-things? > ------------------------------------------------- > > I agree that the supposed objects that the concepts are about do not > actually exist. > ------------------------------------------------- > Yes, well, of course. But I'm saying more. I'm saying there is > thinking activity but not mind-things analogous to matter-things. I don't buy > *either* of these. > ------------------------------------------------- > > I think that is what you are saying. "Concept as concept" is not really > anything, but "the thought about it" does take place. > -------------------------------------------------- > Yes. > ------------------------------------------------- > > So what actually happens when a concept is thought of? What does exist? > There is a always an image, a language substitute or definition, or other > thought-event that bolsters the supposed reality of the concept within the > thought. > ---------------------------------------------------- > There is thinking. And the thinking may be verbal, visual, tactile, > auditory, olfactory, etc, etc, etc, involving remembering and imagining etc, > etc, etc. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > So if I think "I am going to drive my car to the store" I have an image of > car and an image of store that accompanies the language "car" and "store." > ---------------------------------------------------- > We say there is a car image, but I think there is a process of "car > imaging." I think it should be thought of in terms not of things but of > mental events and processes, all a part of ongoing experience. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > And/or there is an implicit definition that is underlying those nouns, eg, > "A car is a vehicle I drive in to get somewhere." [Leaving aside the > infinite regress of more concepts > being part of the definition.] > ---------------------------------------------------- > Yes, for that way madness lies! LOL! > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Those images and those elements of language do take place as part of > thought and are actual moments within the thought-process, but the supposed > concept they supposedly invoke does not exist. > -------------------------------------------------- > Even "the images" are fictitious, I think - there being instead a > process of imaging. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > Would that accord with your sense of this? > ------------------------------------------------ > I think we are very close on this. > ----------------------------------------------- This is one of those exchanges that seem very fruitful to me personally. As you say, we are "very close" on this, yet you supplied some ideas that were much more dynamic than my static idea of images as if they were stopped in time when we experience them. You rightly applied some "anicca medicine" to this idea and showed that even the imaging of supposed images is a dynamic process that is constantly changing rather than ever standing still conveniently for our conceptual convenience. That is very helpful. Anicca rules, and there is no control! Yay! It may be that a little image or diagram of a car shape or picture may float by or get focused on in a moment, but that is also in a dynamic process of shifting and changing and getting rearranged and reshaped so that there really is not a static moment. I notice with some amusement how my mind wants to pin some of those images down and make them stand still conceptually. I have one other question: How would you define a concept, as opposed to a thinking process? Could you distinguish those clearly? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109831 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, > N: I agree with Alex that he can still be ahouseholder. As to > Anaagaami, he does not wish to live in a house. He is not attached at > all to any sense object. I do not know whether this means that he > necessarily has to become a monk. The Potter Ghatikaara became an > anaagaami shortly before he was killed by a cow. > Nina. If I remember correctly, Ghatikara had to look after his parents. This is why he didn't ordain. The sutta does state that he didn't have 5 lower fetter implying that he was Anagamin. `Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, who have destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and born spontaneously would not proceed,' http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/073-maha-vacch\ agotta-e1.html There is also a sutta in SN about how a layperson can be guided to become an Arhat at the moment of death "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."" SN 55.54 (4) Ill BB Trans With metta, Alex #109832 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:13 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------------- <. . .> KH: > > there is no self who can do, or not do, anything. There are only dhammas. <. . .> RE: > That is not in dispute. Yet this conversation is still taking place, with no one there to have it, so how is that? Well, it just takes place anyway, ---------------- If the conversation really exists then so too must the people in it. You can't have a conversation without people. --------------------- RE: > and citta arises to experience it. --------------------- Cittas experience different things at different times. Sometimes they experience dhammas (realities) and sometimes they experience concepts. When they are experiencing concepts (e.g., the concept of a conversation) they are actually experiencing the product of their own thinking. There is no external reality known as "conversation". In between those moments of thinking, cittas are also experiencing external realities. Among them are audible realities (or visible realities in the case of an internet conversation) that are recognised by sanna and give rise to more thinking about the topic of conversation. ----------------------- RE: > That does not change the fact that these things take place. ----------------------- I hope you can see where we differ. I am saying that citta, audible rupa, and visible rupa etc, are the only things that are actually taking place. The conversation is just a concept. You are saying they all (both the dhammas and the conversation) take place. ------------------------------------------- RE: > Not only is reading, walking and conversing possible, but practice also takes place. If one has the accumulations to practice, why should it be akusala? This is something that cannot be explained because it is illogical. -------------------------------------------- The real practice (satipatthana) is to have right understanding of a presently arisen reality (either citta, visible rupa or audible rupa etc). So, again, we can see where our opinions differ. Because you believe conversations (and other concepts) actually take place, you also believe that *awareness* of conversations (etc) forms part of the practice taught by the Buddha. I, on the other hand, am saying that only dhammas really exist, and awareness of dhammas is the only practice taught by the Buddha. --------------------------- <. . .> RE: > > > Satipatthana and anapanasati are not concepts; they are practices. >>> KH: > > They are conditioned dhammas. >> RE: > Different dhammas participate in different relations and patterns. There are dhammas arising in reading, eating and thinking; yet reading, eating and thinking take place. In the case of eating, food goes down the throat and gets digested. You can break that down to dhammas too, but they do get generated. ----------------------------- Again we see that you believe in two realities: you believe in dhammas, and you believe in patterns of dhammas. If you were right then dhammas would become irrelevant: satipatthana could be practised simply by being aware of patterns. We could concentrate on walking, or talking, or eating etc., and somehow understand those things as anicca dukkha and anatta. But it doesn't work that way. In reality there are only dhammas (no patterns of dhammas) and so the practice of satipatthana is to know dhammas only. ---------------------------------------- RE: > And sitting meditation takes place as well for those who do it because of conditions, and that is not akusala. It is not akusala for satipatthana and anapanasati to take place within the context of sitting meditation. If akusala cittas arise, they will arise. But it is just as likely that kusala cittas will arise. ---------------------------------------- I agree to a certain extent. When we are walking we can have right understanding of dhammas, and the same applies to when we are talking or eating etc. Therefore, when we are sitting too we can have right understanding of the dhammas. But I don't know so much about when we are sitting in meditation. That sounds to me like "when we have not heard the true Dhamma" and therefore I can't agree there could be satipatthana at that time. I understand the term "sitting meditation" to apply to certain practices that are advocated by people who have not heard (or who have misunderstood) the Dhamma. Contrary to popular belief, concentration on postures (when sitting or walking), or on the vocal cords (when talking), or on the jaw and throat muscles (when eating), is not satipatthana. ----------------------------- RE: > It is also important to consult those who have experienced satipatthana and who have experienced anapanasati - mindfulness arising in relation to the breath as object - in order to find out what actually takes place and how it takes place, not just consult texts and philosophy. ----------------------------- Maybe so, but that is where you need to be extra careful. The vast majority of people who claim those attainments are either deluded or dishonest. -------------------------------------- <. . .> > KH: > > Sorry, I don't understand the question. RE: > Why can't one begin with pariyati of what takes place in sitting meditation and gradually gain right understanding. If one starts with concepts in any context, that can develop equally well. --------------------------------------- Now I see what you mean, thanks. I agree that pariyatti is always the right way, no matter when it occurs. And so when we are sitting there are, in reality, only the presently arisen dhammas. What about now? Is there right understanding now? What are the realities of the present moment? From what I have heard, considered and discussed, I can tell you there is visible object, seeing-consciousness, contact, feeling . . . and so on. It's a pretty basic knowledge, and I can't pin it down to any precise single citta, but it's a start. :-) Most importantly, I know this is the only reality. There is no concurrent reality in which conversations and people (etc) exist. There are only dhammas; there are no "patterns of dhammas". Ken H PS: I have stopped short of addressing all of your points because I don't want to break the record for the longest post to DSG. :-) (I believe that honour is currently shared by you, me and Sukin.):-) #109833 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:35 am Subject: what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? truth_aerator Hello Howard, Robert, all, >I agree that the supposed objects that the concepts are about do >not >actually exist. > > ------------------------------------------------- Please define exactly what you mean by "exist" and "do not exist". Exist in exactly what sense? "Not Exist" in exactly what sense? Don't you see that a car, for example, fulfills a certain function not done by lets say a piece of rock? If something doesn't exist, how can it have a certain and specific function peculiar only to itself, even if function is to produce certain paramattha dhammas? What distinguishes the specific and peculiar functions between one conceptual object from another? If they don't really exist, then how could their be distinction and difference in function? One zero isn't different from another zero. But something can be different from another something. Of course I do not deny that any compounded object, at least in theory, can be disassembled into its parts. But parts can from different wholes with different functions. BTW, 4 out of 5 aggregates cannot be taken apart - only in theory. So the reductionist example doesn't apply there. As for compounded wholes, they do have specific functions and the parts are arranged into functional whole. One can't take those parts and assemble improperly, only proper assemblage will produce a functional whole. Again, the fact that proper assemblage of parts can produce a functional object vs improper assemblage of those parts will not produce a functional object does show that objects do have certain functions and are not just figments of imagination. With metta, Alex #109834 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:57 am Subject: concepts have characteristics truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, >KH: If the conversation really exists then so too must the people in >it. You can't have a conversation without people. Are you saying that it is irrelevant what/who talks? Rocks can't communication, neither can cars. But certain sentient beings can. Don't you see that a car, for example, fulfills a certain function not done by another object, lets say, a piece of rock? If something doesn't exist, how can it have a certain and specific function peculiar only to itself, even if function is to produce certain paramattha dhammas? If "conceptual" realities didn't exist, then there would not be functional difference between different conceptual objects. 0 doesn't differ from another 0. But something can be different from another something. A car has different properties than lets say a spoon. If neither of them existed in any way, then there would be no difference. But since there is difference, there has to be different objects to be the source of those differences. > > The real practice (satipatthana) is to have right understanding of >a presently arisen reality (either citta, visible rupa or audible >rupa etc). What about 10 charnel ground contemplations, what about 4 postures contemplation and other similar "conventional" practices in satipatthana sutta? >KH: Again we see that you believe in two realities: you believe in >dhammas, and you believe in patterns of dhammas. > > If you were right then dhammas would become irrelevant: >satipatthana could be practised simply by being aware of patterns. Right. 4 postures,10 charnel ground contemplations, and other "conceptual" teachings are taught. With metta, Alex #109835 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: q. nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 2-sep-2010, om 16:57 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > In Vipassana meditation, we must be mindful of akusala and/or > kusala thought and known as it is. Akusala is not eradicated by > will, akusala is eradicated by wisdom. > The thought is still thought, whether akusala or kusala. We can be > attached to kusala or akusala. > knowing the reality (anicca, dukkha and anatta)of kusala or/and > akusala would condition eradication of attachment. ------- N: I think that you use the word thought for citta. First kusala and akusala should be known as 'just a conditioned reality'. Insight develops in stages and in the beginning the three general characteristics are not clearly known. Only the arahat can eradicate all attachment, as you know. --------- > F: Sometimes kusala or akusala only concepts, that is why the > Buddha mention the root of all is lobha, dosa and moha, not akusala > or kusala. ------ N: They are paramattha dhammas, not concepts. Kusala citta and akusala citta are cittas, realities. and so is the hetu: the roots are cetasikas. --------- > F: Lobha, dosa and moha can be squeezed into one root: attachment. ------ N: Perhaps you use the word root in another sense, not in the sense of hetu. Lobha, dosa and moha are three different hetus. --------- > F:We can be attached to kusala or attached to akusala, but both > still conditioned. > We must develop non attachment to conditioned fenomena, non > attachment itself is kusala, therefore it means we develop kusala > by developing non attachment. ------- N: Can we say: develop understanding? Non-attachment arises with each kusala citta and thus also with the kusala citta that develops understanding. But we do not have to think of developing non- attachment, it grows by conditions as understanding develops. ------- > > F: For example: In meditation if you want to give charity it is a > kusala thought but this thought is conditioned. If you following > this thought it means you are attached to the thought, it is still > attachment, and it is not kusala, even though the thought of > charity is kusala thought. > We must let go attachment to this "kusala idea" because in the > ultimate reality it is still attachment and attachment is not kusala. ------ N: Sure, when we are generous, there are bound to be akusala cittas as well. We cling to our kusala. But also the akusala cittas are realities and they can be known as only dhammas. We should have no idea of having to let go of akusala. As Jon once said: kusala and akusala are equally worthy to be objects of mindfulness. ------- > > F: The problem is, if we analyze this "noble thought" of giving > charity, the mind would be attached to this idea, and it is "akusala". > If we don't analyze that thought, being cut of it's fuel the > thought would withered away and disappear, we are not attached, and > it is kusala. ------ N: Perhaps the solution is not having any idea of analysing or not analysing. There may be an idea of self who analysis or does not analyse. It depends on the citta at that moment, is it accompanied by pa~n~naa or not?And anyway, each moment of citta falls away immediately. True, at the moment of kusala one is not attached; attachment falls away but there are still conditions for its arising, until one has become an arahat. > ------ Nina. #109836 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/7/2010 6:50:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: It may be that a little image or diagram of a car shape or picture may float by or get focused on in a moment, but that is also in a dynamic process of shifting and changing and getting rearranged and reshaped so that there really is not a static moment. I notice with some amusement how my mind wants to pin some of those images down and make them stand still conceptually. ---------------------------------------- That was very well said, Robert! (I think of Omar Khayyam's "moving finger"!) -------------------------------------- I have one other question: How would you define a concept, as opposed to a thinking process? ------------------------------------ I think that concepts are unreal and merely imagined entities associated with thinking. They are dreamed of reifications of mentally conglomerated stretches of thinking. ------------------------------------- Could you distinguish those clearly?e ---------------------------------------------- Not very well, I'm afraid. :-( =============================== With metta, Howard Like a Dream /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace./ (From the Potaliya Sutta) #109837 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Robert) - In a message dated 9/7/2010 10:35:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, Robert, all, >I agree that the supposed objects that the concepts are about do >not >actually exist. > > ------------------------------------------------- Please define exactly what you mean by "exist" and "do not exist". Exist in exactly what sense? "Not Exist" in exactly what sense? --------------------------------------- I'm afraid I cannot answer you. --------------------------------------- Don't you see that a car, for example, fulfills a certain function not done by lets say a piece of rock? --------------------------------------- Lots of elementary phenomena, acting in concert, are observed, and "a car" is imputed. -------------------------------------- If something doesn't exist, how can it have a certain and specific function peculiar only to itself, even if function is to produce certain paramattha dhammas? ---------------------------------------- Simple phenomena acting in concert, the group of which is concocted and thought of as an individual. -------------------------------------- What distinguishes the specific and peculiar functions between one conceptual object from another? If they don't really exist, then how could their be distinction and difference in function? -------------------------------------- Different mentally constructed aggregations. ------------------------------------- One zero isn't different from another zero. But something can be different from another something. Of course I do not deny that any compounded object, at least in theory, can be disassembled into its parts. But parts can from different wholes with different functions. ------------------------------------------ The key issue is that of interrelationship and acting in concert. ------------------------------------------ BTW, 4 out of 5 aggregates cannot be taken apart - only in theory. So the reductionist example doesn't apply there. As for compounded wholes, they do have specific functions and the parts are arranged into functional whole. ---------------------------------------- What I call "acting in concert". -------------------------------------- One can't take those parts and assemble improperly, only proper assemblage will produce a functional whole. Again, the fact that proper assemblage of parts can produce a functional object vs improper assemblage of those parts will not produce a functional object does show that objects do have certain functions and are not just figments of imagination. With metta, Alex =========================== With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #109838 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 8:19 am Subject: Re: concepts have characteristics kenhowardau Hi Alex, ----------- <. . .> KH: > > If the conversation really exists then so too must the people in it. You can't have a conversation without people. A: > Are you saying that it is irrelevant what/who talks? ----------- No, I was responding to something Robert E said. In response to the statement, "There are only dhammas," he wrote, "That is not in dispute. Yet this conversation is still taking place, with no one there to have it, so how is that? Well, it just takes place anyway, < . .>" So I pointed out that there couldn't be a conversation without someone "there to have it". Do you disagree with that? --------------- A: > Rocks can't communication, neither can cars. But certain sentient beings can. Don't you see that a car, for example, fulfills a certain function not done by another object, lets say, a piece of rock? If something doesn't exist, how can it have a certain and specific function peculiar only to itself, even if function is to produce certain paramattha dhammas? --------------- Everyone knows rocks are different from cars. That sort of knowledge has nothing to do with satipatthaha. Satipatthana is the knowledge that there are ultimately only dhammas (no rocks, no cars). -------------------------- A: > If "conceptual" realities didn't exist, then there would not be functional difference between different conceptual objects. 0 doesn't differ from another 0. But something can be different from another something. A car has different properties than lets say a spoon. If neither of them existed in any way, then there would be no difference. --------------------------- If neither of them existed in any way then what would there be "no difference" between? ------------------------- A: > But since there is difference, there has to be different objects to be the source of those differences. ------------------------- I see! What if I was to tell you there was is a difference between myself and yourself? Would that mean there was a self (and the Buddha was wrong)? ----------------- KH: > > The real practice (satipatthana) is to have right understanding of a presently arisen reality (either citta, visible rupa or audible rupa etc). A: > What about 10 charnel ground contemplations, what about 4 postures contemplation and other similar "conventional" practices in satipatthana sutta? ----------------- Yes, what about them? Do they in fact prove that there is a self? Is that what you are saying? Or could there be another way of understanding suttas - such as the way people at DSG have been trying explain to you for the last several years? Ken H #109839 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts have characteristics upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Alex) - In a message dated 9/8/2010 4:19:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Satipatthana is the knowledge that there are ultimately only dhammas (no rocks, no cars). ================================== Ken, in what sutta does that definition appear? I don't think it does. I will say two things about satipatthana: 1) Satipatthana is not wisdom, but is a foundation for mindfulness (or field for mindful investigation), and 2) The pa~n~na that arises from mindful attention to the 4 foundations of mindfulness, supported by sila and samatha, is not the knowledge that macroscopic, conventional objects are merely matters of convention, but is direct insight into the tilakkhana, into paticcasamuppada, and, finally, into nibbana. With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #109840 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts cannot be accumulated? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 7-sep-2010, om 0:56 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > >N: Kh Sujin also said: concepts cannot be accumulated. > > What about worldly sciences (math, biology, physics, etc)? A person > may acquire a lot of worldly knowledge. Isn't that the same as > saying that one accumulates concepts? ------- N: Accumulation in the context of natural decisive support condition is the kusala or akusala accumulated in the past that can condition later on their arising again. In this sense we cannot say that for example visible object or a concept such as a person is accumulated in the citta. --------- > > A:Concepts can be (object & natural decisive support) conditions > for lobha, dosa or moha. So more congition of concepts may be cause > for more lobha, dosa or moha being accumulated if somehow the > theoretical concepts cannot be accumulated themselves. ------ N: Wholesome or unwholesome thinking of concepts is a condition for unwholesome or unwholesome thinking in the future. ------- Nina. #109841 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kevin's message nilovg Dear Alex, Op 8-sep-2010, om 2:12 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > If I remember correctly, Ghatikara had to look after his parents. > This is why he didn't ordain. The sutta does state that he didn't > have 5 lower fetter implying that he was Anagamin. ------ N: You are right. I confused him with Pukkusaati who stayed at the house of another potter and there met the Buddha. The anaagaami can be a recluse at heart, though not ordained, I think. He/she can gave away his house to family members and not long for a house of his own, having no preference for special foods or beautiful cloths. It is pa~n~naa that causes the growing towards such detachment. ------ Nina. #109842 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Time. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 7-sep-2010, om 2:41 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: >> N: There should be awareness and understanding of the present moment, >> and no need to think of time. > > if one find an explanation on the present moment using "past citta" > and "next > citta". the Time is involved. Getting some understanding of Time > and the > Time role becomes quite logical. > Don't you agree?, Why? -------- N: Seeing now is really there and I do not think of time. We learn to investigate the characteristic of what now appears and nothing else besides that. Kh Sujin often says: what about this moment? Only the present reality can be directly known and that is what matters. As I quoted to Howard, Baddhekaratta Sutta. Vision is a translation of vipassanaa. We never know when we will die. It is so important to understand more what is present. I would like you to have as much profit as possible when you meet Kh Sujin. Be prepared: ------- V: We can touch the cup with our open eyes, and then there is seeing and hardness. But we can say "no, they arise one-by-one according the cittas arising and falling". However, the dhammas flow in itself is not a creation of multiple cittas arising and falling. Both citta and nama-rupa arise in a co- dependent way, there are not multiple cittas neither multiple nama-rupa. Therefore, the "one-object at same time" schema only can belongs to the delusion land, to the -self. This schema only is being supported by giving substance to the multiplicity. Don't you agree? --------- N: Lodewijk feels with you and finds this one-object at same time when his eyes are open very difficult. There are many dhammas arising at the same time, I do not deny this, but only one at a time can be known, or known with pa~n~naa. It seems that seeing sees many 'things' but when our eyes are open just the visible is seen. We do not have to think how far this visible object extends. I quote some part from a Thai recording that I will post later on from the beginning: < Pa~n~naa can understand that there is nothing else but naama and the object of naama. At the moment of experiencing hardness, there is only hardness, but pa~n~naa has not been developed enough to know that there is nothing but hardness. At the moment of seeing is there any part of the body sitting, standing or assuming any posture? At the moment of experiencing hardness is there any posture? When there is memory of a posture there is an idea of self who thinks of my body. where is the body? Through which doorway can it be experienced? Thropugh the eyes visible object is experienced, not sitting, standing etc. Through the eardoor sound is experienced. So long as one clings to the memory of posture it hinders the experience of the arising and falling away of dhammas. At the moment of experiencing hardness there is no posture. > Thus, when it seems that many things are experienced at one moment it means that pa~n~naa has to develop more from listening and considering. ------- Nina. #109843 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:04 pm Subject: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. nilovg Dear friends, From a recording in India. no 1. About the difference between the moments with sati and without sati. Kh Sujin: --------- Nina. #109844 From: Ken O Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Ken H >This discussion began several weeks ago when you argued that the Buddha taught >"methods." You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and >meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. > KO:? I said there are methods for developing satipatthana.? Definitely, there are such counting breaths method and they lead to jhanas which is a basis for insight, it is in the texts and I could always requote if you want :-).? >------------- > >We are all using similar words, but with different meanings. > >You seem to mean that there is no essential difference between concepts and >dhammas: they both arise and fall, and they both perform conditioning functions. > >I think you have been forced to take that unfortunate stance in your defence of >"methods." KO:? Definitely, there are important difference between concepts and dhammas.? Yet you still have not prove methods are not taught in the dhamma or concepts are not important to learn dhamma.? There is no need for me to prove concepts or methods?which are?used as a means?and they are written all over the texts. >----------- >KO: > If it does not, pse tell me how you learn dhamma from words.? You have yet > >tell me this.? thanks >----------- > >Panna (right understanding of the a presently arisen dhamma) develops gradually, > >and through stages. At first it is weak, and the only stage in can arise in is >pariyatti (right understanding of a concept of a presently arisen dhamma). > >But that doesn't mean we should see concepts as part of a method for gaining >more panna. In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no >need of a method for gaining anything. > KO:? Definiely there?is no?sufferer or being, does that mean concept not impt :-).? Panna is learn?and develop slowly.? Could you learn dhamma without concepts to help us to understand.? ??I am asking whether concepts are used to for development of panna or as a means to develop panna.??It is panna that understand the characteristic of dhamma.?? But must the object of the citta is a dhamma :-)? Ken O #109845 From: Ken O Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 9:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Ken H and Rob E >-------------------------------------- > >I have one other question: How would you define a concept, as opposed to >a thinking process? >------------------------------------ >I think that concepts are unreal and merely imagined entities >associated with thinking. They are dreamed of reifications of mentally >conglomerated stretches of thinking. KO:? concepts are thinking objects.? thinking is a characteristic of citta, vittaka and vicara.? Thinking is real but concepts cannot happen without thinking.? Thinking can be for other dhammas and not necessary must be for concepts.? These are the differences. Ken O #109846 From: Ken O Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 9:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k > >From: "upasaka@..." >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 03:23:08 >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? > > >Hi, Ken O (and Ken H, and Jon) - > >In a message dated 9/6/2010 2:04:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >ashkenn2k@... writes: > >Dear Ken H > >>------------------- >> >>Yes, you should read it too. :-) In particular you should read how a >concept >>(which doesn't really exist) can be said to act by way of object >condition, or >>by natural decisive support condition. The explanations are given many >times in > >>the books and at DSG. You just have to look for them. >> >>To cut a long story short: only dhammas (including the dhammas that >create >>concepts and react to them) actually perform those conditioning >functions, the >>concepts themselves don't do anything. > >KO: I am saying concepts can condtion dhamma to arise and concepts must >arise >in the presence of dhamma. If it does not, pse tell me how you learn >dhamma >from words. You have yet tell me this. thanks >------------------------------------------------ >My two cents on this matter: It is thinking, an activity that does >occur, and not concepts, that does the conditioning. Thinking is observable, >but concepts are not to be found. There is thinking-of-cars and there is >thinking-of-attending-Dhamma-talks, mental activities, but nowhere can we find >as part of that thinking those thought-of objects, and the alleged >in-the-world cars and attendings of Dhamma talks, as mind-independent phenomena, > > >are not to be found either. (I'm not maintaining that such thinking is >baseless or useless, but it must be seen for exactly what it is, just >thinking,-based on sense-door experiences, but still only thinking. >================================ KO: Yes it is thinking that is conditioning the arisen of concepts. You are also right that thinking is observable but concepts not observable or a better word characteritisc. I just like to add, concepts do condition the arisen of dhamma because of object conditioning. Maybe I should explain this more, when concepts conditon other dhamma to arise, it is the dhamma that accompany the concept the condition the next dhamma. Concepts cannot happen IMHO solely on thinking, sana play an equally impt role. Our craving of pleasureable towards concepts, is also due to sana marking this concept as pleasurable. Just like to take this opportunity to say this. Meditation or recitiation on conceptual object is not to develop the conceptual object, it is to develop the dhamma that concentrate or recite on the conceptual object Ken O #109847 From: Ken O Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 9:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa ashkenn2k Dear Rob E Cheers Ken O > >? >Hi Ken O. > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > >> KO:? are you saying after you arrived in Bangkok, the trip you make from your >> hotel to the foundation to listen to dhamma is not an intentional activity.? I > > >> wonder whether you know the difference between intentional activity or an >> akusala activity.?? Hmm those ancients monks must be wrong, because if they are >> >> >> not intentional going to visit Buddha to learn, how do they listen.? > >Their past accumulations transport them there. > >Best, >Robert E. > >- - - - - - - - - #109848 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 10:25 am Subject: Re: Perceiving the Transience... epsteinrob Hi Bikkhu Samahita. Thank you Bikkhu S. for a wonderful passage! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109849 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 10:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I have one other question: How would you define a concept, as opposed to > a thinking process? > ------------------------------------ > I think that concepts are unreal and merely imagined entities > associated with thinking. They are dreamed of reifications of mentally > conglomerated stretches of thinking. > ------------------------------------- Hm...it sounds like "concept" itself is a "concept" that doesn't actually appear - an empty idea with no representatives! I feel some infinite regress of "concept of concept" coming on. Better to get out quick!!! Best, Robert E. = = = = #109850 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? truth_aerator Hello Howard, KenH, all, > Please define exactly what you mean by "exist" and "do not exist". > > Exist in exactly what sense? > "Not Exist" in exactly what sense? > --------------------------------------- >H: I'm afraid I cannot answer you. > --------------------------------------- This is, IMHO, very important to define what we mean by existence and non-existence, real vs unreal, etc. Without this definition all other points about what is real and what is conceptual, what exists and what doesn't really exist is too vague. Lets take a concept of a car. Why do you say that it doesn't exist? One can ride in it. A car is different from some random lump of rocks. Since there is difference, we can't say that car doesn't have a certain and peculiar to itself function and worldly characteristics. >A:Don't you see that a car, for example, fulfills a certain >function not done by lets say a piece of rock? > --------------------------------------- > Lots of elementary phenomena, acting in concert, are observed, and >"a car" is imputed. But car fulfills a function that isn't produced by another conceptual object. Why is car a concept while elementary phenomena are not themselves conceptual objects? Where do you draw the line between wholes and parts? Why aren't these parts themselves wholes (of a lesser magnitude)? >A: If something doesn't exist, how can it have a certain and >specific function peculiar only to itself, even if function is to >produce certain paramattha dhammas? >---------------------------------------- >H: Simple phenomena acting in concert, the group of which is >concocted and thought of as an individual. > -------------------------------------- How does one distinguish between simple and not-simple phenomena? How come the parts are not themselves mentally abstracted abstractions? If we can distinguish different "Simple phenomena acting in concert" or "concepts" from each other, then how can we say that they don't have any characteristics? Without characteristics, no distinction would be possible. And if concepts (rocks, people, cars) didn't exist *at all* than what would we distinguish from what? What has peculiar function to itself different from other concepts? With metta, Alex #109851 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/8/2010 1:29:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I have one other question: How would you define a concept, as opposed to > a thinking process? > ------------------------------------ > I think that concepts are unreal and merely imagined entities > associated with thinking. They are dreamed of reifications of mentally > conglomerated stretches of thinking. > ------------------------------------- Hm...it sounds like "concept" itself is a "concept" that doesn't actually appear - an empty idea with no representatives! I feel some infinite regress of "concept of concept" coming on. Better to get out quick!!! ---------------------------------------------- Yes, me too - before there entire house of card s comes crashing down! :-) ------------------------------------------ Best, Robert E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109852 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 11:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hello Robert, Howard, KenH, all, > Hm...it sounds like "concept" itself is a "concept" that doesn't >actually appear - an empty idea with no representatives! I feel some >infinite regress of "concept of concept" coming on. Better to get out > Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 11:15 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > --------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > there is no self who can do, or not do, anything. There are only dhammas. <. . .> > > RE: > That is not in dispute. Yet this conversation is still taking place, with no one there to have it, so how is that? Well, it just takes place anyway, > ---------------- > > If the conversation really exists then so too must the people in it. You can't have a conversation without people. Why do you say that? Just as we use "you" and "I" conventionally in everyday speech, so we assume there must be an "I" or a "you" to hold a conversation, but that is not necessarily true. You are assuming this to be the case much too quickly, without any investigation. In my view, the conversation can proceed perfectly well through the usual arising of one dhamma after another, without any "people" so-to-speak being involved. If you have two supposed organisms, and you have two mouths moving and formulating sentences and exchanging them back and forth, why do you think this constitutes two people? Whatever a conversation breaks down to be, just as the chariot breaks down to axle, wheel, etc., so the people having it break down to be various momentary arisings and actions. In the same way, just as there is no "reading" as a single entity, but reading still takes place from one dhamma to the next, so do all activities, including what is wrongly considered to be formal meditation. They are all on an equal footing. What makes one or the other kusala or akusala is not whether it is this activity or that, but whether one is approaching it with wholesome intention and action. If you are saying there are only dhammas, then this must be true for everything. What I am saying is that, while conventionally a conversation is taking place, there is in fact no "conversation" as a discrete entity; neither is there anyone having the conversation - since there are only dhammas - yet we experience the conversation taking place conventionally, like a magic trick. And this is true for all the activities that you might object to. They all take place just as they do because of arising conditions. > > --------------------- > RE: > and citta arises to experience it. > --------------------- > > Cittas experience different things at different times. Sometimes they experience dhammas (realities) and sometimes they experience concepts. So you are saying that a concept can actually be experienced? How would this take place I wonder? If a concept is not a reality, how exactly can it be experienced? Can you explain this? If something is not a dhamma it *cannot* be experienced. Only dhammas exist. So please explain this interesting contradiction. Every time there is an experience there is a dhamma, so where does concept have a place to sneak in? I think that "concept" is really just a figure of speech, and never actually appears. There are only dhammas. Unrealities do not actually arise at all. We just *think* they do and refer to them through language. It's another little trick of the mind. > When they are experiencing concepts (e.g., the concept of a conversation) they are actually experiencing the product of their own thinking. There is no external reality known as "conversation". There is no such thing as an internal or external reality in the first place, so your distinction makes no sense. If you are experiencing a product of your own thinking you are experiencing a dhamma within the mental sphere. If you are experiencing a physical quality you are experiencing a rupa of a sort. So they are all dhammas. You may misidentify one thing as another, I guess, but the element you are misidentifying is still a dhamma, whether nama or rupa, or nama mistaken for rupa. So there is unclear seeing but there are no non-dhammas. And there are no so-called concepts. > > In between those moments of thinking, cittas are also experiencing external realities. Among them are audible realities (or visible realities in the case of an internet conversation) that are recognised by sanna and give rise to more thinking about the topic of conversation. That is fine as far as it goes. I don't see a problem with that. > ----------------------- > RE: > That does not change the fact that these things take place. > ----------------------- > > I hope you can see where we differ. I am saying that citta, audible rupa, and visible rupa etc, are the only things that are actually taking place. The conversation is just a concept. I am saying that what we call a conversation is just what you are saying it is: a bunch of dhammas arising. That is all the conversation ever is. There is no concept. There is only "thinking there is a conversation" which is not a concept but a moment of thought of a certain kind. Then you switch to philosophizing and label that a concept. Your labelling that thinking as a concept is just another nama. There are no concepts anywhere. And you are right that there is no conversation per se. What I am saying is that we still experience all the elements of the conversation in whatever form. To say we have a conversation as a concept is nonsensical. We are experiencing namas and rupas the entire time. > You are saying they all (both the dhammas and the conversation) take place. No I am not. I am saying they are the same thing with no gap. You are mistaking the dhammas that make up the so-called conversation for a so-called concept. It is actually just realities and nothing else which you are mis-labelling. We live in a perfect world: 100% dhammas without a single concept. There is the idea of a concept but that is just a certain kind of nama with accompanying cetasikas that make you think you've identified something called a concept. That something does not exist at all and never has. > ------------------------------------------- > RE: > Not only is reading, walking and conversing possible, but practice also takes place. If one has the accumulations to practice, why should it be akusala? This is something that cannot be explained because it is illogical. > -------------------------------------------- > > The real practice (satipatthana) is to have right understanding of a presently arisen reality (either citta, visible rupa or audible rupa etc). Have you ever experienced this? If so, congratulations. If not, you don't know what you're talking about. > So, again, we can see where our opinions differ. Because you believe conversations (and other concepts) actually take place, No I do not. You think conversations etc. are concepts, which actually do not exist. You think they do and that they can confuse you. This never takes place. It is just a confused idea, which does take place, and is a nama. ...you also believe that *awareness* of conversations (etc) forms part of the practice taught by the Buddha. I never said that. I don't believe that conventional awareness of conventional objects is part of the practice taught by the Buddha. I do believe that actual discernment is available here and now, and that one can engage with it through right intention, which is also available here and now, and sitting with breathing as object and with arising realities as object is a correct practice that can be engaged at any time when one has the accumulations to do so, and so at that time, should and will. I believe that awareness is awareness and this idea that awareness can be 'wrong understanding' is nonsense. > I, on the other hand, am saying that only dhammas really exist, and awareness of dhammas is the only practice taught by the Buddha. No, you are saying that both dhammas and concepts exist, and that you can be tricked by concepts disguised as dhammas. I am saying that is nonsense and that you have been fooled by wrong thinking into a nonsensical idea of a nonexistent bogeyman and that you are frightened of a shadow. Instead of worrying about concepts you should be busy discerning dhammas, which is all that exists. It is you who believe that something other than dhammas exist, and you are wrong. That is why practice can be engaged at any time, because awareness is pure and so are the dhammas to be discerned. There are no concepts and no one ever experiences a non-reality. > --------------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > > > Satipatthana and anapanasati are not concepts; they are practices. > >>> > > KH: > > They are conditioned dhammas. > >> > > RE: > Different dhammas participate in different relations and patterns. There are dhammas arising in reading, eating and thinking; yet reading, eating and thinking take place. In the case of eating, food goes down the throat and gets digested. You can break that down to dhammas too, but they do get generated. > ----------------------------- > > Again we see that you believe in two realities: you believe in dhammas, and you believe in patterns of dhammas. No you believe in two realities: actual realities [dhammas] and fake realities [concepts.] It is your reality that is split. I believe there are only dhammas but of course they occur in patterns. that is not a separate thing. The commentaries are full of descriptions of how panna develops through accumulations. How do you think this takes place? The accumulations have to be formed and passed on from one citta to the next. This is what I mean by a "pattern." There is a progression from ignorance to awakening and it doesn't happen through random winking and blinking. It is cultivated by a chain of cittas. They are not isolated or no accumulations could ever be passed on and panna could never be developed. There is development and it is spoken of in the Abhidhamma. Don't be confused that there is no development which would be a wrong view, just because there is no *self.* You should not confuse no-self with non-sense. Don't be nonsensical. > If you were right then dhammas would become irrelevant: satipatthana could be practised simply by being aware of patterns. I did not say this. Awareness of patterns is not what I am advocating and never said that. What I said that awareness of *dhammas* accumulates and that there is a process there from citta to citta that causes a progression. That is *not* the object of awareness. Dhammas are. > We could concentrate on walking, or talking, or eating etc., and somehow understand those things as anicca dukkha and anatta. Of course we can take any object and by observing them eventually begin to see the dhammas that make them up. Do you think our awareness is not the same awareness that is used to develop panna? Then you truly have two worlds that will never meet. How does panna break through then, by a magical dispensation from Buddha? What do you really think happens to cause awakening? I'd like to know if you have any sensible concrete idea for how this is supposed to take place, that is not just jargon. > But it doesn't work that way. In reality there are only dhammas (no patterns of dhammas) and so the practice of satipatthana is to know dhammas only. How do you "know dhammas only" without knowing them? Do you squint real hard? Or do you wait for magic to come and sprinkle you with fairy dust? I am sorry to be so disparaging, but I am trying to get you to say how it actually takes place. If you don't know what the process is, then you are just spouting jargon and causing more darkness, not spreading any light. It is our own sentience, our own awareness that is the vehicle of enlightenment. It's not a magic gift from Buddha. > ---------------------------------------- > RE: > And sitting meditation takes place as well for those who do it because of conditions, and that is not akusala. It is not akusala for satipatthana and anapanasati to take place within the context of sitting meditation. If akusala cittas arise, they will arise. But it is just as likely that kusala cittas will arise. > ---------------------------------------- > > I agree to a certain extent. When we are walking we can have right understanding of dhammas, and the same applies to when we are talking or eating etc. Therefore, when we are sitting too we can have right understanding of the dhammas. But I don't know so much about when we are sitting in meditation. That sounds to me like "when we have not heard the true Dhamma" Why would you say that? What does the true Dhamma say that excludes sitting in meditation? What if you have heard the true Dhamma and read the Buddha's words to practice diligently and use right effort and follow the breath and practice satipatthana. Why does he say such things? But I very much appreciate your general agreement that discernment of dhammas can take place during ordinary activities. Maybe we can come together on that point. > and therefore I can't agree there could be satipatthana at that time. > > I understand the term "sitting meditation" to apply to certain practices that are advocated by people who have not heard (or who have misunderstood) the Dhamma. Why do you understand that? Who told you that and what is it based on? It sounds like a fairy tale to me. Buddha spoke continuously of practicing meditation. Every monk that came to him sat in meditation. He himself spent much of his life in lotus posture. Everyone in the suttas practiced this way. It was the entire culture of Buddhism and still is. How did you decide and on what basis that this is a misunderstanding of dhamma? I have heard folks here bend over backwards to say that the detailed instructions in anapansati and satipatthana suttas are just descriptions of what happened to be going on at the time. What nonsense! There is NO evidence for this ridiculous view and an enormous body of evidence that this is exactly what the Buddha taught. He made clear that in addition to practicing mindfulness in every activity at every moment of life, that one was also to find a secluded place, sit down and focus on breathing and satipatthana. He went so far as to say through practice of anapanasati one could realize the entire path from beginning to end. Do you deny the Buddha's explicit words and explicit teaching through a tortured act of verbal yoga? Is this really what you and your friends want to advocate??? You may be committing an incredible heresy against the explicit word and teaching of the Buddha if you do! You should never take a commentary over and above the explicit teachings of the Buddha which he spelled out in exact and definite language. It cannot be misunderstood to be something other than what it says. When Buddha says "When breathing in a long breath he discerns that it is a long breath" he is not just describing what some guy happened to do. He is giving his teaching on how to develop sati and vipassana! You can jump around it all you like and give it a tortured interpretation based on someone else's words, but you are dismissing the words of the Buddha! He actually spoke! You don't need a 10,000 page commentary to tell you he didn't mean what he said. > Contrary to popular belief, concentration on postures (when sitting or walking), or on the vocal cords (when talking), or on the jaw and throat muscles (when eating), is not satipatthana. You can start bringing out your citations for what is and isn't satipatthana. I'll be happy to discuss it with you at length. I don't agree that this is not included in satipatthana. I do agree that it's not the core of satipatthana. But if you are going to tell me that satipatthana is a magic moment bestowed on you by magic panna, I will certainly disagree with that tortured idea that is not supported by anything in sutta - the actual word of the Buddha. If you want to support an interpretation of satipatthana, you had better have something the Buddha said to back it up and not contradict what he did actually say. > ----------------------------- > RE: > It is also important to consult those who have experienced satipatthana and who have experienced anapanasati - mindfulness arising in relation to the breath as object - in order to find out what actually takes place and how it takes place, not just consult texts and philosophy. > ----------------------------- > > Maybe so, but that is where you need to be extra careful. The vast majority of people who claim those attainments are either deluded or dishonest. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? ARE YOU OMNIPOTENT OR JUST ARROGANT? Sorry for CAPS, but this is an outrageous statement if you are not claiming omniscience. Where did you get this universal survey of deceit and delusion among those who *actually practice.* Why shouldn't one just think that perhaps *you* are the deluded one, and they are not? I have to go. But I will come back to the rest later. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109854 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/8/2010 2:07:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, KenH, all, > Please define exactly what you mean by "exist" and "do not exist". > > Exist in exactly what sense? > "Not Exist" in exactly what sense? > --------------------------------------- >H: I'm afraid I cannot answer you. > --------------------------------------- This is, IMHO, very important to define what we mean by existence and non-existence, real vs unreal, etc. Without this definition all other points about what is real and what is conceptual, what exists and what doesn't really exist is too vague. Lets take a concept of a car. Why do you say that it doesn't exist? One can ride in it. A car is different from some random lump of rocks. Since there is difference, we can't say that car doesn't have a certain and peculiar to itself function and worldly characteristics. >A:Don't you see that a car, for example, fulfills a certain >function not done by lets say a piece of rock? > --------------------------------------- > Lots of elementary phenomena, acting in concert, are observed, and >"a car" is imputed. But car fulfills a function that isn't produced by another conceptual object. Why is car a concept while elementary phenomena are not themselves conceptual objects? Where do you draw the line between wholes and parts? Why aren't these parts themselves wholes (of a lesser magnitude)? ------------------------------------------------------ Yes, in fact I do think exactly that, and I accord ultimate reality only to nibbana. ------------------------------------------------------ >A: If something doesn't exist, how can it have a certain and >specific function peculiar only to itself, even if function is to >produce certain paramattha dhammas? >---------------------------------------- >H: Simple phenomena acting in concert, the group of which is >concocted and thought of as an individual. > -------------------------------------- How does one distinguish between simple and not-simple phenomena? ------------------------------------------------------- Until full wisdom is operative, I would say by analysis, i.e., mental deconstruction. ------------------------------------------------------ How come the parts are not themselves mentally abstracted abstractions? --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't they? -------------------------------------------------------- If we can distinguish different "Simple phenomena acting in concert" or "concepts" from each other, then how can we say that they don't have any characteristics? ------------------------------------------------------------ I DO think they have characteristics. Actually, the characteristics of complex objects are generally the simpler objects of which they are composed. A characteristic/quality of a living body, for example, is warmth, and that warmth is a rupa that is an "ingredient" of it. ---------------------------------------------------------- Without characteristics, no distinction would be possible. -------------------------------------------------------- Certainly. ------------------------------------------------------ And if concepts (rocks, people, cars) didn't exist *at all* than what would we distinguish from what? ------------------------------------------------------ They do "exist" to the extent that the qualities which are their basis exist. I accord conventional existence to all these. ----------------------------------------------------- What has peculiar function to itself different from other concepts? ----------------------------------------------------- I'm having trouble with that sentence, Alex. ----------------------------------------------------- With metta, Alex ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109855 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 7:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Robert) - In a message dated 9/8/2010 2:13:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "wholes" and "parts"? ============================= But we do, do we not? And generally unmistakenly. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109856 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? truth_aerator Hello Howard, KenH, all, >A:What has peculiar function to itself different from other >concepts? >H: I'm having trouble with that sentence, Alex. What I've meant was, ex: A car fulfills different functions, has different characteristics from a boat. While they are both called concepts, they DO function, the distinct function and characteristics are experientially and functionally found. So it is not correct that say that concepts don't exist at all. Sure they don't exist as immutable, eternal, and uncompounded objects. But as "phenomena acting in concert" they do functionally exist in that sense. >A: Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "wholes" and >"parts"? >H:But we do, do we not? And generally unmistakenly. Why unmistakenly? For a long time thinkers have thought that atoms where indivisible building bricks of objects. In recent centuries sub-particles were found to make up those atoms and even smaller "particles", "waves", "strings" were found. It is possible that the smallest possible particle is only the limit of current technology, not the absolute limit. It maybe even possible that there isn't an indivisible particle. Again, what is the difference between wholes and parts? Some may say that "a chair is a whole made of pieces of wood". But these pieces of wood are not indivisible parts. In a sense they are wholes, just of a smaller or different category. Same in Buddhist philosophy. You know the lists of dhammas is at best a list of categories for no specific dhamma can be isolated and "frozen" in time. Even if we take such paramattha term as "vedana" it can't be held because in a second, billions of different vedanas arise and cease. So at best even terms such as "vedana" are categories made up of billions of different vedanas. So rather than (vedana for example) being the specific part of a whole of cognitive process, it is a general category that includes many parts - a whole, just on a lesser level. Even a paramattha category such as vedana points to something general (all vedanas) and not "This particular vedana". With metta, Alex #109857 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? mikenz66 Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Howard, KenH, all, > > > > Please define exactly what you mean by "exist" and "do not exist". > > > > Exist in exactly what sense? > > "Not Exist" in exactly what sense? > > --------------------------------------- > >H: I'm afraid I cannot answer you. > > --------------------------------------- > > This is, IMHO, very important to define what we mean by existence and non-existence, real vs unreal, etc. Without this definition all other points about what is real and what is conceptual, what exists and what doesn't really exist is too vague. On the other hand, it seems to me that some people make too much of "reality" of dhammas, either to criticise the Abhidhamma, or to advance their interpretation of it. You might find this essay: Dhamma Theory by Prof Y Karunadasa. http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf a good antidote to various views that one encounters... Metta Mike #109858 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/8/2010 2:57:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, KenH, all, >A:What has peculiar function to itself different from other >concepts? >H: I'm having trouble with that sentence, Alex. What I've meant was, ex: A car fulfills different functions, has different characteristics from a boat. While they are both called concepts, they DO function, the distinct function and characteristics are experientially and functionally found. ----------------------------------------------------- What we call the functioning of cars and boats are the occurrences and interactions of multitudes of specific varieties of more elementary phenomena. ---------------------------------------------------- So it is not correct that say that concepts don't exist at all. ------------------------------------------------- There is "existence" and there is "existence." The word has multiple meanings and nuances. Rainbows exist, don't they? But in a sense different from water droplets and sunlight. Language, thinking, senses, and nuances are many and complex, and we ALWAYS run into error when we simplify. Actually, we shouldn't bother ourselves with so much thinking, it seems to me, and instead spend more of our time "looking." :-) ------------------------------------------------- Sure they don't exist as immutable, eternal, and uncompounded objects. But as "phenomena acting in concert" they do functionally exist in that sense. ------------------------------------------------ The nature of our world of convention is exactly that of phenomena acting in concert, but none of it is graspable. Reminiscent of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, when we look at phenomena with care, like quicksilver under a finger-touch they slide away. Nothings built upon nothings! Mirages. ------------------------------------------------ >A: Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "wholes" and >"parts"? >H:But we do, do we not? And generally unmistakenly. Why unmistakenly? For a long time thinkers have thought that atoms where indivisible building bricks of objects. In recent centuries sub-particles were found to make up those atoms and even smaller "particles", "waves", "strings" were found. It is possible that the smallest possible particle is only the limit of current technology, not the absolute limit. It maybe even possible that there isn't an indivisible particle. ------------------------------------------------- I mean unmistakenly as to which is the part of which. We DO make a mistake when we think we've arrived at "true atoms" in the original sense of the term 'atom'. ------------------------------------------------ Again, what is the difference between wholes and parts? Some may say that "a chair is a whole made of pieces of wood". But these pieces of wood are not indivisible parts. In a sense they are wholes, just of a smaller or different category. --------------------------------------------------- We are not in disagreement on this. -------------------------------------------------- Same in Buddhist philosophy. You know the lists of dhammas is at best a list of categories for no specific dhamma can be isolated and "frozen" in time. Even if we take such paramattha term as "vedana" it can't be held because in a second, billions of different vedanas arise and cease. So at best even terms such as "vedana" are categories made up of billions of different vedanas. So rather than (vedana for example) being the specific part of a whole of cognitive process, it is a general category that includes many parts - a whole, just on a lesser level. Even a paramattha category such as vedana points to something general (all vedanas) and not "This particular vedana". With metta, Alex =============================== With metta, Howard Concept & Reality /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace./ (From the Potaliya Sutta) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #109859 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:25 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: (continuing, part 2) > Now I see what you mean, thanks. I agree that pariyatti is always the right way, no matter when it occurs. And so when we are sitting there are, in reality, only the presently arisen dhammas. We agree on that. If there are only presently arisen dhammas, where is there room for so-called concepts to be taken as object of anything? Any idea what "space" these supposedly take place in, since we are in a wall-to-wall 100% dhamma environment? I don't see any room for concepts in a continuous moment-to-moment arising of dhammas only, so perhaps you can tell me how this supposedly works. If there were indeed a moment in which concept was taken as object, that would be a moment in which there is a non-existent object instead of a nama or rupa. I don't think that's even possible. > What about now? Is there right understanding now? What are the realities of the present moment? That is indeed the question. And it leads exactly to another question: If you ask yourself or me "What are the realities of the present moment?" as you just did and then take a look to see what they are, you are *practicing mindfulness meditation.* That's all it is. If you think it's better to do it spontaneously in a haphazard way, I guess you can have that view. It doesn't make sense to me that such an approach is somehow more kusala because you didn't do it "officially" or something. You're still saying "What's happening?" and taking a look to check it out. If you ask that question and *don't* look with mindful interest in what is happening, that is kind of ridiculous, as the question is then less than meaningless. So whether you are sitting down to a lengthy session of formal bhavana, or just spontaneously asking yourself from time to time, "What is the reality right now? Let's take a look and see" you are practicing mindfulness as the Buddha proposed we should do. Even if you are doing it in "formal" practice [not sure exactly what that means - I meditate when I feel like it or decide to; there's not really anything "formal" about it] you are still spontaneously checking out the moment, because the moment when you say "What is happening now?" is never the moment in which you are actually checking it out. It's always a "next" moment. So whatever we do, we are being directed by conditions to have a certain intention, and then that intention leads to some sort of adjustment or action. It's all the same under the sun. > From what I have heard, considered and discussed, I can tell you there is visible object, seeing-consciousness, contact, feeling . . . and so on. It's a pretty basic knowledge, and I can't pin it down to any precise single citta, but it's a start. :-) > > Most importantly, I know this is the only reality. There is no concurrent reality in which conversations and people (etc) exist. There are only dhammas; there are no "patterns of dhammas". I don't think that "patterns of dhammas" is something else separate from the "dhammas themselves." I'm just making the point that dhamma a is one of the conditions for dhamma b, and in that sense they condition each other like dominos from moment to moment. If the commentaries did not themselves describe the ways in which citta a transmits its findings to citta b, I might have some doubt about this sort of progression, but for God's sake, your own philosophy describes how this takes place. That is the only "patterns" I'm talking about. Cittas don't spit into existence out of thin air. They arise according to conditions, and all conditions are related to each other. That is the "pattern" and that's all. Or do you also deny the Buddha's teaching on co-dependent origination, the very heart of the seamless conditionality that proves the reality of anatta? > Ken H > > PS: I have stopped short of addressing all of your points because I don't want to break the record for the longest post to DSG. :-) > (I believe that honour is currently shared by you, me and Sukin.):-) Ha ha, well thanks for not trying to grab the new record. I may have broken the record in my last post not only for longest post but also the most offensive. As always, I blame it on "conditions, conditions, conditions," and take no responsibility for anything! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109860 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Robert, Howard, KenH, all, > > > > Hm...it sounds like "concept" itself is a "concept" that doesn't >actually appear - an empty idea with no representatives! I feel some >infinite regress of "concept of concept" coming on. Better to get out > > All the descriptions of 89/121 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas etc is just that, a description, a concept, a sign. NONE of those last more than a split second, so one can't capture and hold it. Only as conceptual idea. Just like it is said that you can't grasp a concept, same is here. None of those dhammas can be grasped individually since they don't last more than a billionth (or so) of a second. Only as a category they can be talked about, never as the specific dhamma. > > Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "wholes" and "parts"? Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest particles of experience that can never be broken down further. It seems to me that there is an inherent error there that contradicts the absolute nature of anicca, since any reality that is not further broken down would constitute an entity - but some of us have had this debate on this list before. As for the split-second ungraspable nature of arising phenomena, you are absolutely right. No one can stop or time them to analyze them. For such descriptions as how many cetasikas are present in every contact between citta and dhamma, one has to either trust in the ability of past arahants to have experienced this with supernatural omniscience, or else reconstruct the necessary components of an experience through philosophical deduction. As for us mere mortals, we are flying blind and experiencing whatever we happen to grasp at the moment. That is why I personally think it's a good idea to start from where we are and build mindfulness from the ground up. But others may disagree. I have had experiences where I got a clearer view of anicca for a short period of time and it taught me the reality of it a bit deeper. I don't think it was an absolute experience; it was conventional in the sense that it was not complete, as I am not an arahant, but to me that is a sign that discernment is developing. Others will say that we have no access to anything and that we have to just keep reading and discussing with no hope of seeing anything or getting anything other than intellectual insight. I believe the Buddha meant us to practice from moment-to-moment and realize reality here and now, not wait for another lifetime. If what we encounter now is pariyatti and we have occasional flashes of direct perception of realities, I think then we can say we are on the right track. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109861 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:43 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? mikenz66 Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Ken H. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > (continuing, part 2) > > Now I see what you mean, thanks. I agree that pariyatti is always the right way, no matter when it occurs. And so when we are sitting there are, in reality, only the presently arisen dhammas. > > We agree on that. If there are only presently arisen dhammas, where is there room for so-called concepts to be taken as object of anything? Any idea what "space" these supposedly take place in, since we are in a wall-to-wall 100% dhamma environment? I don't see any room for concepts in a continuous moment-to-moment arising of dhammas only, so perhaps you can tell me how this supposedly works. ... Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of conciousness? I suggest some study of the texts. For example: A comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma which you can read here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+compre\ hensive+manual+of+abhidhamma&lr=&as_brr=1&ei=rlOVSZfeNJDMlQTussnmCQ#v=onepage&q&\ f=false Start at page 325 VIII, 29 Analysis of Concepts. ... What remains are concepts, which are twofold: concept as that which is made know, and concept as that which makes known. [i.e. meanings and names] ... Mike #109862 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? mikenz66 Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: Rob: Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest particles of experience that can never be broken down further. It seems to me that there is an inherent error there that contradicts the absolute nature of anicca, since any reality that is not further broken down would constitute an entity - but some of us have had this debate on this list before. Mike: This is discussed in great detail in the article I referred to previously: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/109857 Dhamma Theory by Prof Y Karunadasa. http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf Mike: Certainly, if one grasps wrongly the late commentarial concept of sabhava ("own nature") and sees dhammas as little entities, rather than simply phenomena that arise in dependence on other phenomena, one could get into all sorts of tangles, as interminable discussions such as this demonstrate... Mike #109863 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what does "exist" or "not exist" mean? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Howard, KenH, all, > > >A:What has peculiar function to itself different from other >concepts? > >H: I'm having trouble with that sentence, Alex. > > What I've meant was, ex: A car fulfills different functions, has different characteristics from a boat. While they are both called concepts, they DO function, the distinct function and characteristics are experientially and functionally found. > > So it is not correct that say that concepts don't exist at all. Sure they don't exist as immutable, eternal, and uncompounded objects. But as "phenomena acting in concert" they do functionally exist in that sense. I think there is a complicated language problem here. When you say "concepts don't exist" that doesn't mean "getting in your car" doesn't exist. "Getting in your car" is not a concept; it is an activity made up of countless namas and rupas. It is the "car" that is a concept when you reference it, not the "car" that you get into, which is just another countless series of namas and rupas. The point is not to claim that the car is not there, but that it is not a *car.* When you try to pull it together as a discrete single entity, you are conceptualizing all the namas and rupas that form the set of experiences which together we call "car." What we call "car" does not exist, but all the experiences that compose the getting into a car and driving it around do exist. Those are the realities, and the idea of "car" is the concept, not the experience. According to the Buddha, if we go away from Pali for a moment, samsara is composed of Name and Form. Name and Form are *not* actual, but are the definitions we put onto things. We do not experience "car" directly as the set of experiences that it is, but we experience our concept of car as a certain shape, function and various associations, and we experience it physically as comfortable, moving around, having certain physical parts, etc. All of those are glosses that we attribute to "car" rather than experiencing them purely as experiences. > >A: Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "wholes" and >"parts"? > >H:But we do, do we not? And generally unmistakenly. > > Why unmistakenly? For a long time thinkers have thought that atoms where indivisible building bricks of objects. In recent centuries sub-particles were found to make up those atoms and even smaller "particles", "waves", "strings" were found. It is possible that the smallest possible particle is only the limit of current technology, not the absolute limit. It maybe even possible that there isn't an indivisible particle. > > > Again, what is the difference between wholes and parts? Some may say that "a chair is a whole made of pieces of wood". But these pieces of wood are not indivisible parts. In a sense they are wholes, just of a smaller or different category. > > Same in Buddhist philosophy. You know the lists of dhammas is at best a list of categories for no specific dhamma can be isolated and "frozen" in time. Even if we take such paramattha term as "vedana" it can't be held because in a second, billions of different vedanas arise and cease. So at best even terms such as "vedana" are categories made up of billions of different vedanas. So rather than (vedana for example) being the specific part of a whole of cognitive process, it is a general category that includes many parts - a whole, just on a lesser level. Even a paramattha category such as vedana points to something general (all vedanas) and not "This particular vedana". I think you are absolutely right and on the right track towards indefineable reality. It is infinitely dense and infinitely decomposable. When you see that there is no end to how you can define the constantly changing boundaries and perceptions of dhammas, that is when you begin to fall down the rabbit hole, out of the solidity of the supposedly secure world of samsara. Anicca is through and through, there's no place to stand. To try to hold onto certain definitions as absolute and stop them before the vanishing point of total dissolution of name and form seems to me to be a defense against the total reality of anicca, trying to hold onto some sense of entity in the world. If it is totally fluid, self and world both dissolve completely. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109864 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:59 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Ken H. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > (continuing, part 2) > > > Now I see what you mean, thanks. I agree that pariyatti is always the right way, no matter when it occurs. And so when we are sitting there are, in reality, only the presently arisen dhammas. > > > > We agree on that. If there are only presently arisen dhammas, where is there room for so-called concepts to be taken as object of anything? Any idea what "space" these supposedly take place in, since we are in a wall-to-wall 100% dhamma environment? I don't see any room for concepts in a continuous moment-to-moment arising of dhammas only, so perhaps you can tell me how this supposedly works. > ... > > > Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of consciousness? Nonexistent. In other words, something that we don't actually experience. Thanks for the reference to the Manual. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109865 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > Rob: Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest particles of experience that can never be broken down further. It seems to me that there is an inherent error there that contradicts the absolute nature of anicca, since any reality that is not further broken down would constitute an entity - but some of us have had this debate on this list before. > > Mike: This is discussed in great detail in the article I referred to previously: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/109857 > Dhamma Theory by Prof Y Karunadasa. > http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf > > Mike: Certainly, if one grasps wrongly the late commentarial concept of sabhava ("own nature") and sees dhammas as little entities, rather than simply phenomena that arise in dependence on other phenomena, one could get into all sorts of tangles, as interminable discussions such as this demonstrate... Some of that tendency is already in the terminology, and it does happen more than occasionally that these little entities form up a clockwork view of how the universe works. The idea that there are discrete entities that come up in a definite order for a definite length of time and satisfy definite functions does suggest a collection of fixed entities that exist in a certain form. Calling those "absolute" also suggests a fixity that does seem to go in the opposite direction of anicca and the idea that the elements of experience are fabricated. If these discussions are interminable, it is because there is plenty of delusion to go around. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109866 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:11 pm Subject: concept of concept truth_aerator Hello Robert, all, > Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the >Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest >particles of experience that can never be broken down further. Paramattha Dhammas can never be broken down further? This is incorrect. Consciousness, contact, feeling, perception, volition are compounded phenomena. So they can be broken down into constituent part. So they aren't indivisible. ex: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. '" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html As for rapidity of mental and material states what I've tried to say is that according to CMA billions of cittas and rupas happen per second. With that kind of rapidity you can't take a certain existing citta or rupa, freeze it and examine it. The 89/121 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas can't correspond to a certain presently existing dhamma that can be examined for long enough time. The Dhamma Lists can point to a dhamma in the abstract but not experiential. Lists of paramattha dhammas are set of lavels for kinds of dhammas but it never can point to a REAL dhamma that is supposed to last a billionth of a second. Reading or thinking about paramattha Dhammas is conceptual. "Citta", "vedana", "rupa" are names called "Citta", "vedana", "rupa" Some even when we use the words "Citta", "vedana", "rupa", what is being used is a label, a category or a name for a kind of experience. With metta, Alex #109867 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:34 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? mikenz66 Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of consciousness? > > Rob: Nonexistent. In other words, something that we don't actually experience. Interesting idea. Do you have any textual support for this theory? Mike #109869 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 4:08 pm Subject: Re: concept of concept mikenz66 Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Robert, all, > > > > Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the >Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest >particles of experience that can never be broken down further. > > > Alex: Paramattha Dhammas can never be broken down further? This is incorrect. Consciousness, contact, feeling, perception, volition are compounded phenomena. So they can be broken down into constituent part. So they aren't indivisible. I think you are confusing conditionality (arising due to conditions) and indivisibility (not being able to be analysed into smaller components). Mike #109870 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 4:54 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ------------- <. . .> KH: > > This discussion began several weeks ago when you argued that the Buddha taught "methods." You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. >> KO:?> I said there are methods for developing satipatthana.? Definitely, there are such counting breaths method and they lead to jhanas which is a basis for insight, it is in the texts and I could always requote if you want :-).? ------------- No matter which quotes you produce we will understand them differently. I will understand them as descriptions of conditioned dhammas. You will understand them as sets of instructions to be carried out. ------------------ <. . .> KO:?> Definitely, there are important difference between concepts and dhammas.? Yet you still have not prove methods are not taught in the dhamma or concepts are not important to learn dhamma.? There is no need for me to prove concepts or methods?which are?used as a means?and they are written all over the texts. ------------------ I must have said a thousand times that concepts were important for learning Dhamma (pariyatti). But you and I have different understandings of what that means. To me it is a description of panna. It describes panna (right understanding) as a conditioned dhamma that develops gradually from a conceptual right-understanding to a direct right-understanding. To you, however, it is an instruction to do something in order to get panna. Therefore, you see the need for a method - I don't. --------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no need of a method for gaining anything. >> KO:?> Definiely there?is no?sufferer or being, does that mean concept not impt :-).? --------------------------------- I think it means *everything* in reality is not important. It doesn't mean concepts are not important. It doesn't say anything about concepts - except that there are no concepts in reality. -------------------- K: > Panna is learn?and develop slowly.? Could you learn dhamma without concepts to help us to understand.? ??I am asking whether concepts are used to for development of panna or as a means to develop panna.??It is panna that understand the characteristic of dhamma.?? But must the object of the citta is a dhamma :-)? -------------------- For the one thousand-and-first time I will say, yes, concepts are important for teaching and learning Dhamma! :-) Ultimately, all of the concepts in the Tipitaka must be understood as being concepts of conditioned dhammas. Ken H #109871 From: Vince Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Time. cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > N: Lodewijk feels with you and finds this one-object at same time > when his eyes are open very difficult. so you can say Lodewijk he is not alone because I think the same; still I don't see the need of that effort. > There are many dhammas arising at the same time, I do not deny this, but only > one at a time can be known, or known with pa~n~naa. It seems that seeing > sees many 'things' but when our eyes are open just the visible is seen. truth is that I think still you don't understand me at all... probably I don't explain myself. When we see a forest we know one tree or many trees?. - If we are knowing only one tree, the knowledge of "a forest" cannot arise. - If we are knowing a forest without trees, the knowledge of "a forest" cannot arise. Obviously we are knowing one dhamma: a forest. And also we are knowing many objects: the trees. I'm wrong? > [...]At the moment of seeing is there any part of the body sitting, > standing or assuming any posture? At the moment of experiencing > hardness is there any posture? When there is memory of a posture > there is an idea of self who thinks of my body. where is the body? > Through which doorway can it be experienced? Thropugh the eyes > visible object is experienced, not sitting, standing etc. Through the > eardoor sound is experienced. So long as one clings to the memory of > posture it hinders the experience of the arising and falling away of > dhammas. At the moment of experiencing hardness there is no posture. > yes, all these things are the trees. And all these things are the trees of a forest named the ALL. "He perceives[...] singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All" - MN 1 > Thus, when it seems that many things are experienced at one moment it > means that pa~n~naa has to develop more from listening and considering. so today I understand: citta knows there is a forest and also knows its trees, in that way exists the knowledge: "the forest". and in the same way: citta knows there is an All and also knows its dhammas, in that way exists the knowledge: "the All". Where is the error? best, Vince. #109872 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 6:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Ken H, > Op 6-sep-2010, om 8:53 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > > > In particular you should read how a concept (which doesn't really > > exist) can be said to act by way of object condition, or by natural > > decisive support condition. > ------- > N: By natural support-condition, here we should be very careful. We > discussed this and I avoided the word concept here. Like climate, > this is actually the element of heat or cold. Friends: actually their > right view or wrong view you associate with. > Kh Sujin also said: concepts cannot be accumulated. > --------- Thanks, Nina - natural support-condition - I will try to remember that. These conditions all sound alike to me :-) so my copy of The Conditionality of Life has arrived none too soon! Thanks again. Ken H #109873 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept upasaka_howard Hi, Mike (and Alex) - In a message dated 9/8/2010 7:08:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mikenz66@... writes: Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Robert, all, > > > > Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the >Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest >particles of experience that can never be broken down further. > > > Alex: Paramattha Dhammas can never be broken down further? This is incorrect. Consciousness, contact, feeling, perception, volition are compounded phenomena. So they can be broken down into constituent part. So they aren't indivisible. I think you are confusing conditionality (arising due to conditions) and indivisibility (not being able to be analysed into smaller components). Mike ================================== There is a language-translation problem involved here. The word 'sankhata' is sometimes translated as 'conditioned' and sometimes as 'compounded'. Now, 'compounded' is not a simple word but is a multiple-meaning word. It can mean 1) being a compound, i.e., something made from and *consisting* of several items. It can also simply mean 2) something made from "from" several items in the sense of those items being needed for the construction - for example contact being the co-arising of consciousness, object, and sense-door. It can also even mean 3) being increased in some respect due to some condition - for example one's anger at someone being compounded by being lied to. A paramattha dhamma other than nibbana is a sankhata dhamma (or constructed phenomenon) only in the second sense of the preceding three. It is not unmade, for there are conditions for its arising, but that does *not* imply its being a compound in the first sense. The translation of 'sankhata' as 'compounded' is a poor one, IMO, because the word is ambiguous. We should stick with "made" or "fashioned" or, best of all, "conditioned" - possibly in part by cetana. Disclaimer: My own position is that only nibbana is a *true* paramattha dhamma and is the sole reality that is not at least in part a matter of concept and convention. Other so-called paramattha dhammas are not unitary, but go through changes such as rising, changing while standing, and ceasing, and that is enough for me to not consider them true irreducibles. I consider our treating of them as separate and individual phenomena to be only a matter of (useful) convention. But this is MY position, and not that of Abhidhamma. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109874 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Time. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 9-sep-2010, om 2:51 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > "He perceives[...] singleness as singleness... multiplicity as > multiplicity... > the All as the All" > - MN 1 ----------- N: We have to be very careful when we interprete a sutta and terms like: the All as the All" > - MN 1> These have a meaning different from what you would think. We have to look at the context. Otherwise we follow our own interprettaion and we get the wrong meaning. N: See the footnotes in this text: Singleness = experience in states of intense concentration (jhana). Multiplicity = experience via the six senses. ------ "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. ------- Further explained in commentary, see Ven. Bodhi: The root of Existence, muulapariyaayasutta and co. The subco: unity (or singleness), ekatta and diversity (or multiplicity), naanatta. Unity refers to jhaana and diversity (or multiplicity) refers to the non- attainer of jhaana, being involved in sense sphere dhammas. Thus, we have to see this in the right context. -------- The All is not the whole picture of something like a forest, it simply refers to all realities experienced through the six doorways. ------- > > V: citta knows there is a forest and also knows its trees, in that > way exists > the knowledge: "the forest". > > and in the same way: > citta knows there is an All and also knows its dhammas, in that way > exists > the knowledge: "the All". ------ N: See the above. Nina. #109875 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:02 am Subject: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 2. nilovg Dear friends, From a recording in India. no 2. When there is more understanding there will be detachment from the idea of people and things. When there is no understanding of naama and ruupa the idea of self cannot be eliminated. When it is understood that it is only visible object that is seen detachment will grow little by little. When it seems that what is seen are people and things how can the arising and falling away of visible object be realised? One can begin to understand the meaning of detachment: one has no wish for any reality. No expectation of the appearance of whatever reality through any doorway. Detachment is very difficult to cultivate. There is bound to be thinking about realities. It can be right thinking conditioned by previous listening to the teachings. But it has to be one?s ?own? understanding. Sa?nkhaarakkhandha (all cetasikas except feeling and sa~n~naa) conditions one?s own thinking, one?s own understanding. Someone said that there may be awareness but that this is followed by a lot of thinking. Pa~n~naa is not keen enough to realise even such moments as conditioned realities, non-self. If pa~n~naa is keen enough it can follow any reality with detachment. If there is attachment, it is not right. There is clinging to an idea of self. -------- Nina. #109876 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: q. nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 2-sep-2010, om 16:57 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > Is it not the stopping of ignorance that leads to the non-arising > of naama and ruupa, to the end of the cycle? There can only be less > ignorance by the development of whatever reality appears because of > its own conditions. We have to learn that realities are beyond > control. Akusala should be comprehended, the Buddha said. > > FABIAN: Does the thought of "noble charity" also arising? And is it > not the cutting of the fuel (by do not give attention to the > content/object of thought) would condition the non-arising or > passing away of that thought? And then the mind unattached to that > thought, isn't it kusala? > > every reality in our lives have distinct characteristics, that is > impermanent, unsatisfactory and no self. I agree it is beyond > control, but we can create condition for non-arising in the future. ------- N: The arahat can. By the eradication of ignorance there will not be any fuel for rebirth. But for us: let us learn to be aware of whatever reality appears through one of the six doors. ------- > > To get a better understanding it should be experienced, whenever we > try to see the object of the senses, our mind tend to get carried > away and attached. > ----------- > N: Attachment is also a conditioned reality and it should be known > as only a dhamma. Otherwise it can never be eradicated. > ------- > > FABIAN: As far as I know, the knowledge of nama-rupa paricheda nana > is to be experienced by the wise, not by wishful thinking, the > understanding of nama and rupa would come by itself if the > condition matured. Nama-rupa Paricheda nana arise together with > experiencing something caused by practicing Noble Eightfold Path. ------- N: Agreed. And what is that practice? Not avoiding to be aware of and understand any reality appearing at this moment. ------- Nina. #109877 From: Ken O Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Ken H > >KO:?> I said there are methods for developing satipatthana.? Definitely, there >are such counting breaths method and they lead to jhanas which is a basis for >insight, it is in the texts and I could always requote if you want :-).? >------------- > >No matter which quotes you produce we will understand them differently. I will >understand them as descriptions of conditioned dhammas. You will understand them > >as sets of instructions to be carried out. > KO:? Hmm Visud must be wrong, counting 1,2,3 or reciting head hair, body hair.? Not just in Visud, interesting in other Abhidhamma text and commentaries.? this is not about interpretation, why one start having personal view including I also, then the whole dhamma goes haywire.? I always said, stick to the text which is very clear.? Instructions are just instructions, the activity is just an activiy, right or wrong depends on the dhamma that arise. >------------------ > >I must have said a thousand times that concepts were important for learning >Dhamma (pariyatti). But you and I have different understandings of what that >means. >To me it is a description of panna. It describes panna (right understanding) as >a conditioned dhamma that develops gradually from a conceptual >right-understanding to a direct right-understanding. KO:? Hmm you always said concepts are not for development since they do not have characteristics, then why now got conceptual right understanding.? So how does conceptual right understand arise from.? Since it is conceptual, how can there be understanding as it has no characteristics for panna to have understanding.? >To you, however, it is an instruction to do something in order to get panna. > >Therefore, you see the need for a method - I don't. KO:? I dont have a method or instruction as I know I dont have the pre-requiste required by Visud.? Since I dont have. then following these methods would not bear fruit and could be counterproductive. ?But I dont discount method because it is clearly states in the text and I cannot disprove it.? I have no dispute with that, you have, and you still have yet prove there?is no method.?Neither does Jon, Sarah and Nina.? Just saying base on interpretation and understanding, sure Alex would also said that, and many others also use your reasons.? You claim yours are right, why others are wrong then since all are base on understanding. Why should your understanding better than them when the books do not support your interpretation and understanding.?? I know you understand paramatha dhamma and here I only discussing about methods and not other things >-------------------- >K: > Panna is learn?and develop slowly.? Could you learn dhamma without concepts > >to help us to understand.? ??I am asking whether concepts are used to for >development of panna or as a means to develop panna.??It is panna that >understand the characteristic of dhamma.?? But must the object of the citta is a > >dhamma :-)? >-------------------- > >For the one thousand-and-first time I will say, yes, concepts are important for >teaching and learning Dhamma! :-) > >Ultimately, all of the concepts in the Tipitaka must be understood as being >concepts of conditioned dhammas. > KO:? You have yet answered, must the object of the citta is a dhamma for panna to understand the characteristic of any dhamma that arise. :-).? Ken O #109878 From: Ken O Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Rob E > >As for the split-second ungraspable nature of arising phenomena, you are >absolutely right. No one can stop or time them to analyze them. For such >descriptions as how many cetasikas are present in every contact between citta >and dhamma, one has to either trust in the ability of past arahants to have >experienced this with supernatural omniscience, or else reconstruct the >necessary components of an experience through philosophical deduction. As for us > >mere mortals, we are flying blind and experiencing whatever we happen to grasp >at the moment. That is why I personally think it's a good idea to start from >where we are and build mindfulness from the ground up. But others may disagree. >I have had experiences where I got a clearer view of anicca for a short period >of time and it taught me the reality of it a bit deeper. I don't think it was an > >absolute experience; it was conventional in the sense that it was not complete, >as I am not an arahant, but to me that is a sign that discernment is developing. > >Others will say that we have no access to anything and that we have to just keep > >reading and discussing with no hope of seeing anything or getting anything other > >than intellectual insight. I believe the Buddha meant us to practice from >moment-to-moment and realize reality here and now, not wait for another >lifetime. If what we encounter now is pariyatti and we have occasional flashes >of direct perception of realities, I think then we can say we are on the right >track. > > KO:?? IMHO?Direct experience of a dhamma as an object could only happen at Vipassana stage where nama and rupa are understood clearly.? Before this stage, what we experience?are just?many processes of nama and rupa or just the nimita.?? Whatever we experience now is still not direct understanding,?and when panna grows stronger, panna can gradually understand dhamma more and more?subtlely.? This understanding of dhamma more and?more stuble is still not direct understanding Ken O #109879 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 2:18 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Howard), -------- <. . .> RE: > If a concept is not a reality, how exactly can it be experienced? -------- There are no if's about it! A concept is by definition not a reality. Non-Dhamma students know that concepts can be experienced - a dream is a good example. Dhamma students are no different, except their definition of concept includes everything other than citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. --------------- RE: > Can you explain this? If something is not a dhamma it *cannot* be experienced. Only dhammas exist. So please explain this interesting contradiction. Every time there is an experience there is a dhamma, so where does concept have a place to sneak in? ---------------- What I am saying, in this case, is basic Abhidhamma - the contradictions are all yours. -------------------- <. . .> RE: > If you are experiencing a physical quality you are experiencing a rupa of a sort. So they are all dhammas. You may misidentify one thing as another, I guess, but the element you are misidentifying is still a dhamma, whether nama or rupa, or nama mistaken for rupa. So there is unclear seeing but there are no non-dhammas. And there are no so-called concepts. -------------------- That is true in the case of sense-door experiences and in the case of some mind-door experiences (where the object is a dhamma). But there are also mind-door experiences where the object is a concept. Again, I am not saying anything controversial; this is basic Abhidhamma. A far as I know, it is set out clearly in all the Abhidhamma texts. But I am not the right person to ask about texts: not being an avid reader, I get most of my information from DSG discussions. ----------------------- <. . .> RE: > I am saying that what we call a conversation is just what you are saying it is: a bunch of dhammas arising. ------------------------ I have been trying to say the exact opposite. Obviously my powers of communication are at fault, but I have been trying to say there are no bunches of dhammas (or no patterns of dhammas) that form anything. I think you will find a large number of modern-day Buddhists who do talk about patterns of dhammas. Howard, for example, sometimes talks about "a complex web of interrelated namas and rupas." But Howard admits that he forms his own opinions on Abhidhamma - based on his readings of the suttas. -------------------- RE: > There are no concepts and no one ever experiences a non-reality. -------------------- I am finding it very hard to follow your reasoning. It was much easier when you seemed to be confusing concepts with realities (the way most other modern-day Buddhists do). But now I don't know what you are confusing with what! :-) -------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > If you were right then dhammas would become irrelevant: <. . .> satipatthana could be practised simply by being aware of patterns. We could concentrate on walking, or talking, or eating etc., and somehow understand those things as anicca dukkha and anatta. > > RE: > Of course we can take any object and by observing them eventually begin to see the dhammas that make them up. Do you think our awareness is not the same awareness that is used to develop panna? Then you truly have two worlds that will never meet. How does panna break through then, by a magical dispensation from Buddha? What do you really think happens to cause awakening? I'd like to know if you have any sensible concrete idea for how this is supposed to take place, that is not just jargon. ----------------------------------- I spend a large proportion of my daily life trying to express sensible concrete ideas about the Abhidhamma. I can't it do much better than I have been: what you see is what you get. :-) --------------------------- KH: > > But it doesn't work that way. In reality there are only dhammas (no patterns of dhammas) and so the practice of satipatthana is to know dhammas only. RE: > How do you "know dhammas only" without knowing them? Do you squint real hard? Or do you wait for magic to come and sprinkle you with fairy dust? --------------------------- Neither of the above. I just know it from what I have heard, considered and discussed. I know that, right now, in the present moment, there are only dhammas. There are no sentient beings, no computers, no past, no future: there are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. That's the way the world always has been, and always will be. And I also know something about those dhammas. They are anicca, dukkha and anatta - not worth clinging to in any way. ----------------------------- RE: > I am sorry to be so disparaging, but I am trying to get you to say how it actually takes place. If you don't know what the process is, then you are just spouting jargon and causing more darkness, not spreading any light. It is our own sentience, our own awareness that is the vehicle of enlightenment. It's not a magic gift from Buddha. ------------------------------ When I consider the ignorance and confusion that reigned in the past, and compare it to the right understanding that I have today (no matter how basic and theoretical it may be), it does seem like a magic gift from the Buddha. :-) I'll have to post this now and get back to the rest of your message when I can. See you then! Ken H #109880 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 4:54 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: There are no if's about it! A concept is by definition not a >reality. > >Non-Dhamma students know that concepts can be experienced - a dream >is >a good example. Dhamma students are no different, except their >definition of concept includes everything other than citta, >cetasika, >rupa and nibbana. Well, doesn't one experience the difference between lets say "riding in a car vs using a spoon" for example? A car has different functions than a spoon, for example. Because there are different functions it means that the differences are real and there is something there. I really do not like to hear the logical fallacies of "this part isn't that object, therefore the object doesn't exist". One isn't comparing apples to apples. A part can never by definition equal a whole that many parts make up. It is also fallacious to say "is seeing, touching, feeling" a car? No. Therefore the car is only a mental concept and it doesn't exist. Again, a logical fallacy. One doesn't compare apples to apples. One denies the existence of the needle by looking for it in a haystack where it doesn't exist and not finding it there, declaring its non existence. One wasn't looking in the right place and one wasn't "comparing apples to apples". IMHO it is much better to observe *this* mind doing the looking (and conceptualizing) and develop kusala qualities rather than to engage in logical fallacies to deny the existence of external complex objects while overlooking the really important thing - one's own mind with its kilesas. With metta, Alex #109881 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:28 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Alex (and all), It might help if we occasionally took a step back from our interminable disagreements, and remembered where they all began. They all began when someone at DSG said that satipatthana (right mindfulness of the five khandhas) was not something we could just go out and *do*. Some of us were affronted by that assertion, while others were delighted. And there has been a constant battle between the two sides aver since. :-) Just about everything each side has said has been disputed by the other. I wonder how an unbiased observer would assess the current state of play. You must admit, I think, that your side has had to reject the ancient commentaries, question the legitimacy of the Abhidhamma-pitaka and dispute several Abhidhamma-based suttas. My side (in favour of the no-control assertion) hasn't had to reject any part of the Pali texts. Admittedly we have had to interpret everything in an unconventional way (that complied with anatta), but our way of interpreting has been consistent throughout. Is that a fair assessment of the situation? Does it make you think there might be some legitimacy in the no-control theory? Ken H #109882 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:49 pm Subject: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, > Hi Alex (and all), > > It might help if we occasionally took a step back from our interminable disagreements, and remembered where they all began. > > They all began when someone at DSG said that satipatthana (right >mindfulness of the five khandhas) was not something we could just go >out and *do*. The Buddha, Buddhaghosa and many others have often said that you do this and that. I can supply enough quotes if you want. > You must admit, I think, that your side has had to reject the >ancient commentaries, question the legitimacy of the >Abhidhamma->pitaka and dispute several Abhidhamma-based suttas. No. I don't agree with a certain twisted interpretation of what they say. Whenever the suttas or the Commentaries say "do this and that" some say that those commentaries don't state that "do this and that" A certain side seems to reject whole sections of VsM and turn around the meaning of the remaining ones so that X becomes not-X. VsM is filled with instructions on what to do. In fact the whole Buddhist path is something "to be done", otherwise we'd all be awakened by now. "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 There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html Doesn't sound like Buddha meant his practice to be a passive. The imagery is clear. One must "go against the flow" of kilesas. For example, Metta. VsM IX,1 "A meditator who wants to develop firstly lovingkindness among these, if he is a beginner, should sever the impediments* and learn the meditation subject. Then, when he has done the work connected with the meal and got rid of any dizziness due to it, he should seat himself comfortably on a well-prepared seat in a secluded place." Anapanasati VsM VIII VIII,145. "'Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty place, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, established mindfulness in front of him, VIII,153. Gone to the forest ...or to an empty place: this signifies that he has found an abode favourable to the development of concentration through mindfulness of breathing. VIII,158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176; Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 [271] VIII,159. Having thus indicated an abode that is suitable to the three seasons, suitable to humour and temperament,43 and favourable to the development of mindfulness of breathing, he then said sits down, etc., indicating a posture that is peaceful and tends neither to idleness nor to agitation. Then he said having folded his legs crosswise, etc., to show firmness in the sitting position, easy occurrence of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the means for discerning the object. VIII,160. Herein, crosswise is the sitting position with the thighs fully locked. Folded: having locked. Set his body erect: having placed the upper part of the body erect with the eighteen backbones resting end to end. For when he is seated like this, his skin, flesh and sinews are not twisted, and so the feelings that would arise moment by moment if they were twisted do not arise. That being so, his mind becomes unified, and the meditation subject, instead of collapsing, attains to growth and increase. Contrary to the pop-belief that one can develop path equally in all the places there are favourable and unfavorable place: As to unfavourable monastery VsM - IV,2 : "Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. These are: largeness, newness, dilapidatedness, a nearby road, a pond, [edible] leaves, flowers, fruits, famousness, a nearby city, nearby timber trees, nearby arable fields, presence of incompatible persons, a nearby port of entry, nearness to the border countries, nearness to the frontier of a kingdom, unsuitability, lack of good friends. [119] One with any of these faults is not favourable. He should not live there. " Ten Impediments: VsM III, 29 A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." ============================================================= Contrary to wishful thinking about houseHOLD being an ideal place, there is a set of 13 beneficial practice. "Thirteen kinds of ascetic practices have been allowed by the Blessed One to clansmen who have given up the things of the flesh and, regardless of body and life, are desirous of undertaking a practice in conformity [with their aim]. They are: i. the refuse-rag-wearer's practice, ii. the triple-robe-wearer's practice, iii. the alms-food-eater's practice, iv. the house-to-house-seeker's practice, v. the one-sessioner's practice, vi. the bowl-food-eater's practice, vii. the later-food-refuser's practice, viii. the forest-dweller's practice, ix. the tree-root-dweller's practice, x. the open-air-dweller's practice, xi. the charnel-ground-dweller's practice, xii. the any-bed-user's practice, xiii. the sitter's practice. " -VsM II, 2 "4. Herein, as to the profitable triad (see Dhs., p.l): all the ascetic practices, that is to say, those of trainers, ordinary men, and men whose cankers have been destroyed, may be either profitable or [in the Arahant's case] indeterminate. [80] No ascetic practice is unprofitable." - VsM II, 78 NO ASCETIC PRACTICE IS UNPROFITABLE AND ALL ARE PROFITABLE (kusala) for non-Arahats. ========== With metta, Alex #109883 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:17 pm Subject: Re: concept of concept epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Robert, all, > > > > Well the experts can tell us if I am right or not, but I think the >Abhidhamma holds the paramatha dhammas as the absolutely smallest >particles of experience that can never be broken down further. > > > Paramattha Dhammas can never be broken down further? This is incorrect. Consciousness, contact, feeling, perception, volition are compounded phenomena. So they can be broken down into constituent part. So they aren't indivisible. > > > > ex: > "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. '" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html The above shows dependency but not compoundedness. I don't think consciousness is "made up of" any constituent parts. It is a particular element, but it is not a compound. Consciousness does have an object, but consciousness is not "made up of" that object, so while contact is a compound event, the participants in contact are individual elements. I don't think that consciousness can be either divided or quantified, so I don't think it is either singular or compound. I don't think it's a "thing" so such nomenclature does not apply. > As for rapidity of mental and material states what I've tried to say is that according to CMA billions of cittas and rupas happen per second. With that kind of rapidity you can't take a certain existing citta or rupa, freeze it and examine it. The 89/121 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas can't correspond to a certain presently existing dhamma that can be examined for long enough time. The Dhamma Lists can point to a dhamma in the abstract but not experiential. Lists of paramattha dhammas are set of lavels for kinds of dhammas but it never can point to a REAL dhamma that is supposed to last a billionth of a second. Reading or thinking about paramattha Dhammas is conceptual. I think you are correct about this, however I think I am right about the claim of the followers of the commentaries - that the billions of cittas that take place in a second and their accompanying cetasikas and activities such as contact were *actually observed and recorded* by Buddha and/or the early arahants who were able to register such things at lightning speed because of their supernatural powers, and that these are the direct observations of the Buddha and/or the arahants that were recorded in the Abhidhamma and/or commentaries. In addition I believe that the folks in this group additionally believe that the legend that Buddha himself delivered the Abhidhamma in a continuous sermon in one of the higher spiritual planes after his parinibbana is literally true. The idea is that it is the higher actual teaching and was not given to the mass of Buddhists while Buddha was still on earth. In that view all or many of the suttas are the conventional teaching for those not capable of at least developing pariyatti regarding the paramatha dhammas. Ask around here and I think you will find that to be the case. I'm not saying this did or didn't happen, but I have my doubts. > "Citta", "vedana", "rupa" are names called "Citta", "vedana", "rupa" > > Some even when we use the words "Citta", "vedana", "rupa", what is being used is a label, a category or a name for a kind of experience. I agree with you, but don't think this view is shared by the core members of dsg. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109884 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:20 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of consciousness? > > > > Rob: Nonexistent. In other words, something that we don't actually experience. > > Interesting idea. Do you have any textual support for this theory? > > Mike Do you have any support in suttas to suggest that concepts are objects of consciousness? Did Buddha ever say that in sutta? I don't think I need to find support for something that has never been alleged in sutta. But if you can point out something the Buddha had to say about this, I will be glad to address it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109885 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:31 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi my dear friend Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Ken O, > > ------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > This discussion began several weeks ago when you argued that the Buddha taught "methods." You said satipatthana was a method for gaining enlightenment, and meditation (counting breaths etc) was a method for gaining jhana. > >> > > KO:?> I said there are methods for developing satipatthana.? Definitely, there are such counting breaths method and they lead to jhanas which is a basis for insight, it is in the texts and I could always requote if you want :-).? > ------------- > > No matter which quotes you produce we will understand them differently. I will understand them as descriptions of conditioned dhammas. You will understand them as sets of instructions to be carried out. > > ------------------ How about trying to understand them as they are actually said? What a novel idea! If you have to extrapolate an additional explanation in order to produce your view of a quote, chances are you are making it up yourself. In any case, it is perfectly possible to have a "set of instructions" that are "carried out" without anyone to carry them out. They are all sets of conditions that cause various other outcomes to arise, even if "we" "carry them out." But I am curious. Do you believe that action exists, or not? If I move my leg, has anything taken place, or is it all experience of qualities by cittas, with no actual motion of physical mass in space? What is action? > <. . .> > KO:?> Definitely, there are important difference between concepts and dhammas.? > Yet you still have not prove methods are not taught in the dhamma or concepts are not important to learn dhamma.? There is no need for me to prove concepts or methods?which are?used as a means?and they are written all over the texts. > ------------------ > > I must have said a thousand times that concepts were important for learning Dhamma (pariyatti). But you and I have different understandings of what that means. > > To me it is a description of panna. It describes panna (right understanding) as a conditioned dhamma that develops gradually from a conceptual right-understanding to a direct right-understanding. > > To you, however, it is an instruction to do something in order to get panna. > > Therefore, you see the need for a method - I don't. Tell me, how does panna develop gradually from a "conceptual right-understanding" to a "direct understanding?" Can you give a brief description of how this wonderful transformation takes place? There must be some way, method, means, or process by which such a thing happens, so can you describe it? I want to have right understanding too! :-) > --------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > In reality there is 'suffering but no sufferer' and so there is no need of a method for gaining anything. > >> > > KO:?> Definiely there?is no?sufferer or being, does that mean concept not impt :-).? > --------------------------------- > > I think it means *everything* in reality is not important. > > It doesn't mean concepts are not important. It doesn't say anything about concepts - except that there are no concepts in reality. But the question is not whether there is a sufferer or not. Even if there is not, the question is how does one arrive at this direct understanding. Fine if it starts as pariyatti. But how does it develop to direct knowledge and end the suffering? Can you describe how this development takes place? We all agree intellectually that there is no sufferer, just arising phenomena. But this intellectual understanding does not help in and of itself to bring about direct realization of anatta. So if there is no training, no method, no effort, no volition, no intention, no action, that does anything, how does it take place? > -------------------- > K: > Panna is learn?and develop slowly.? Could you learn dhamma without concepts to help us to understand.? ??I am asking whether concepts are used to for development of panna or as a means to develop panna.??It is panna that understand the characteristic of dhamma.?? But must the object of the citta is a dhamma :-)? > -------------------- > > For the one thousand-and-first time I will say, yes, concepts are important for teaching and learning Dhamma! :-) > > Ultimately, all of the concepts in the Tipitaka must be understood as being concepts of conditioned dhammas. And how does this happen? And how does it develop into panna? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109886 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:37 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken, and Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > Dear Ken H, > > Op 6-sep-2010, om 8:53 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > > > > > In particular you should read how a concept (which doesn't really > > > exist) can be said to act by way of object condition, or by natural > > > decisive support condition. > > ------- > > N: By natural support-condition, here we should be very careful. We > > discussed this and I avoided the word concept here. Like climate, > > this is actually the element of heat or cold. Friends: actually their > > right view or wrong view you associate with. > > Kh Sujin also said: concepts cannot be accumulated. > > --------- > > Thanks, Nina - natural support-condition - I will try to remember that. These conditions all sound alike to me :-) so my copy of The Conditionality of Life has arrived none too soon! Thanks again. Thanks for mentioning this, Ken H. Nina, thanks from me also for my copy of Conditionality. I have started to look at some parts of it and appreciate the gift. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109887 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E > > > > >As for the split-second ungraspable nature of arising phenomena, you are > >absolutely right. No one can stop or time them to analyze them. For such > >descriptions as how many cetasikas are present in every contact between citta > >and dhamma, one has to either trust in the ability of past arahants to have > >experienced this with supernatural omniscience, or else reconstruct the > >necessary components of an experience through philosophical deduction. As for us > > > >mere mortals, we are flying blind and experiencing whatever we happen to grasp > >at the moment. That is why I personally think it's a good idea to start from > >where we are and build mindfulness from the ground up. But others may disagree. > > >I have had experiences where I got a clearer view of anicca for a short period > >of time and it taught me the reality of it a bit deeper. I don't think it was an > > > >absolute experience; it was conventional in the sense that it was not complete, > > >as I am not an arahant, but to me that is a sign that discernment is developing. > > > >Others will say that we have no access to anything and that we have to just keep > > > >reading and discussing with no hope of seeing anything or getting anything other > > > >than intellectual insight. I believe the Buddha meant us to practice from > >moment-to-moment and realize reality here and now, not wait for another > >lifetime. If what we encounter now is pariyatti and we have occasional flashes > >of direct perception of realities, I think then we can say we are on the right > >track. > > > > > KO:?? IMHO?Direct experience of a dhamma as an object could only happen at > Vipassana stage where nama and rupa are understood clearly.? Before this stage, > what we experience?are just?many processes of nama and rupa or just the > nimita.?? Whatever we experience now is still not direct understanding,?and when > panna grows stronger, panna can gradually understand dhamma more and > more?subtlely.? This understanding of dhamma more and?more stuble is still not > direct understanding I think you are reserving the word "direct" for "100% true" experience. I am using it in a more partial way. I don't think I see anything "completely directly" but I do think there are moments of more direct discernment as opposed to the normal perception. Otherwise there would be no gradual coming to such a direct experience. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109888 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:52 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Dear Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I know that, right now, in the present moment, there are only dhammas. There are no sentient beings, no computers, no past, no future: there are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. That's the way the world always has been, and always will be. > > And I also know something about those dhammas. They are anicca, dukkha and anatta - not worth clinging to in any way. I agree with everything you say above. The question is how this knowing develops from intellectual right understanding to direct experience. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #109889 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 10:04 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex (and all), > > It might help if we occasionally took a step back from our interminable disagreements, and remembered where they all began. > > They all began when someone at DSG said that satipatthana (right mindfulness of the five khandhas) was not something we could just go out and *do*. > > Some of us were affronted by that assertion, while others were delighted. And there has been a constant battle between the two sides aver since. :-) Just about everything each side has said has been disputed by the other. > > I wonder how an unbiased observer would assess the current state of play. > > You must admit, I think, that your side has had to reject the ancient commentaries, question the legitimacy of the Abhidhamma-pitaka and dispute several Abhidhamma-based suttas. > > My side (in favour of the no-control assertion) hasn't had to reject any part of the Pali texts. Admittedly we have had to interpret everything in an unconventional way (that complied with anatta), but our way of interpreting has been consistent throughout. Your side has had to deny the common meaning of the most important "practice" suttas, put them in a context of reportage rather than instruction, though they were obvious instructions, reinterpret many common sayings of sutta and Abhidhamma about "trying one's best," making "constant efforts," etc., which have to be twisted out of all common meaning to create an alternate meaning - not an interpretation but a denial of what is plainly said; and interpret a large body of the suttas as being "conventional" teachings for "conventional" audiences which do not really tell the truth, while putting the Abhidhamma above those suttas and saying that the Abhidhamma and commentaries are the real teaching of the Buddha as opposed to those suttas, create a bifurcation in the teachings between two supposed separate paths, the "Mundane" which is not the real path, though it is the one most Buddhists know, and the "Noble" path which is only known to a few and takes place by magical coming together of conditions in a moment, instead of being something, as the Buddha said, that takes place over lifetimes by the efforts of practitioners. I'd say there are a lot of changed meanings and altered interpretations of an extreme type to support your view of the path. > Is that a fair assessment of the situation? Does it make you think there might be some legitimacy in the no-control theory? "No control" is a reality that most likely *all* of us can agree on. In addition we *all* agree on the absolute reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and the fact that there are no persons in reality. It is mainly the false conclusion that "no control" means that all practice is wrong that divides us. There are many aspects of both sutta and Abhidhamma that we could come together on if those extreme interpretations that twist the path into a different one than that meticulously carved out by the Buddha for 40 years were abandoned. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109890 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 10:10 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Alex. Thank you Alex. This is an excellent post, and an excellent review. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109891 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 10:13 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 2. epsteinrob Hi Nina. Thanks for sharing this. I found it very helpful. Sometimes these quotes from talks can give a good flavor of understanding to what one has been thinking about and trying to understand. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109892 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Thu Sep 9, 2010 5:39 pm Subject: The Proximate Cause! bhikkhu5 Friends: Nothing Emerges without a Proximate Cause! What causes Greed and Lust to arise? Contacted by an attractive object, pleasurable feeling arises. If unaware and untrained, then pleasurable feeling instantly makes craving towards the object arise! This pleasant feeling thus causes greed and lust to arise. What causes Ill-Will and Anger to arise? Contacted by a repulsive object, painful feeling arises. If unaware and untrained, then the painful feeling instantly makes craving away from the object arise! This unpleasant feeling thus causes ill-will & anger to arise. What causes Delusion and Ignorance to arise? Contacted by a neither attractive nor repulsive object, then a neither pleasurable nor big painful feeling arises. If unaware and untrained, then this neutral, neither pleasurable nor painful feeling instantly makes craving for neglecting the object arise... This neutral feeling thus causes delusion and Ignorance to arise. What is the relationship between the Mental Defilements and Craving? Craving is the growth force and also media for the mental defilements: Because of craving this state (e.g. wealth), aversion for the opposite state (e.g. poverty) arises. Possessiveness, envy and jealousy soon follows, which again enables violence & cruelty. Pain is the result of all such defilements. What is the relationship between the Defilements & Self-Identification? Self-Identification (egocentrism) is the glue holding together all mental defilements. Eg: How to ever be possessive if there is no owner? ;-) What is the absolute absence of all Greed, Hate and Ignorance? The state Nibbana reached at the completion of the Noble 8-fold Way is the absolute and irreversible absence of all greed, hate and ignorance! Beings causally create future states by intending them! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #109893 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:24 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? gazita2002 Hallo RobE > Dear Ken H. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > I know that, right now, in the present moment, there are only dhammas. There are no sentient beings, no computers, no past, no future: there are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. That's the way the world always has been, and always will be. > > > > And I also know something about those dhammas. They are anicca, dukkha and anatta - not worth clinging to in any way. > > I agree with everything you say above. The question is how this knowing develops from intellectual right understanding to direct experience. azita; when there is freqent listening to the dhamma, sanna, which marks every object as it arises with each and every citta, remembers what was heard and understood [with the right intellectual understanding that you have mentioned above] can be a condition fro the arising of direct awareness of a presently arising dhamma. It may take a long, long time or a very short time, and this depends on how much listening and understanding was accumulated from the past - this life, last life, who knows. Sanna marks, remembers and therefore can be the right condition for sati to arise now and be aware of whatever dhamma has arisen. No 'self' involved, just dhammas arising and falling away - ever so rapidly. patience, courage and good cheer azita #109894 From: "Mike" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:04 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? mikenz66 Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Mike. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of consciousness? > > > > > > Rob: Nonexistent. In other words, something that we don't actually experience. > > > > Mike: Interesting idea. Do you have any textual support for this theory? > > Rob: Do you have any support in suttas to suggest that concepts are objects of consciousness? Did Buddha ever say that in sutta? > > Rob: I don't think I need to find support for something that has never been alleged in sutta. But if you can point out something the Buddha had to say about this, I will be glad to address it. Mike: What definition of mind-objects are you using then? I don't recall any particularly specific definitions in the Suttas. Mike: But see, for example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html --------------- On all occasions, monks, you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to that very person, making him as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love ?" thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves. --------------- "Thoughts of universal love" is a concept, isn't it? Mike #109895 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:57 am Subject: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. nilovg Dear friends. From a recording in India. no 3. ---------- Nina. #109896 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:28 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, "The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands,13 like a row of fence posts. 57. 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. VsM VIII,56-57 Visuddhimagga CLEARLY states actions that "should be done". Are you saying that whenever VsM or the suttas say "do this, do that" they mean that one should not do this, should not do that? ""Monks, I have known two qualities through experience: discontent with regard to skillful qualities[1] and unrelenting exertion. Relentlessly I exerted myself, [thinking,] 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.' From this heedfulness of mine was attained Awakening. From this heedfulness of mine was attained the unexcelled freedom from bondage. "You, too, monks, should relentlessly exert yourselves, [thinking,] 'Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence.' You, too, in no long time will reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves."" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "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 There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html ""Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html So do we go with what was said by the Buddha and Buddhaghosa, or do we follow the modern Interpretations that say that whenever Buddha said X he really meant not-X. With metta, Alex #109897 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:10 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------------- RE: > How about trying to understand them as they are actually said? --------------- What you really mean is, how about understanding them the way an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, uninstructed worldling would understand them? No thanks! ------------------------ RE: > What a novel idea! If you have to extrapolate an additional explanation in order to produce your view of a quote, chances are you are making it up yourself. ------------------------ Or the chances are I am trying to understanding them in the light of the Dhamma as a whole (which is "profound, deep in meaning (concerning anatta) and difficult to understand"). -------------------------------- RE: > In any case, it is perfectly possible to have a "set of instructions" that are "carried out" without anyone to carry them out. They are all sets of conditions that cause various other outcomes to arise, even if "we" "carry them out." --------------------------------- Sorry, Robert, that is just double-talk. That's what you inevitably get when you insist on seeing anatta through the eyes of an uninstructed worldling. -------------------------------------- RE: > But I am curious. Do you believe that action exists, or not? If I move my leg, has anything taken place, or is it all experience of qualities by cittas, with no actual motion of physical mass in space? What is action? --------------------------------------- In reality there is just citta, cetasika and rupa. There is neither the movement, nor the non-movement, of a leg. Action (of the leg-movement variety) is just a concept. --------------------------------------------- <. . .> RE: > Tell me, how does panna develop gradually from a "conceptual right-understanding" to a "direct understanding?" Can you give a brief description of how this wonderful transformation takes place? There must be some way, method, means, or process by which such a thing happens, so can you describe it? I want to have right understanding too! :-) --------------------------------------------- You'll never get right understanding by wanting it. Lobha and panna are incompatible. If panna is weak (or absent) it is because the conditions for stronger panna are not in place. ----------------------- <. . .> RE: > But the question is not whether there is a sufferer or not. Even if there is not, the question is how does one arrive at this direct understanding. Fine if it starts as pariyatti. But how does it develop to direct knowledge and end the suffering? Can you describe how this development takes place? ------------------------- Is there right understanding now? There needs to be, because that is the only way. ----------------------------------- RE: > We all agree intellectually that there is no sufferer, just arising phenomena. But this intellectual understanding does not help in and of itself to bring about direct realization of anatta. So if there is no training, no method, no effort, no volition, no intention, no action, ----------------------------------- No lobha, no wrong view? ------------------------------------------ RE: > that does anything, how does it take place? ------------------------------------------ As with everything else in ultimate reality, it takes place by conditions. There is no self that makes it happen and no self that it happens to - there are just conditioned dhammas. --------------------- KH: > > Ultimately, all of the concepts in the Tipitaka must be understood as being concepts of conditioned dhammas. RE: > And how does this happen? And how does it develop into panna? --------------------- It happens by understanding the way things ultimately are now. From beginning to end, the path is one of right understanding. Ken H PS: That bit about "all of the concepts in the Tipitaka" is one of my own theories and may not be entirely accurate. :-) #109898 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:59 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Hallo RobE > > > Dear Ken H. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > I know that, right now, in the present moment, there are only dhammas. There are no sentient beings, no computers, no past, no future: there are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. That's the way the world always has been, and always will be. > > > > > > And I also know something about those dhammas. They are anicca, dukkha and anatta - not worth clinging to in any way. > > > > I agree with everything you say above. The question is how this knowing develops from intellectual right understanding to direct experience. > > azita; when there is freqent listening to the dhamma, sanna, which marks every object as it arises with each and every citta, remembers what was heard and understood [with the right intellectual understanding that you have mentioned above] can be a condition fro the arising of direct awareness of a presently arising dhamma. > It may take a long, long time or a very short time, and this depends on how much listening and understanding was accumulated from the past - this life, last life, who knows. > Sanna marks, remembers and therefore can be the right condition for sati to arise now and be aware of whatever dhamma has arisen. > No 'self' involved, just dhammas arising and falling away - ever so rapidly. > > patience, courage and good cheer Thank you, this is a helpful explanation, and makes more clear how pariyati can turn into direct awareness of the nature of dhammas. I hope it does not imply though, that listening and understanding dhamma is the only way that insight and direct awareness develops. Buddha did describe with positive approval the practices of anapansati and satipatthana meditation. In addition to listening to the dhamma and following the various elements of the eightfold noble path, mindfulness meditation and cultivation of jhanas were two very clear ways in which the Buddha said that right mindfulness, right understanding and direct awareness were to be developed. So I agree and appreciate what you say, but I would not want to leave out the strong emphasis on meditation which the Buddha also gave us. To ignore his comprehensive teaching on breathing, mindfulness and jhana in the suttas would be a great error. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #109899 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:13 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Mike. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > > Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of consciousness? > > > > > > > > Rob: Nonexistent. In other words, something that we don't actually experience. > > > > > > Mike: Interesting idea. Do you have any textual support for this theory? > > > > Rob: Do you have any support in suttas to suggest that concepts are objects of consciousness? Did Buddha ever say that in sutta? > > > > Rob: I don't think I need to find support for something that has never been alleged in sutta. But if you can point out something the Buddha had to say about this, I will be glad to address it. > > Mike: What definition of mind-objects are you using then? I don't recall any particularly specific definitions in the Suttas. > > Mike: But see, for example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html > --------------- > On all occasions, monks, you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to that very person, making him as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love ?" thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves. > --------------- > "Thoughts of universal love" is a concept, isn't it? Well that is part of the problem - we are using loose definitions of thought, concept, and action [such as projecting.] At one moment you may say conventionally that a "thought of love" [a concept] is being entertained or projected. But that is just as much a gloss on reality as saying that "I took a ride in my car." When we say we took a ride, what really happened was a series of dhammas arising for consciousness, would you agree? So when we say conventionally "I projected thoughts of universal love" what is actually taking place? A series of images and feelings are arising within various sense or mind doors, and then I am talking about it this way. But did a concept of love arise for consciousness at any time? If so, what would it look like or be like? Can you describe what such a concept is, or only mention it as a word? If I say "car" is a concept, at that moment I am experiencing language and various images and associations. The word "car" arises, but does a concept "car" arise for consciousness? If so, how can you distinguish this concept from the actual dhammas that are arising? I don't think you can identify a concept that exists apart from various arisings for citta. It would be an interesting and complex task to attempt to do so. So I think we talk loosely about concepts but have a hard time identifying what they actually are purported to be. Is a concept merely a sentence, an image, an idea? If an idea, how does it actually occur? What form does it take? If we can't identify it, we can't really provide evidence that a concept actually exists. In other words, it is just a word that we use as a substitute for a lack of understanding of what is actually arising. If only dhammas are real, I find it hard to understand how anything that is "unreal" can actually arise for consciousness. How can citta look upon something that is not there? If you are saying "well it does actually arise, it is just that it refers to a non-existent object, like a unicorn" then you are saying there *is* a dhamma, but it is a deluded dhamma. I could accept that, but not that something is unreal and existent at the same time. I would like to clear this up and understand how something unreal can exist, and yet not exist. If someone can explain this, I will be very glad to have it cleared up. A unicorn does not exist in reality, but I can imagine and talk about it. If that is what you mean by "concept," then I can accept that what is meant by "concept" is real namas arising that take a nonexistent object and think it is real because of delusion. But then the concept is actually made up of a real nama which has a real mental image, definition or construct as its object, but which object does not actually exist. In other words, concept is a shorthand for a dhamma that is falsely identified, not something that doesn't exist. It is said that concept has no characteristic. So then what is it that citta is experiencing when it experiences concept? These seem to be complex questions, but if you can answer them, that will be fine. I was told that the existence of concepts and taking them for real objects when they are in fact non-existent was "basic Abhidhamma." But I wonder if the answer to the above questions is also so basic and well-understood. If so, please enlighten me on this subject. In some areas I am just a beginner, so I am happy to get this information clarified. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109900 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:21 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends. > > From a recording in India. no 3. > > object of naama. At the moment of experiencing hardness, there is > only hardness, but pa~n~naa has not been developed enough to know > that there is nothing but hardness. > > At the moment of seeing is there any part of the body sitting, > standing or assuming any posture? At the moment of experiencing > hardness is there any posture? When there is memory of a posture > there is an idea of self who thinks of my body. Where is the body? > Through which doorway can it be experienced? Through the eyes visible > object is experienced, not sitting, standing etc. Through the eardoor > sound is experienced. So long as one clings to the memory of posture > it hinders the experience of the arising and falling away of dhammas. > At the moment of experiencing hardness there is no posture. > > One may be thinking about naama and ruupa and just assuming that > there are naama and ruupa but there is not yet the clear demarcation > of naama and ruupa which are different. Dosa may arise and one can > call it dosa but there is still the idea of `I' and `mine'. Dosa is > not seen as just a reality, not `I' who is angry. > Thanks, Nina. These quotes are very clear and helpful. A couple of questions if you have time: 1. Would you say that the body in fact does not exist as a physical organism, but is only an experience that is put together through the mind-door, and is in fact "only" a concept? Just trying to figure out whether we should assume a physical reality "out there," even though we can't access it more than one dhamma at a time, or whether the "physical world out there" is totally a false presumption. 2. If there is no physical world out there, what is the status of the four great elements? Are they merely rupas for citta at individual moments as well, or do they exist independently? Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109901 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:33 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > "The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, > a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through > verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands,13 like a row of fence posts. > > 57. 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. > VsM VIII,56-57 > > > Visuddhimagga CLEARLY states actions that "should be done". > > Are you saying that whenever VsM or the suttas say "do this, do that" they mean that one should not do this, should not do that? > > > > > ""Monks, I have known two qualities through experience: discontent with regard to skillful qualities[1] and unrelenting exertion. Relentlessly I exerted myself, [thinking,] 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.' From this heedfulness of mine was attained Awakening. From this heedfulness of mine was attained the unexcelled freedom from bondage. > > "You, too, monks, should relentlessly exert yourselves, [thinking,] 'Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence.' You, too, in no long time will reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now. > > "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves."" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html > > > > "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 > > There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html > > > ""Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html > > > > So do we go with what was said by the Buddha and Buddhaghosa, or do we follow the modern Interpretations that say that whenever Buddha said X he really meant not-X. Thanks, Alex, for making this subject even more clear. It does seem that those who say that no practice should be engaged have reversed both Sutta and Vism and sometimes even Abhidhamma in order to do so, or in other cases twisted the clear exhortations to practice and make great efforts, striving for liberation from delusion. To quote a few of your greatest hits above that make it clear that practice and effort *should* be intentionally engaged: "The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, > a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through > verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar..." "The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally." Relentlessly I exerted myself, "You, too, monks, should relentlessly exert yourselves, "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves..." "...the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities." All of these quotes are very clear. It is only through a convoluted act of misunderstanding that one can deny their meaning, as there is no room for an alternate interpretation. It is not the case here, as it is with the anapanasati sutta, that the speaker says "There is the case where..." such and such happens, which could be interpreted as a report rather than a directive. In the examples you have given it is absolutely clear that it is a directive to DO what is being said. I do not think the Vism has espoused "self-view" by giving these directives. We can do what the Vism says here and still understand that there is "no self to do it." We can all understand that when we follow these directives that what is REALLY happening is that a set of conditions has caused volition and intention to arise and cause these actions to take place and that there IS NO SELF. It is wrong to say that if we follow these instructions we are denying anatta. We can do these actions understanding that there is action but no actor. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109902 From: "Mike" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:38 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? mikenz66 Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > Rob: Well that is part of the problem - we are using loose definitions of thought, concept, and action [such as projecting.] At one moment you may say conventionally that a "thought of love" [a concept] is being entertained or projected. Well, you asked for some Sutta references so I gave you some. As I said, the are not nearly so detailed as the Abhidhamma and Commentary material, where the distinction is well spelled out, as in the reference to the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma which I gave earlier. Mike #109903 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:53 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > --------------- > RE: > How about trying to understand them as they are actually said? > --------------- > > What you really mean is, how about understanding them the way an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, uninstructed worldling would understand them? > > No thanks! So you think that following a higher understanding than the run of the mill worldling means to make up meanings that are not there? How do you come upon your alternate meanings? Through insight as to what they actually mean, or by somebody telling you to ignore what they say and adopt something that is not in the text? Please explain how you rose above "worldling status" in this way and what your greater understanding is of what is actually said. There is a difference between having deeper insight that accords with the reality of a text, and having an alternate meaning that has been made up with no basis in the text. Just keep that in mind. > ------------------------ > RE: > What a novel idea! If you have to extrapolate an additional explanation in order to produce your view of a quote, chances are you are making it up yourself. > ------------------------ > > Or the chances are I am trying to understanding them in the light of the Dhamma as a whole (which is "profound, deep in meaning (concerning anatta) and difficult to understand"). Please explain the difference between your version of "difficult to understand" and "made up as a substitute for what is there?" How can you tell whether your version of "the Dhamma as a whole" is correct. Is it based on faith or knowledge? How do you see the "Dhamma as a whole" and how is that different from what is actually said in the sutta pitaka? Please explain how this has been discovered and by whom? > -------------------------------- > RE: > In any case, it is perfectly possible to have a "set of instructions" that are "carried out" without anyone to carry them out. They are all sets of conditions that cause various other outcomes to arise, even if "we" "carry them out." > --------------------------------- > > Sorry, Robert, that is just double-talk. That's what you inevitably get when you insist on seeing anatta through the eyes of an uninstructed worldling. Really? Well please instruct me then. It is not double-talk to say that when we carry out various activities that there is not a person, self or entity that carries them out but that they just take place through arising conditions. That is the double-talk of the Buddha. But thanks for calling me an "uninstructed worldling" rather than dealing with what I said. It makes your position clear as someone who believes you are above the view of others and that your view is totally correct. That is the standpoint of someone who has adopted a rationale for a particular self-view, which happens to be based on a spiritual philosophy. Still, I await your correction to give me a real understanding of how actions take place, that is not my uninstructed double-talk. Will you give me the correct information? > -------------------------------------- > RE: > But I am curious. Do you believe that action exists, or not? If I move my leg, has anything taken place, or is it all experience of qualities by cittas, with no actual motion of physical mass in space? What is action? > --------------------------------------- > > In reality there is just citta, cetasika and rupa. There is neither the movement, nor the non-movement, of a leg. > > Action (of the leg-movement variety) is just a concept. I see, so the physical world, and physical action as we experience it, is just concept and does not in fact exist. If that is the case it gives me a clearer view of your and others' standpoint on reality. What this adds up to is that there is only experience of the mind and no actual world, body or anything else in existence. It's all an illusion. That nama in experiencing rupa is not experiencing actual physicality but only qualities of various kindds that are in fact invented, created by delusion, and that none of it is real. When citta eventually develops panna and awakens to the unreality of all of samsara, it is released into nibbana, which is cessation of the entire arising of illusion - no more cittas, no more rupas. It all ends as the delusion ends. Would you say that is a fair estimate of the vision of samsara and nibbana that this group holds? In truth, I am not opposed to this vision at all. Just want to know if that is what is behind the various teachings around here. It is pretty radical if so, but fine with me. > --------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > Tell me, how does panna develop gradually from a "conceptual > right-understanding" to a "direct understanding?" Can you give a brief > description of how this wonderful transformation takes place? There must be some way, method, means, or process by which such a thing happens, so can you describe it? I want to have right understanding too! :-) > --------------------------------------------- > > You'll never get right understanding by wanting it. Lobha and panna are incompatible. > > If panna is weak (or absent) it is because the conditions for stronger panna are not in place. So you can't answer my question? Give it a try! :-) When it *does* happen, how does it take place? How does panna accumulate and develop? Do you have intellectual understanding of this and can you describe it? Or not? > ----------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > But the question is not whether there is a sufferer or not. Even if there is not, the question is how does one arrive at this direct understanding. Fine if it starts as pariyatti. But how does it develop to direct knowledge and end the suffering? Can you describe how this development takes place? > ------------------------- > > Is there right understanding now? There needs to be, because that is the only way. You are being slippery and avoiding my question. Either tell me you can answer it, can't answer it, or won't answer it, please. I asked you how it comes about, and you are changing the subject. This is an opportunity to teach me, so why do you avoid it? If you don't understand it yourself, let me know that and I'll inquire elsewhere. But it came up between us, so I'm asking you. > ----------------------------------- > RE: > We all agree intellectually that there is no sufferer, just arising phenomena. But this intellectual understanding does not help in and of itself to bring about direct realization of anatta. So if there is no training, no method, no effort, no volition, no intention, no action, > ----------------------------------- > > No lobha, no wrong view? > > ------------------------------------------ > RE: > that does anything, how does it take place? > ------------------------------------------ > > As with everything else in ultimate reality, it takes place by conditions. There is no self that makes it happen and no self that it happens to - there are just conditioned dhammas. That is a very general answer. It does not show specifically, or even in outline form, how citta gets from a to b. The conditions have to somehow change, grow or accumulate towards panna for delusion to be replaced by enlightenment. How does such a thing happen? I mean, even I could give you a rough idea of how I think it happens, but since you know more than me, your outline would be a lot more accurate. So why don't you give it a try? > --------------------- > KH: > > Ultimately, all of the concepts in the Tipitaka must be understood as being concepts of conditioned dhammas. > > RE: > And how does this happen? And how does it develop into panna? > --------------------- > > It happens by understanding the way things ultimately are now. From beginning to end, the path is one of right understanding. Well that is one answer that is somewhat helpful, so thank you. If you can answer my other questions above in a similar vein I would appreciate it. The more specific, the better. > > Ken H > > PS: That bit about "all of the concepts in the Tipitaka" is one of my own theories and may not be entirely accurate. :-) Well, thanks for that. And I appreciate you making your own contribution and giving me an idea of what you think is involved. If we don't make this knowledge "our own" it will be hard to progress. You may not realize it, but the whole time I am fighting I am looking for answers. I just don't accept things without understanding them and seeing what their rationale is. There is a lot of knowledge taken for granted, and that kind of knowledge is not useful. It has to be "thrashed, turned over, and inspected" to see what is real. [I am referencing those cool Pali terms for beating, inspecting, turning over and further investigating the object of contemplation which I can never remember.] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109904 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:54 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Rob: Well that is part of the problem - we are using loose definitions of thought, concept, and action [such as projecting.] At one moment you may say conventionally that a "thought of love" [a concept] is being entertained or projected. > > Well, you asked for some Sutta references so I gave you some. As I said, the are not nearly so detailed as the Abhidhamma and Commentary material, where the distinction is well spelled out, as in the reference to the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma which I gave earlier. If you happen to know a particular section of the manual that spells out how concepts are taken up by citta, I will be happy to see it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109905 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:56 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Mike. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > Rob: Well that is part of the problem - we are using loose definitions of thought, concept, and action [such as projecting.] At one moment you may say conventionally that a "thought of love" [a concept] is being entertained or projected. > > > > Well, you asked for some Sutta references so I gave you some. As I said, the are not nearly so detailed as the Abhidhamma and Commentary material, where the distinction is well spelled out, as in the reference to the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma which I gave earlier. > > If you happen to know a particular section of the manual that spells out how concepts are taken up by citta, I will be happy to see it. And thanks for the sutta reference. I don't mean to ignore it, just inquiring further. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109906 From: "Mike" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:59 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? mikenz66 Hi Rob, See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/109861 Mike #109907 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:11 pm Subject: Disgust Releases! bhikkhu5 Friends: Disgust Releases by Evaporating all Greed! At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus, for any clansman who has gone forth out of faith in my teaching, to do this, is in perfect accordance with the supreme Dhamma: He should dwell contemplating the impermanence inherent in any form... He should dwell contemplating the suffering inherent in any form... He should dwell contemplating the impersonality inherent in any form... He should dwell absorbed in disgusting any form, in disgusting any feeling, in disgusting any perception, in disgusting any construction, & in disgusting any form of consciousness! One who dwells immersed in revulsion towards any form, revulsion towards any feeling, revulsion towards any perception, revulsion towards any mental construction, and revulsion towards any kind of consciousness fully understands all form, all feeling, all perception, all mental construction, and all states of consciousness! One who fully understands form, feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness is freed from form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness! I tell you: He is even freed from birth, ageing, & death! Freed from all sorrow, weeping, pain, discontent, and desperate despair! I tell you: He is freed from all Suffering... Yet not pleasant disgust liberates mind by diminishing craving. <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:146-9 III 179-80 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #109908 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:33 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Ken H. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > (continuing, part 2) > > > Now I see what you mean, thanks. I agree that pariyatti is always the right way, no matter when it occurs. And so when we are sitting there are, in reality, only the presently arisen dhammas. > > > > We agree on that. If there are only presently arisen dhammas, where is there room for so-called concepts to be taken as object of anything? Any idea what "space" these supposedly take place in, since we are in a wall-to-wall 100% dhamma environment? I don't see any room for concepts in a continuous moment-to-moment arising of dhammas only, so perhaps you can tell me how this supposedly works. > ... > > > Mike: What else can concepts be if not objects of conciousness? > I suggest some study of the texts. > > For example: > A comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma which you can read here: > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+compre\ hensive+manual+of+abhidhamma&lr=&as_brr=1&ei=rlOVSZfeNJDMlQTussnmCQ#v=onepage&q&\ f=false > Start at page 325 VIII, 29 > Analysis of Concepts. > ... > What remains are concepts, which are twofold: concept as that which is made know, and concept as that which makes known. [i.e. meanings and names] Well thanks for the reference Mike, and for pointing me back to it, as I lost track of it the first time. I read the concept chapter and it was helpful. It didn't to be honest say much that I hadn't said in my responses to you, except that being relatively unschooled I put it in my own language. I said concepts, not being real, were not really experienced, and the Sangaha says that they are not actually real but are experienced as "shadows of actual things." Well, okay fine, I'd still like to know how "shadows" are experienced, and the Sangaha makes clear that the concepts being referred to are all linguistic, either of linguistic meaning, or linguistic naming - all products of language. So when it talks about experiencing concepts, what is actually being experienced is language and the meanings associate with the meanings of words. I would have to see the actual chapter in the Abhidhamma, or perhaps look up Nina's book on concepts, to see how concepts are actually experienced, but this is a good outline. I suspect that the real object of the citta that experiences a concept is through the eye- or ear-door and that what is directly experienced is sight or sound. While a concept is being registered, the actual [real] object of nama is probably the sound of language or the sight of language which then produces the concept as an inference of the language. If we ignored the meanings of words we would be left with the actual sense-door experience of sounds and sights. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109909 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, I appreciate your interest and your questions. Op 11-sep-2010, om 2:21 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > 1. Would you say that the body in fact does not exist as a physical > organism, but is only an experience that is put together through > the mind-door, and is in fact "only" a concept? ------ N: What we call the body is different from what we always assumed. There is no body that lasts, but what we call body are only different ruupa elements that arise and fall away. -------- > R: Just trying to figure out whether we should assume a physical > reality "out there," even though we can't access it more than one > dhamma at a time, or whether the "physical world out there" is > totally a false presumption. ------ N: There is a false presumption if we don't see ruupas as impermanent and not mine or self. There are ruupas but they should be seen as they really are. They appear one at a time through the different doorways. -------- > > R: 2. If there is no physical world out there, what is the status > of the four great elements? Are they merely rupas for citta at > individual moments as well, or do they exist independently? --------- N: Ruupas can be internal, of the body, or external, not of the body. Ruupas of the body can be produced by kamma, by citta, by temperature of by nutrition. Ruupas that are not of the body are produced only by temperature. Ruupas always arise in groups, and the four Great Elements are always included in each group. ---------- Nina. #109910 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. Was: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob Ep, The subject is more complex. There are different ways of classifying concepts, there are different kinds of concepts. See 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas' by Kh Sujin. Or look at this website of Rob K: Op 11-sep-2010, om 2:13 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > But then the concept is actually made up of a real nama which has a > real mental image, definition or construct as its object, but which > object does not actually exist. In other words, concept is a > shorthand for a dhamma that is falsely identified, not something > that doesn't exist. It is said that concept has no characteristic. > So then what is it that citta is experiencing when it experiences > concept? These seem to be complex questions, but if you can answer > them, that will be fine. > > I was told that the existence of concepts and taking them for real > objects when they are in fact non-existent was "basic Abhidhamma." > But I wonder if the answer to the above questions is also so basic > and well-understood. If so, please enlighten me on this subject. ------ N: The Atthasalini uses different synonyms for nama pannatti, concepts which are names. It is an interpretation, an expression which renders the meaning of some thing in language (nirutti). A name is a distinctive sign which shows the meaning of something (vyancana). There are sounds which people utter, letters combined as words which express the meaning of something (abhilapa). These synonyms just explain the meaning of nama pannatti, a name or term. A term makes the meaning of something known. The idea or notion which is made known can also be called concept. Thus, there are generally speaking two kinds of pannatti: 1. That which is made known (pannpiyatta) 2. That which makes known (pannapanato). The name or term (sadda pannatti) which makes known the meaning of things. ------- There are many kinds of concepts and they can be classified in different ways. One way of classifying them is the following (see Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis): i) formal concept (santhana pannatti corresponding to the form of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated on account of the mode of transition of the elements. ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot. iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas. iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea de rived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East or West. v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening. vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha. vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina. We read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha: All such different things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of ultimate things. They are called pannatti be cause they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of pannatti is so called because it is made known. As it makes known, it is described as name concept, name, name-made. --------- The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11). 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) 10. 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika which are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai or foreign. 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non- existent based on the existent. There is the expression "the person with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real but person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and for what is not real. 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye- consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the cakkhu-pasada- rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which experiences. 6. Avijamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is not real based on what is not real. There is the expression "the kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are sammutti dhammas, conventional realities. -------- N: That is why I am not so inclined to speak about concepts. The question is: what type of concept is meant? ------ Nina. #109911 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:28 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? gazita2002 hallo Rob, > > azita; when there is freqent listening to the dhamma, sanna, which marks every object as it arises with each and every citta, remembers what was heard and understood [with the right intellectual understanding that you have mentioned above] can be a condition fro the arising of direct awareness of a presently arising dhamma. > > It may take a long, long time or a very short time, and this depends on how much listening and understanding was accumulated from the past - this life, last life, who knows. > > Sanna marks, remembers and therefore can be the right condition for sati to arise now and be aware of whatever dhamma has arisen. > > No 'self' involved, just dhammas arising and falling away - ever so rapidly. > > > > patience, courage and good cheer > > Thank you, this is a helpful explanation, and makes more clear how pariyati can turn into direct awareness of the nature of dhammas. I hope it does not imply though, that listening and understanding dhamma is the only way that insight and direct awareness develops. Buddha did describe with positive approval the practices of anapansati and satipatthana meditation. In addition to listening to the dhamma and following the various elements of the eightfold noble path, mindfulness meditation and cultivation of jhanas were two very clear ways in which the Buddha said that right mindfulness, right understanding and direct awareness were to be developed. > > So I agree and appreciate what you say, but I would not want to leave out the strong emphasis on meditation which the Buddha also gave us. To ignore his comprehensive teaching on breathing, mindfulness and jhana in the suttas would be a great error. azita: I want to add more to this, however I am running out of time, due to leave Bkk and fly to Oz, and jst wanted you to know I have read yr postt and hopefullly get back to you in 2-3 days. Cheers, azita #109912 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:03 am Subject: Abhidhamma Series no 28, The Seven Books of the Abhidhamma (part 5). nilovg Dear friends, The Seven Books of the Abhidhamma (part 5). The Fifth book of the Abhidhamma is the Kathaavatthu (Translated as ?Points of Controversy?). Its commentary has been translated as ?The Debates Commentary?, P.T.S.) This book which is a treatise against schismatic monks has been composed by Moggali-putta-tissa. It was recited at the third Buddhist Council. The First Buddhist Council was held by 500 Arahants headed by the Venerable Mahaakassapa in Raajagaha shortly after the Buddha passed away. Here the Abhidhamma Pi.taka was also included along with the Vinaya and Suttanta. The Second Buddhist Council was held by seven hundred arahats headed by the Venerable Mahaayasa one century after the Buddha?s passing away. The version of the Texts in the First Buddhist Council was re-approved or re-affirmed. The Third Buddhist Council was convened by King Asoka at Pata.liputta, about 240 B.C. Thousand Arahants were headed by Moggaliputta-Tissa Thera who preached the Kathavatthu treatise. Thereupon, the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka reached its completeness and became seven books. The Kathaavatthu is a treatise against schismatic monks. At that time there were seventeen schismatic schools. This book consists of questions and answers, it is a dialogue between the sakavaadin (theravada) and the opponent. For example, the first question is: ?Is there, in the absolute sense, any personality (puggala) to be found??. In the teachings the term person is used in figurative speech, in conventional sense, but in the ultimate sense there is no person. Schismatic monks believed that a person really existed. Similar questions about the person or the world are raised today. We read, for instance, about questions on rebirth. The opponent thinks: ?the person transmigrates?. The Sakavaadin asks whether it is the identical person who transmigrates or a different person. Or, the question is asked (Ch VIII, 75) whether there is an intermediate stage between two rebirths. This book covers a wide range of subjects, and each question is viewed from various angles. We read about speculative questions with regard to the Dependent Origination, the four Truths, kamma and result, emancipation, arahats, the future and the present, destinies, impermanence, jhaana attainments, insight and many other subjects. Such questions can remind us that so long as understanding of the dhamma appearing at this moment is not being developed stage by stage, there will always be doubt and ignorance of the truth. ------- Nina. #109913 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: JC from Dhammawheel has died... tadaomiyamot... Hi Khun Nina: To you, I have a very naive question, which may be slightly related with the content of Phil's comment below. In one of the verses in Dhammapada, the Buddha says that "--- dukkho jaati puna-puanag (suffering is the endless-round of life/lives). With those living in so-called developed countries, such as the Netherlands and Japan, it would not be easy to argue that our life is 'dukkha in its intrinsic senses. (Without giving them any pessimistic feelings,) how can you convince those living comfortably that living/life itself is 'suffering'? Is my question clear? tadao ________________________________ From: philip <...> Hi Sarah, thank you for your nice message recognizing JC. > b) "Live for understanding". We give ourselves so many goals and aims in life. >We find so many things precious and live for so much that is just searching for >objects of lobha. ph: if we reach the goals and objects, it just conditions more searching, if we don't, there can be aversion, so indeed as you say next "all that really matters in life is the understanding of Dhamma and in particular, the understanding of the reality appearing at this moment." Well, I personally still don't believe in the wisdom of aspring to have understanding of the reality appearing at this moment, because I think, as I've said before, that such understanding has not appeared to me yet to be a kind of understanding that is really there for me. Maybe that will change. I personally believe that - for me - looking at my conventional behaviour is the way to go. When behaviour is wholesome in a conventional sense, there is less remorse, and there are better conditions for concentration and understanding to deepen. I know we don't agree on this point, and that's fine. We all agree that senstivity to the Buddha's teaching is a great blessing that we shouldn't waste, and we celebrate JC's sensitivity to the Dhamma! .... #109914 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:32 pm Subject: On strategic temporary attachment. truth_aerator Dear All, Some take the teaching of Non-Attachment and analyse it that one shouldn't ever be attached to anything. One shouldn't be attached to precepts, abstinence, meditation and so on. Some say that you shouldn't meditate, because then you are attaching to those states of meditation and hey, attachment is bad, you shouldn't do it. However when it comes to expensive cars, luxurious houses, cloths, vacations, delicious food, spouse, etc - they attach there. Non-attachment always means not-doing to what one is not-attached? Great. Don't eat or drink anything. Don't sleep. Don't be attached to these pleasures of the Body. There is difference between doing something because it is required and wholesome vs doing something because one craves for it and appropriates it as "I, ME, MINE". Attachment, craving and conceit are fully eradicated only at Arhatship stage. To expect one to never do wholesome things, such as practice & keeping precepts, without any craving is like putting cart in front of a horse. If one attaches to Dhamma (dhammaraga), one can go as high as Anagami state (AN 9.36) . But IMHO if one doesn't attach to it at first, then one may not practice it at all and not get that far. Rather it may be good to use craving and conceit in a wholesome way until it is eradicated. Ex: One wants to become like that Arahat monk. This is good kind of craving & conceit. It is much better than craving to become the next Bill Gates and have lots of money. If one has to have some sort of craving to start keeping the precepts and meditate, then it is alright up to a certain point. Before one reaches the other shore one must be attached to the raft/boat that gets one there. Only afterward one can and should let it go. Some have misinterpreted the simile of raft & the sea to mean that one should abandon the raft in the mid-sea or not use it at all! This is silly. One will either drown or not get anywhere. I like the simile of walking the path like walking up the stairs. As you step on one step higher, you detach from the step below you, until you detach from all steps by reaching the higher floor. IMHO it is much better to be attached to bliss of deep meditation (access concentration & higher) then to be attached to household, money, girls, cars, purses, travel, and other material goods. At least meditation temporary clears the mind of hindrances and is very good kamma. It is safe and legal bliss leading to better future while sinking into sensuality can make lots of trouble and lead to woeful rebirth. If dedicated Buddhist reaches deep absorbtion states, then it is almost guaranteed that the rebirth will be in high kamaloka plane or even rupa loka plane where life is long enough for one to meet Buddha Metteyya and get awakened with His advice. But for those without deep meditative states the possibility of next rebirth (or couple down the line) being woeful is there. Unless one is a stream-enterer (or higher), even human rebirths or higher are not guaranteed and even if one is reborn as human with limited lifespan it is still possible that one will do some bad kamma and be reborn in woeful plane from which one may miss seeing Buddha Metteyya. Don't be afraid of Jhana, even Anagamis have attachment to it. But they don't have attachment to 5 sense world. Attachment to wholesome bliss like Jhana is far better than attachment to sensuality and if one can't help but to be attached to something, it is better to be attached to Jhana than sensuality. It is in reliance on higher forms of happiness that one lets go off lower ones (MN137). There is no Jhana without panna, but there can be attainment of sensual pleasures without panna. There is no awakening without panna, so if one cannot attain Jhana (even for one second) than how can one ever attain MaggaPhala which is much harder to do? To achieve Jhana you need to temporary let go of 5 hindrances, to attain stream-entry you need to permanently remove 3 fetters one of which is Self-View which is much subtler and finer thing to see and let go off. It is much easier to suppress desire for 5 senses, but it is much harder to permanently remove the fetter that believe in a Self. So jhana is much easier to attain than maggaphala. If one can't attain Jhana, then how can one attain stream-entry in that life? And if one is not interested in temporary (at first) suppression of 5 hindrances and prefers sensuality, than how can one be interested in letting go of far more (the very Self Identity)? People like to talk about wisdom, but if it doesn't lead to more peace & calm, to understanding and weaking of the hindrances (at least temporarily at first) it is not really wisdom. It is just lots of theory. Ultimately one has to detach from Jhana as well. But it is after jhana has accomplished its task. Before a certain point one should be skillfully attached to tranquillity so that one won't revert to finding pleasure in sensual world. ================= This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness. "By depending & relying on equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, abandon & transcend equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. Such is its abandoning, such its transcending. "By depending & relying on non-fashioning, [4] abandon & transcend the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness. Such is its abandoning, such its transcending. "'Depending on this, abandon that': thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.137.than.html In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite ? the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then ? through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters[1] ? he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html Especially this part: "through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters[1] ? he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world." ====================== Jhana IS the path to awakening - MN36 Jhana Is what Buddha awakened to. AN9.42 & SN2.7 Jhana Is Practiced by awakened ones: Dhp 23 Jhana Leads to 4 fruits: From Stream to Arhatship. (DN29) Jhana Is Right Concentration - SN 45.8 Ending of Mental Fermentations depend on Jhana - AN 9.36 Samadhi is proximate condition to "knowledge and vision of things as they really are" - SN12.23 Samadhi -> seeing rise & fall of 5 aggregates (which is wisdom) SN 22.5 Samadhi -> wisdom Samadhi is the path - AN 6.64 Jhana is the only 4 Meditative absorptions thay Buddha praised. -MN108 Jhana goes together with discernment (panna): Dhp 372 Jhana Is a mark of a great discernment, great man - AN4.35 Jhana is the escape from confinement. AN 9.42 Released through Panna (Pannavimutti) = Jhanas 1-9 AN 9.44 7 Parts of Noble 8Fold path are support for Jhana- MN117 Jhana + discernment is a single thing that can lead one to Arhatship - AN 11.17 The Buddha has recommended Jhana for trainees - MN107 It is *impossible* to break 5 lower and 5 upper fetters without Jhana (and insight after it). - MN64 Jhana are 4 of 6 stations of mindfulness (anussatithana) AN 3.322 Udayin sutta iii, 320, VI, iii, 29 (the other 2 are alokasanna & 31 body parts) ======================================================= With metta, Alex #109915 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:48 pm Subject: Restlessness and Regret! bhikkhu5 Friends: Restlessness and Regret Agitates the Mind! A Brahmin Priest once asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember something that has been memorized over a long period and also that which has not been memorized? Brahmin, when then mind is agitated by restlessness and regret, stressed, agitated, troubled and tyrannized by restlessness and regret, & one does neither know, nor understand any actual safe escape from this dominating restlessness and regret, in that moment, then one can neither see, nor ever understand what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself and for others. Then, consequently, even texts, that have been long memorized, cannot be remembered. Why is this blind neglect so? Imagine a bowl of water with the surface stirred up by wind into ripples, undulations & small wavelets. If a man with good eye-sight were to inspect the reflection of his own face in it, he would neither see nor recognize it, as it really is! So too, brahmin, when the mind is distracted by restlessness and regret, excited, anxious, distressed, worried, perturbed and upset by restlessness and regret, on any such occasion even texts long memorized do not recur to the mind, not to speak of those texts, events & knowledge, that have not been memorized at all? <..> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:123] section 46: The Links. 55: To Sangarava... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #109916 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > I appreciate your interest and your questions. > Op 11-sep-2010, om 2:21 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > > > 1. Would you say that the body in fact does not exist as a physical > > organism, but is only an experience that is put together through > > the mind-door, and is in fact "only" a concept? > ------ > N: What we call the body is different from what we always assumed. > There is no body that lasts, but what we call body are only different > ruupa elements that arise and fall away. > -------- So then I guess the concept of the body creates an illusion that there is a body as a whole, as opposed to succeeding rupas which appear in groups. > > R: Just trying to figure out whether we should assume a physical > > reality "out there," even though we can't access it more than one > > dhamma at a time, or whether the "physical world out there" is > > totally a false presumption. > ------ > N: There is a false presumption if we don't see ruupas as impermanent > and not mine or self. There are ruupas but they should be seen as > they really are. They appear one at a time through the different > doorways. > -------- > > > > R: 2. If there is no physical world out there, what is the status > > of the four great elements? Are they merely rupas for citta at > > individual moments as well, or do they exist independently? > --------- > N: Ruupas can be internal, of the body, or external, not of the body. > Ruupas of the body can be produced by kamma, by citta, by temperature > of by nutrition. Ruupas that are not of the body are produced only by > temperature. > Ruupas always arise in groups, and the four Great Elements are always > included in each group. > ---------- I wonder if it is the groupings of the rupas that cause them to appear as parts of larger wholes? In any case, I appreciate your explanations. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109917 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts. Was: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > The subject is more complex. There are different ways of classifying > concepts, there are different kinds of concepts. See 'Survey of > Paramattha Dhammas' by Kh Sujin. Or look at this website of Rob K: > > Op 11-sep-2010, om 2:13 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > > > But then the concept is actually made up of a real nama which has a > > real mental image, definition or construct as its object, but which > > object does not actually exist. In other words, concept is a > > shorthand for a dhamma that is falsely identified, not something > > that doesn't exist. It is said that concept has no characteristic. > > So then what is it that citta is experiencing when it experiences > > concept? These seem to be complex questions, but if you can answer > > them, that will be fine. > > > > I was told that the existence of concepts and taking them for real > > objects when they are in fact non-existent was "basic Abhidhamma." > > But I wonder if the answer to the above questions is also so basic > > and well-understood. If so, please enlighten me on this subject. > ------ > N: The Atthasalini uses different synonyms for nama pannatti, > concepts which are names. It is an interpretation, an expression > which renders the meaning of some thing in language (nirutti). A name > is a distinctive sign which shows the meaning of something > (vyancana). There are sounds which people utter, letters combined as > words which express the meaning of something (abhilapa). These > synonyms just explain the meaning of nama pannatti, a name or term. A > term makes the meaning of something known. The idea or notion which > is made known can also be called concept. Thus, there are generally > speaking two kinds of pannatti: > > 1. That which is made known (pannpiyatta) > > 2. That which makes known (pannapanato). > > The name or term (sadda pannatti) which makes known the > meaning of things. > ------- > There are many kinds of concepts and they can be classified in > different ways. One way of classifying them is the following (see > Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis): > > i) formal concept (santhana pannatti corresponding to the > form of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so > designated on account of the mode of transition of the elements. > > ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to > modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such > as a vehicle or a chariot. > > iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as > person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas. > > iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea de > rived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East > or West. > > v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening. > > vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions > corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by > names, such as Vesakha. > > vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It > is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. > > viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired > through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina. > > We read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha: > > All such different things, although they do not exist > in the ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of > shadows of ultimate things. They are called pannatti be cause they > are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on > account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. > This kind of pannatti is so called because it is made known. As it > makes known, it is described as name concept, name, name-made. > --------- > The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds > of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, > note 11). > > 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is > real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna > (perception) 10. > > 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is > not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not > represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika which are nama, and > rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute sense, they are > conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala citta11 > (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a > paramattha dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own > characteristic, it is not Thai or foreign. > > 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non- > existent based on the existent. There is the expression "the person > with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real but person is not > real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and for what is not > real. > > 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the > existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression "woman's > voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. > > 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is > real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye- > consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the cakkhu-pasada- > rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible object), and > vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which > experiences. > > 6. Avijamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is > not real based on what is not real. There is the expression "the > kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are sammutti > dhammas, conventional realities. > -------- > N: That is why I am not so inclined to speak about concepts. The > question is: what type of concept is meant? I certainly appreciate getting a clearer idea of the different classifications of concept, and what is meant by concept in Abhidhamma. There are a few different ways that concept can be meant, and the above makes it clear that what is meant by concept is all within the realm of verbal references and classifications that accord with different ways of naming, referring to and labelling things. The different types of namings and definitions of things that can be given breaks those down very well. It seems to me that according to this, that conventional reality is very much a creation of language, and if we did not have these language definitions and namings of conventional things we would not have concepts as objects of citta. Still, the way in which a concept is apprehended by a citta is somewhat mysterious. Language creates concepts within the time it takes to spell out an entire sentence or reference the definition of various names, so they cannot - it would seem - arise as single individual dhammas, but would be dependent on a conglomerated meaning collected over at least several seconds. There must be some sort of conventional mental process to collect that meaning over time and present it as a concept, so I'm not sure how that works. I'm sure it is discussed somewhere. The Sangaha, which Mike was nice enough to link me to, also described the way in which concepts are perceived by citta, and said that they were perceived as a kind of "shadow" of dhammas, which suggested that they weren't really directly apprehended, but that the cittas involved were in a way "tricked" into thinking something was there when it really was not. So I guess that is a kind of trick of language. I guess it is also worth noting which concepts refer to realities, and which ones refer to nonexistent ideas that don't really have a reference, as pointed out by the different categories of concepts. The reason I am so interested in concepts and how far they go and what role they play, is that it seems that in Abhidhamma, they are perhaps totally responsible for delusion, and are the only alternative given to correct perception of actual dhammas as they arise one by one. Is this true? Or are there other aspects to delusion? Anyway, I have enjoyed sections of K. Sujin's "Survey" which is very clearly and nicely written, and which you were kind enough to send me, and if you know a section that speaks about how concepts are produced and perceived, I will enjoy looking it up! I have also linked over to Rob's website and will read the article. Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109918 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts. Was: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > The subject is more complex. There are different ways of classifying > concepts, there are different kinds of concepts. See 'Survey of > Paramattha Dhammas' by Kh Sujin. Or look at this website of Rob K: > I see that Rob's website has the relevant section on concepts reprinted from K. Sujin's "Survey," so that is great, I will read it there, and can also refer to it in the book as well. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109919 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:18 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > azita: I want to add more to this, however I am running out of time, due to leave Bkk and fly to Oz, and jst wanted you to know I have read yr postt and hopefullly get back to you in 2-3 days. Thanks, Azita, for letting me know this. Have a good journey, and I will look forward to hearing your response in a few days. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109920 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:30 pm Subject: Re: On strategic temporary attachment. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Don't be afraid of Jhana, even Anagamis have attachment to it. But they don't have attachment to 5 sense world. Attachment to wholesome bliss like Jhana is far better than attachment to sensuality and if one can't help but to be attached to something, it is better to be attached to Jhana than sensuality. It is in reliance on higher > forms of happiness that one lets go off lower ones (MN137). > > There is no Jhana without panna, but there can be attainment of sensual pleasures without panna. There is no awakening without panna, so if one cannot attain Jhana (even for one second) than how can one ever attain MaggaPhala which is much harder to do? To achieve Jhana you need to temporary let go of 5 hindrances, to attain stream-entry you need to permanently remove 3 fetters one of which is Self-View which is much subtler and finer thing to see and let go off. It is much easier to suppress desire for 5 senses, but it is much harder to > permanently remove the fetter that believe in a Self. So jhana is much easier to attain than maggaphala. If one can't attain Jhana, then how can one attain stream-entry in that life? And if one is not interested in temporary (at first) suppression of 5 hindrances and prefers sensuality, than how can one be interested in letting go of far more (the very Self Identity)? People like to talk about wisdom, but if it doesn't lead to more peace & calm, to understanding and weaking of the hindrances (at least temporarily at first) it is not really wisdom. It is just lots of theory. > > > Ultimately one has to detach from Jhana as well. But it is after jhana has accomplished its task. Before a certain point one should be skillfully attached to tranquillity so that one won't revert to finding pleasure in sensual world. > ================= > This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned. > "This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned. > "This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned. > "This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html > > > "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. > > "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. > > This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness. > > "By depending & relying on equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, abandon & transcend equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. Such is its abandoning, such its transcending. > > "By depending & relying on non-fashioning, [4] abandon & transcend the equanimity coming from singleness, > > dependent on singleness. Such is its abandoning, such its transcending. > > "'Depending on this, abandon that': thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.137.than.html > > > In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a > cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite ? the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' > > "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then ? through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters[1] ? he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html > > Especially this part: > "through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters[1] ? he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world." > ====================== > Jhana IS the path to awakening - MN36 > Jhana Is what Buddha awakened to. AN9.42 & SN2.7 > Jhana Is Practiced by awakened ones: Dhp 23 > Jhana Leads to 4 fruits: From Stream to Arhatship. (DN29) > Jhana Is Right Concentration - SN 45.8 > Ending of Mental Fermentations depend on Jhana - AN 9.36 > Samadhi is proximate condition to "knowledge and vision of things as > they really are" - SN12.23 > Samadhi -> seeing rise & fall of 5 aggregates (which is wisdom) SN 22.5 > Samadhi -> wisdom > Samadhi is the path - AN 6.64 > Jhana is the only 4 Meditative absorptions thay Buddha praised. -MN108 > Jhana goes together with discernment (panna): Dhp 372 > Jhana Is a mark of a great discernment, great man - AN4.35 > Jhana is the escape from confinement. AN 9.42 > Released through Panna (Pannavimutti) = Jhanas 1-9 AN 9.44 > 7 Parts of Noble 8Fold path are support for Jhana- MN117 > Jhana + discernment is a single thing that can lead one to Arhatship - AN 11.17 > The Buddha has recommended Jhana for trainees - MN107 > It is *impossible* to break 5 lower and 5 upper fetters without Jhana (and insight after it). - MN64 > > Jhana are 4 of 6 stations of mindfulness (anussatithana) AN 3.322 Udayin sutta iii, 320, VI, iii, 29 (the other 2 are alokasanna & 31 body parts) > ======================================================= Thanks for a very nice discussion, and especially thanks for the great list of jhana references, which I will enjoy reading. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #109921 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. Was: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 12-sep-2010, om 6:14 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > have also linked over to Rob's website and will read the article. ------ N: You could also look at his abh forum: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ forums/ He can help you to subscribe. You will find a lot on jhaana and meditation. If you click the heading samatha you will find all the subtitles. Also in dsg: U.P. (useful posts) under files section. Today I am going out and will answer your posts later on. Nina. #109922 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts. Was: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Thanks, Nina! :-) Best, Robert E. #109923 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:08 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------------- <. . .> RE: > I see, so the physical world, and physical action as we experience it, is just concept and does not in fact exist. If that is the case it gives me a clearer view of your and others' standpoint on reality. What this adds up to is that there is only experience of the mind and no actual world, body or anything else in existence. It's all an illusion. That nama in experiencing rupa is not experiencing actual physicality but only qualities of various kinds that are in fact invented, created by delusion, and that none of it is real. -------------- That doesn't sound right to me. I suspect you are still be not getting the DSG message. Rather than seeing the world as an illusion, we need to be seeing nama and rupa as the only realities (the true world). --------------------- RE: > When citta eventually develops panna and awakens to the unreality of all of samsara, --------------------- Samsara is conditioned existence (or the five aggregates of clinging) and it is certainly not unreal. It is only too real! (But I think there is a sense in which samsara is said in some suttas to be "unreal". I think it unreal in the way it is commonly thought to be real (i.e., comprised of permanent, satisfactory, things.) --------------------- RE: > it is released into nibbana, which is cessation of the entire arising of illusion - no more cittas, no more rupas. --------------------- I don't know what you mean by "released into nibbana" but I have heard that kind of theory before and it is totally misleading. I think Thanissaro B and his teachers subscribe to it. They talk about an "unbound consciousness" that enters nibbana and persists there in some way. How it is any different from "an eternal soul in heaven" I do not know! -------------------------------- RE: > It all ends as the delusion ends. Would you say that is a fair estimate of the vision of samsara and nibbana that this group holds? > In truth, I am not opposed to this vision at all. Just want to know if that is what is behind the various teachings around here. It is pretty radical if so, but fine with me. > ------------------------------- There are, as you say, various teachings around here, and I have seen something like the one you mention. But it is certainly not the teaching I am interested in. It is not the one people are learning from K Sujin. Hang in there Robert, I am sure someone will be able to say it the way you need to hear it. Ken H #109924 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:26 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >KH: That doesn't sound right to me. I suspect you are still be not >getting the DSG message. Rather than seeing the world as an illusion, >we need to be seeing nama and rupa as the only realities (the true >world). And what reality do you look at when you DRIVE? What reality do you look at when you walk across a busy intersection? If you are in a burning building, what do you do? Do you just stand there and "let the conditions take care of you" or do you try your best to get out of there? Even though all actions are conditioned, does this means that no effort is made to get out of a burning building? With metta, Alex #109925 From: Tadao Miyamoto Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:29 pm Subject: To Khun Nina. Thank you for the books tadaomiyamot... Hi Khun Nina: I've just received copies of the following books: 1) Abhidhamma in Daily Life; and 2) The Conditionality of Life. Thank you very much; I appreciate your thoughtfulness. tadao #109926 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:30 pm Subject: Calm Kindness! bhikkhu5 Friends: Calm Kindness Protects All Beings! The Blessed Buddha often said: With good will for the entire cosmos, Cultivate an infinite & boundless heart: Above, below, all across and all around, Beaming, without any hostility or hate! Sutta Nipa-ta I, 8 May all creatures, all breathing things, all beings one and all, without exception, experience joyous good fortune only. May they not fall into any harm. Anguttara Nika-ya II, 72 Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Sutta Nipa-ta I, 8 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sama-hita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Calm Kindness! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ WWW: http://groups.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct Related Buddhist Site: http://What-Buddha-Said.net Message emails to: Buddha-Direct@googlegroups.com Unsubscribe by email to: Buddha-Direct-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Edit your membership to normal email, summary, digest or no email at: http://groups.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct/subscribe May all beings become thus Happy! Friendship is the GREATEST! Have a Nice Day! Bhikkhu Samahita Ceylon -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- #109927 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:26 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Alex, --- <. . .> A: > And what reality do you look at when you DRIVE? > What reality do you look at when you walk across a busy intersection? --- Visible object is the only reality that ever appears at the eye-door. ---------- A: > If you are in a burning building, what do you do? Do you just stand there and "let the conditions take care of you" or do you try your best to get out of there? ---------- Volition (kamma) and effort (viriya) are always present. Sometimes they take a dhamma as their object, other times they take a concept. (A burning house is a concept.) But in either case there is no control, just conditions. ---------------- A: > Even though all actions are conditioned, does this means that no effort is made to get out of a burning building? ---------------- Yes, effort, in the conventional sense of the word, is just an illusion. In reality there are only dhammas. Ken H #109928 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:44 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------------- > <. . .> > RE: > I see, so the physical world, and physical action as we experience it, is just concept and does not in fact exist. > > If that is the case it gives me a clearer view of your and others' standpoint on reality. What this adds up to is that there is only experience of the mind and no actual world, body or anything else in existence. It's all an illusion. > That nama in experiencing rupa is not experiencing actual physicality but only qualities of various kinds that are in fact invented, created by delusion, and that none of it is real. > -------------- > > That doesn't sound right to me. I suspect you are still be not getting the DSG message. Rather than seeing the world as an illusion, we need to be seeing nama and rupa as the only realities (the true world). If nama and rupa are the only reality, then the conventional world does not exist in the way that we of it. I think it's fair to ask "Does it exist as a physical realm or not?" Why beat around the bush? One can say 'we cannot say' or 'it does exist but we only experience one rupa at a time' or 'it does not exist, there is only nama and rupa, everything else is an illusion.' Is it wrong to get a correct overall concept of what is and isn't in existence? > --------------------- > RE: > When citta eventually develops panna and awakens to > the unreality of all of samsara, > --------------------- > > Samsara is conditioned existence (or the five aggregates of clinging) and it is certainly not unreal. It is only too real! > > (But I think there is a sense in which samsara is said in some suttas to be "unreal". I think it unreal in the way it is commonly thought to be real (i.e., comprised of permanent, satisfactory, things.) Yes; well the reality of dhammas is quite different than the conventional view of reality, isn't it? > --------------------- > RE: > it is released into nibbana, which is cessation > of the entire arising of illusion - no more cittas, no more rupas. > --------------------- > > I don't know what you mean by "released into nibbana" but I have heard that kind of theory before and it is totally misleading. I think Thanissaro B and his teachers subscribe to it. They talk about an "unbound consciousness" that enters nibbana and persists there in some way. How it is any different from "an eternal soul in heaven" I do not know! What do you think happens? What I said was that there was cessation when no more illusion exists, and there would be no more cittas, no more rupas - do you disagree with this statement? If you do, what happens to citta and rupa after awakening? > -------------------------------- > RE: > It all ends as the delusion ends. Would you say that is a fair estimate of the vision of samsara and nibbana that this group holds? > > > In truth, I am not opposed to this vision at all. Just want to know if that is what is behind the various teachings around here. It is pretty radical if so, but fine with me. > > ------------------------------- > > There are, as you say, various teachings around here, and I have seen something like the one you mention. But it is certainly not the teaching I am interested in. It is not the one people are learning from K Sujin. > > Hang in there Robert, I am sure someone will be able to say it the way you need to hear it. I'm not asking for it to be said a particular way, I am asking you whether you believe there is any experience after awakening. You can say "yes," "no" or "I don't know." Any answer is fine, but seriously, I don't necessarily need a pat on the head. ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109929 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Ken H and Rob E > > >-------------------------------------- > > > >I have one other question: How would you define a concept, as opposed to > >a thinking process? > >------------------------------------ > >I think that concepts are unreal and merely imagined entities > >associated with thinking. They are dreamed of reifications of mentally > >conglomerated stretches of thinking. > > KO:? concepts are thinking objects.? thinking is a characteristic of citta, > vittaka and vicara.? Thinking is real but concepts cannot happen without > thinking.? Thinking can be for other dhammas and not necessary must be for > concepts.? These are the differences. Thanks for trying to answer this. I am completely clear about what you are saying. "Concepts cannot happen without thinking." Can any thought or object appear without a nama? I'm still not quite clear what is the distinction in this sense. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109930 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:55 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > From a recording in India. no 1. > > About the difference between the moments with sati and without sati. > > Kh Sujin: understanding. Someone may ask: is this hard? One may answer: yes, it > is. This is not sati. Body-consciousness can experience hardness. > What is the difference between the experience of hardness without > sati or with sati? In the beginning one learns from theory that > hardness is a reality. It can be experienced through the bodysense > and then through the mind-door. Usually there is no awareness but > when there is pa~n~naa the difference can be known between the moment > without sati and with sati. If there is no pa~n~naa one may just > assume that there is sati. > > Visible object arises and falls away and there is nothing left of it, > only the sign, the nimitta of it remains. With perverted sa~n~naa, > sa~n~naa vippallaasa we see people. Visible object should be > understood as no one at all. > > When sati arises it is very precise, it is aware of what? Of visible > object without a person in it, or of seeing, and no self who is > thinking about it. One can realise the difference between the > experience and the object that is experienced, one at a time. > I appreciate these transcripts. They are very clear. Let me review and see if I understand: Sati is aware of both the rupa and the nama in the experience, can distinguish them from each other, and also understands at the same time that there is no person having the experience, just the experience, and the object. Is that right? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109931 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: JC from Dhammawheel has died... nilovg Dear Tadao (Lukas and Azita at end), Op 11-sep-2010, om 16:14 heeft Tadao Miyamoto het volgende geschreven: > With those living in so-called developed countries, such as the > Netherlands and > Japan, it would not be easy to argue that > our life is 'dukkha in its intrinsic senses. > > (Without giving them any pessimistic feelings,) how can you > convince those > living comfortably that living/life itself is 'suffering'? ------- N: Lodewijk says that your question is very good and that he asks himself the same question. I said that we can explain that after birth there is old age, sickness and death and that when loosing dear people we surely suffer. Lodewijk said, yes, but at the moment of enjoying life one does not think of these things. I think we cannot convince others, but when people are ready for it, we can explain what life really is: one moment of experiencing an object and then gone. Hearing falls away immediately, and then there is another moment. There is no moment that lasts. When impermanence is understood more, it may be clearer what dukkha is: the arising and falling away of all realities. None of these can be of any refuge. As the Buddha said: (S IV, , 1,2) what is impermanent is dukkha and what is dukkha is void of the self. Dukkha in the deepest sense is hard to penetrate and not everybody is ready for it. ----- Now a question to you. Lukas, from Poland, is very keen to hear more sayings by the late Ven. Dhammadharo. He could say things in such a vigorous way. I try to remember what I can and Azita quotes sometimes from her old notebook. What do you remember from your discussions with him? Lukas and others will appreciate it if you post these. I edited his 'Be here now' and this is on Robert K' s web: I do not know whether you have seen this. There are lots of good reminders. Nina. #109932 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:27 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 13-sep-2010, om 7:55 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > Let me review and see if I understand: > Sati is aware of both the rupa and the nama in the experience, can > distinguish them from each other, and also understands at the same > time that there is no person having the experience, just the > experience, and the object. Is that right? -------- N: It is actually sati and pa~n~naa, sati sampaja~n~na. And the distinction of naama and ruupa cannot be discerned in the beginning, this is actually the first stage of tender insight. I heard on a recording last night: Before this stage kusala and akusala cannot be known clearly. When dosa arises, we call it dosa, but it is not yet realised as just naama. As Kh Sujin said: it is still my dosa, it is still self. First dosa has to be seen as 'just a reality', as a naama. We may be in a hurry, wanting to know exactly when kusala arises, when akusala. But this is not possible in the beginning. We only know it in theory. It is not so easy to grasp this, I think. Difficult for all of us. ----------- Nina. #109933 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:54 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 12-sep-2010, om 5:57 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > So then I guess the concept of the body creates an illusion that > there is a body as a whole, as opposed to succeeding rupas which > appear in groups. ------ N: Yes, right. The body seems to be a lasting whole. In reality it consists of different ruupa elements arising and falling away all the time. ------- > R: I wonder if it is the groupings of the rupas that cause them to > appear as parts of larger wholes? In any case, I appreciate your > explanations. ------ N: It would be better not to think of it as a larger whole; that implies an idea of my body that exists and belongs to me. In reality it falls apart at each moment. It crumbles away. The Buddha taught all the time about different elements arising and falling away. S IV, 52, The world: <' "The world! The world!" is the saying, lord. How far, lord, does this saying go?" 'It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called "the world". What crumbles away?The eye... objects... eye-consciousness...(etc.) It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called "the world." '> ------- Nina. #109934 From: si-la-nanda Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:41 am Subject: 3 Times Striking Lottery Jackpots ..... silananda_t To all Kalyanamittas, *This precious human birth in encountering the Buddhasasana * "Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?" "It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole." "It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world." "Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world." *(Samyutta Nikaya 56.48 "Chiggala Sutta")* These lucky strikes may not happen again for a long long time. For your wise consideration and attention. mahakaruna a kalyanamitta www.what-Buddha-taught.net #109935 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:13 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Robert) - In a message dated 9/13/2010 3:54:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Rob Ep, Op 12-sep-2010, om 5:57 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > So then I guess the concept of the body creates an illusion that > there is a body as a whole, as opposed to succeeding rupas which > appear in groups. ------ N: Yes, right. The body seems to be a lasting whole. In reality it consists of different ruupa elements arising and falling away all the time. ------- > R: I wonder if it is the groupings of the rupas that cause them to > appear as parts of larger wholes? In any case, I appreciate your > explanations. ------ N: It would be better not to think of it as a larger whole; that implies an idea of my body that exists and belongs to me. In reality it falls apart at each moment. It crumbles away. The Buddha taught all the time about different elements arising and falling away. S IV, 52, The world: <' "The world! The world!" is the saying, lord. How far, lord, does this saying go?" 'It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called "the world". What crumbles away?The eye... objects... eye-consciousness...(etc.) It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called "the world." '> ------------------------------------------------------- I think these are points well made, Nina. I have developed the habit of (much of the time) introspection and of attending to bodily sensations. In this regard, I may notice sensations "in my forearms." The inclination, my well-worn habit, is to think that there ARE forearms and that sensations occur IN them. At times, (rather subliminal) thinking can occur to the effect that not only are the arms always there, but the sensations are always there too but not always noticed. But clear seeing makes it evident that in this regard there is nothing actually observed except a rise and fall, or ebb and flow, of sensations, and, moreover, a (delineated) sensation that has fallen away is GONE, with this exact, "self-same" sensation never to re-arise. Every instant is fresh, and there is nothing but an ongoing, ever-changing experiential (nama-rupic) flow. There is no stopping of the flow, no holding-on-to, no going back, no undoing. As Omar Khayyam wrote, "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it." ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard Impermanence /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #109936 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:39 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > --- > <. . .> > A: > And what reality do you look at when you DRIVE? > > What reality do you look at when you walk across a busy intersection? > --- > > Visible object is the only reality that ever appears at the eye-door. > When you drive: Do you distinguish between red-light and green-light? Do you distinguish between an intersection and non-intersection? Do you distinguish between left and right lanes on 2 lane road? Do you distinguish your car from someone else's? With metta, Alex #109937 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:13 pm Subject: Great Pity = Maha-Karuna bhikkhu5 Friends: Feel Pity for all those Falling: It is a great pity with all those thinking like this: Pleasure is the only good; by that they fall! Terror is a necessary way; by that they fall! Sensuality is innocent; by that they fall! Violence is allowable; by that they fall! Money makes happiness; by that they fall! Power is progress; by that they fall! Falsehood is acceptable; by that they fall! Stealing gives wealth; by that they fall! Conceit can conceal; by that they fall! Science knows all; by that they fall! Killing can be good; by that they fall! Hunting is only fun; by that they fall! Adultery is mature; by that they fall! Paedophilia is harmless; by that they fall! Drugs are fantastic; by that they fall! Booze is medicine; by that they fall! Giving does not help; by that they fall! After death is nothing!; by that they fall! The Hells do not exist; by that they fall! Intentional Action has no effect; by that they fall! I am the better than...; by that they fall! Making merit cannot elevate; by that they fall! It is a great pity with all those poor beings: who are veiled by wrong view; by that they fall! who are fooled by own opinion; by that they fall! who are gripped by greed and lust; by that they fall! who are stirred by hate and anger; by that they fall! who are clinging to all worldly things; by that they fall! who are confused by not knowing; by that they fall! who prostitute themselves; by that they fall! who cheat and deceives; by that they fall! who pretend what is not; by that they fall! who hide what is actual fact; by that they fall! who destroy beings or things; by that they fall! who pollute the milieu and society; by that they fall! who deliberately do evil willing it; by that they fall! who fail their duties and obligations; by that they fall! who miss the obvious opportunities; by that they fall! It is a great pity with all those blinded by ignorance, bound and dragged by craving, while pushed by aversion: By that they surely fall into states of pain, agony and despair! As if gripped by the arms of two strong men and hurled into a big fire... <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * ... #109938 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:16 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > Op 13-sep-2010, om 7:55 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > > > Let me review and see if I understand: > > Sati is aware of both the rupa and the nama in the experience, can > > distinguish them from each other, and also understands at the same > > time that there is no person having the experience, just the > > experience, and the object. Is that right? > -------- > N: It is actually sati and pa~n~naa, sati sampaja~n~na. And the > distinction of naama and ruupa cannot be discerned in the beginning, > this is actually the first stage of tender insight. > I heard on a recording last night: Before this stage kusala and > akusala cannot be known clearly. When dosa arises, we call it dosa, > but it is not yet realised as just naama. As Kh Sujin said: it is > still my dosa, it is still self. First dosa has to be seen as 'just a > reality', as a naama. > We may be in a hurry, wanting to know exactly when kusala arises, > when akusala. But this is not possible in the beginning. We only > know it in theory. It is not so easy to grasp this, I think. > Difficult for all of us. Thanks for these distinctions. I especially benefited from this statement, [combining yours and your quote from K. Sujin, and adding a few words:] "When dosa arises, we call it dosa, but it is not yet realized as just naama. [KS:]...it is still my dosa, it is still [seen as] self. First dosa has to be seen as 'just a reality,' as a naama." That is very helpful, and I will go over it a number of times. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109939 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > Op 12-sep-2010, om 5:57 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > > > So then I guess the concept of the body creates an illusion that > > there is a body as a whole, as opposed to succeeding rupas which > > appear in groups. > ------ > N: Yes, right. The body seems to be a lasting whole. In reality it > consists of different ruupa elements arising and falling away all the > time. > ------- > > R: I wonder if it is the groupings of the rupas that cause them to > > appear as parts of larger wholes? In any case, I appreciate your > > explanations. > ------ > N: It would be better not to think of it as a larger whole; that > implies an idea of my body that exists and belongs to me. In reality > it falls apart at each moment. It crumbles away. The Buddha taught > all the time about different elements arising and falling away. > S IV, 52, The world: > <' "The world! The world!" is the saying, lord. How far, lord, does > this saying go?" > 'It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called "the world". What > crumbles away?The eye... objects... eye-consciousness...(etc.) It > crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called "the world." '> > ------- Thanks. I know I am saying the obvious, but I am just practicing: So the world, like the body, is a concept, and the reality is that 'it' just keeps arising and falling away in separate elements. There is no "whole," just the individual risings and falling away. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109940 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:23 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi KenH, all, > > >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > --- > > <. . .> > > A: > And what reality do you look at when you DRIVE? > > > What reality do you look at when you walk across a busy intersection? > > --- > > > > Visible object is the only reality that ever appears at the eye-door. > > > > When you drive: > Do you distinguish between red-light and green-light? Do you distinguish between an intersection and non-intersection? > > Do you distinguish between left and right lanes on 2 lane road? > > > Do you distinguish your car from someone else's? I think it would be interesting to ask, if there is no self, how is it that the green light is distinguished from the red, every time you drive, and that the left and right lanes are distinguished, every time you drive. It seems like a kind of mystery, from the point of view of no-self, doesn't it, that these functions arise and do their job "on their own?" It's pretty amazing that on the conventional level, samsara seems to move along so lawfully. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109941 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:27 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. About nimitta, no 2. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > From a Thai recording, about nimitta, no 2. > > When there is not yet right awareness we think that we see people and > beings. We do not yet realise that we see the nimitta, the sign, > referring to the four Great Elements. Then one has not understood the > meaning of anattaa. If there is no seeing do we know where the four > Great Elements are? When we see visible objects through the eyes, we > know where they are, because where colour is, there are also the > other inseparable ruupas that arise together with it in a group. The > colour that appears through the eyes is the nimitta, the sign > referring to the Great Elements that are there. When we see the > nimitta of this or that person called by such or such a name, this is > not the realisation of anattaa. When pa~n~naa arises it is known > that through eyes shape and form appears and that this is a nimitta > of the four Great Elements, not of people and things. > > The four Great Elements are true, they are not people or things. The > different colours of shape and form appearing through the eyes causes > one to cling to an idea of different things and persons. > > Through eyes the four Great Elements cannot be seen. Colour arises > together with these Great Elements and this is a condition to know > the nimitta of them. These are not persons. > > The ariyan still perceives people, but he knows that when he sees the > nimitta that this is a sign referring to the Great Elements which > arise and fall away. He knows conventional truth, concepts of what > appears through the mind-door. He does not cling to the nimitta as a > person. > > There is a great variety of the four Great Elements, they have > different degrees of hardness, softness, heat or cold. This causes > the nimittas to be varied. How do the four great elements exist? If they are real, while people and things are not, how do they arise and what is their status? Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109942 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Sat, 11/9/10, truth_aerator wrote: >Are you saying that whenever VsM or the suttas say "do this, do that" they mean that one should not do this, should not do that? >"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 .... S: And what do the Vism (and suttas) suggest such effort to be, Alex? Do they suggest that in truth there are any conditioned dhammas other than the 5 khandhas? Do they suggest there is literally "a person" to make an effort? Do they suggest that even though such dhammas are conditioned, there are still some other dhammas which can arise now which are not conditioned, that are within someone's will or power? Let me suggest that the Vism defines energy/effort near the beginning of the first chapter like this: "Ardent (aataapin): possessing energy. For it is energy that is called 'ardour' (aataapa) in the sense of burning up and consuming (aataapana-paritaapana) defilements." It is then said that a person said to have such energy is said to be ardent. In other words, right energy/effort (samma vaayaamo) is a cetasika, a mental factor. It can only develop with right understanding (samma di.t.thi). When there is right understanding, there is right effort and at such moments it "burns up" the defilements. Without an understanding of dhammas as being conditioned and anatta, we're bound to believe in a Self having to make an effort. Gradually right understanding can begin to see through the veil of delusion and begin to understand realities appearing now. At such moments, there is right effort without any "Doing" or "System/Method/Practice" involved. The truth is appearing at this very moment for right understanding to realise. No "buts.....":-) Metta Sarah ======= #109943 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:55 pm Subject: Trim Reminder Time Again! dsgmods Dear All Recently there have been quite a few messages that have contained long passages of untrimmed material from an earlier post or posts. Members are asked to kindly trim out all material from earlier posts that is not necessary for an understanding of their own comments. (If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you can assume that other members will have seen it.) The full set of Guidelines can be found in the files section of DSG. Thanks for your cooperation Jon and Sarah PS Any comments or questions off-list, please. #109944 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Sukin (109787) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Azita and all Bangkokians, > ... > > Sarah > > p.s Sukin - AND we took quite a leisurely coffee break on the way to > > the airport. This consisted of Jon taking the driver's seat for 15-20 > > mins while queueing up at a hot, slow special fuel-gas station, while > > Rob, Junko and I took a relaxed break in a little garden area! That > > was all after an apparently common Thai manoeuvre of reversing back > > down the highway, into the next section of highway and then reversing > > up the exit path to the gas station. All very skilfully performed by > > Rob, I should stress. Forget whether he and Jon were still discussing > > his different view from Ken H on Jatakas and his different view from > > Jon on Visiting Thailand/effort..... More to discuss on those topics > > later - perhaps Rob or Jon? :-) > > > > Yes, I remember from when we visited Sri Lanka, that Jon liked drinking > coffee, but this time he said that he's avoiding it as much as he can. I > wonder though, who's side he is on in this debate about the Jatakas. ;-) > =============== J: We (Robert and I) only touched on the Jatakas in passing. We did however have a lengthy chat on the general subject of whether intentional activities directed towards the development of awareness/insight are of a different calibre (i.e., `better') than practices that clearly have no connection whatsoever with the development of the path. > =============== > > The dreams go on in samsara.... hopefully others will join us next time... > > Like Ken H for example. :-) > =============== J: Hear, hear! Jon #109945 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:20 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Dear Rob Ep (& Mike*) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > If you happen to know a particular section of the manual that spells out how concepts are taken up by citta, I will be happy to see it. ... S: Taking a slightly different approach, let's go back to a few basics here. CMA, Ch 111 "Compendium of Objects", #16: "In the compendium of objects, there are six kinds of objects, namely, visible form object, sound object, smell object, taste object, tangible object, and mental object. "Therein, visible form is visible form object. Likewise, sound, etc., are sound object, etc. But mental object is sixfold: sensitive matter, subtle matter, consciousness, mental factors, Nibbaana, and concepts." We see here that concepts, those "things which do not exist in the ultimate sense -also fall into the category of mental object."(CMA Guide note) How are they experienced by cittas? They are thought about or imagined by cittas almost whenever cittas are not experiencing sense objects through the senses. In other words, most of the day the cittas are concerned with concepts on account of what has been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched. Why we think about different concepts when we look at the same view or during different moments of the day? Because of different accumulated tendencies to mark and imagine different sense objects, usually with attachment and ignorance. As Azita said, sanna is busy marking the object at each moment of the day and night. So now, cittas are arising and falling away. Each one is accompanied by sanna, marking the same object that each citta experiences. Now, seeing sees visible object and it is followed by many moments of thinking about what is seen. Such thinking about the various concepts accumulates, so next time we read and hear about such ideas, it is a little more familiar. If there is wise attending to what appears now - whether it be the visible object, the confusion, the hardness or the thinking perhaps - the pariyatti-level understanding accumulates and leads to more understanding of the realities as distinct from all the concepts and imaginings about them. This is why the path is one of understanding the reality that appears now - not one of thinking about various ideas or concepts. Does this clarify at all? Metta Sarah p.s Rob, super to see you so active again and Mike, glad to see you're still here. Are you from Christchurch? If so, do hope your family and friends haven't been too badly affected by the disaster there. ======= #109946 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:24 pm Subject: Re: concept of concept sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: I believe that the folks in this group additionally believe that the legend that Buddha himself delivered the Abhidhamma in a continuous sermon in one of the higher spiritual planes after his parinibbana is literally true. ... S: Nothing could be taught by anyone, not even the Buddha, after parinibbana. This is a misunderstanding that somehow some cittas continue on "in higher spiritual planes" after parinibbana. Parinibbana is the final death of the arahat, the "death" of samsara - no more becoming of any kind in any plane whatsoever. Metta Sarah ======= #109947 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body jonoabb Hi KenO (109804) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > ... > If any of you can prove you do not need concepts learning dhamma, then I said > you are right. Dhamma is dhamma but without concepts there is no learning of > dhamma. =============== J: I agree that without concepts there is no learning of the dhamma. My disagreement is with the idea that concepts are "used" for the development of the path, because that suggests they are a material factor that must somehow be invoked. The fact is that all communication between beings, including whatever knowledge is acquired by one person from another, depends on concepts. But this fact is of no special significance in the development of the path, and so I question the need to give it the emphasis that you do. Jon #109948 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Part 2 on Intentional development, simplified jonoabb Hi KenO (109805) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > ... > KO:? if there is no intentional activity at the moment to listen to a dhamma > talk, would you go then.? ? Hmm there are many examples of intentional activity > in the suttas and texts.? Visud are full of them, I dont think I need to repeat > that. =============== J: Yes, as I said, there will always be intentional activity of one kind or another associated with an instance of path development. But the question we're discussing is the role of intentional activity in the arising of panna. It's of course true, as you say, that there are many examples of intentional activity in the suttas and texts. But it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion from this. We need to look to the doctrine as laid down by the Buddha. Does the Buddha specify any particular intentional activities as being a prerequisite for the arising of awareness? =============== > >J: But that would not be the middle way, would it ;-)) > > KO: are you telling me that the middlle way depend on past kamma then :-)) =============== J: Past kamma certainly has a role. Without the appropriate past kamma, there cannot the associating with the wise person and the hearing of Dhamma appropriately explained, no matter what kind of intentional activities are undertaken. Jon #109949 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:36 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Dear Rob Ep (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > Relentlessly I exerted myself, > > "You, too, monks, should relentlessly exert yourselves, > > "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves..." > > "...the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities." <..> > I do not think the Vism has espoused "self-view" by giving these directives. We can do what the Vism says here and still understand that there is "no self to do it." ... S: Can you clarify exactly what you mean in the last sentence by "we" that does what the Vism says here? ... >We can all understand that when we follow these directives that what is REALLY happening is that a set of conditions has caused volition and intention to arise and cause these actions to take place and that there IS NO SELF. ... S: OK, so you mean that volition (cetana cetasika?) arises by conditions and performs all the necessary right effort? Is that correct so far? If so, what are the conditions for this volition (cetana?) to arise which leads to such right effort (presumably samma vaayaamo of the eightfold path)? These are not trick questions. I'd like to delve into exactly what the understanding is here. ... > It is wrong to say that if we follow these instructions we are denying anatta. We can do these actions understanding that there is action but no actor. .... S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? Is it volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? Is it volition that follows and understanding (pa~n~naa) that understands "action"? What exactly does understanding understand action to be? Is it understanding an idea or concept, such as sitting or standing, or is it understanding any realities as having "no actor"? Metta Sarah ======= #109950 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:37 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi Alex (and KenH), > > KenH: Visible object is the only reality that ever appears at the eye-door. > > Alex: When you drive: > Do you distinguish between red-light and green-light? Do you distinguish between an intersection and non-intersection? > > Do you distinguish between left and right lanes on 2 lane road? > > > Do you distinguish your car from someone else's? pt: I think KenH is trying to say something a bit different - in the moment when insight happens, the only thing that will be the object of citta at the time would be a rupa that appears at the eye-door. Once that moment of vipassana is gone, that experience of a rupa will probably get conceptualised by the following mind-door processes as "green/red light, my/your car", etc. So, I don't think that KenH is trying to argue that concepts don't have a place in life. They are a part of life. However, in the moments when insight happens, it is the rupa that's going to be the object of citta with panna, not the concept of green/red light. These concepts will still happen in the following mind-door processes, but if insight doesn't occur (i.e. panna doesn't understand it as rupa), then the only thing that will happen is the conceptualisation of green/red light, etc. So, when KenH says such things as "there are only namas and rupas" etc, for me that's a reminder about insight. Sort of like when the Buddha says form is anatta, form is anicca, etc. Same thing. I mean, I don't think KenH needs to remind us about the difference between green and red light - we will experience that sort of conceptualisation on our own and we don't need his help to do it. Insight however is a whole another matter, and I think all the reminders about insight we can get (ala "there are only nama and rupa") are helpful. Best wishes pt #109951 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:39 pm Subject: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa jonoabb Hi KenO (109806) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > ... > >J: If your concern is a matter of terminology (for example, how to label the > >kind of panna being referred to) rather than substance, I may need your > >assistance in arriving at the correct term. It was my understanding that the > >expression 'mundane panna' is generally used to refer to panna of > >satipatthana/vipassana rather than of samatha bhavana. > > > > KO: where did you get this idea from Jon. There are many instances of samantha > bhavana that arise with satipatthana, If that is not possible, why bother to > teach the meditation subjects. they are all samathana bhavana. Hmm then all the > commentarise and Abhidhamma about breathing meditation, reciting of parts using > concepts, must be wrong. are they :-)) =============== J: You may have misunderstood my comment. I was acknowledging that samatha bhavana necessarily involves panna of the mundane variety, but I was also saying that when the context is satipatthana, `mundane panna' is generally taken to mean the panna associated with satipatthana rather than that associated with samatha. Does this answer your question? By the way, to my understanding there cannot be the simultaneous arising of a mundane jhana citta and a mundane path citta, since they are cittas of different kinds. So when you speak about 'instances of samantha bhavana that arise with satipatthana', I'm not sure what you have in mind. =============== > KO: are you saying after you arrived in Bangkok, the trip you make from your > hotel to the foundation to listen to dhamma is not an intentional activity. I > wonder whether you know the difference between intentional activity or an > akusala activity. Hmm those ancients monks must be wrong, because if they are > not intentional going to visit Buddha to learn, how do they listen. =============== J: I am simply saying that the condition for hearing the teachings appropriately explained is not the undertaking of the intentional activity in question (for example, in the case of the monks in the time of the Buddha, visiting the Buddha to hear the teachings), but are factors such as (a) wholesome deeds done in the past, (b) accumulated panna, (c) an interest in the teachings (kusala chanda), etc. Jon #109952 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:45 pm Subject: Re: intentional activities jonoabb Hi Alex (109814) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello KenO, Jon, all, > ... > Jon, even to move a finger intentional activity is required. Even to hear Dhamma talk there needs to be an intention to do it. > > If all and any intention is an expression of Self View, then don't eat or drink then. It is an intentional and deliberate activity! Arahants and Aryans ate food and drank water just fine, without the attachment to anything being required. =============== J: As previously explained, I do not suggest that all and any intention is an expression of self-view. Straw man, Alex (!!). =============== > > Attachment is bad, I agree. But does non-attachment always means non-doing? In that case don't be attached to the idea of Self that eats and don't eat. I hope you understand the silliness in that assertion. Do what needs to be done for Awakening (but not for the other goal, of sensual indulgence), but without theoretical views of Self or Self's property. =============== J: I've never suggested that non-attachment means non-doing. Yet another straw man (!!). (There is of course a school of thought which holds that non-attachment cannot be induced by non-doing, but that is not my understanding of the Buddha's teaching.) Jon #109953 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:46 pm Subject: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa jonoabb Hi Robert E (109819) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Ken O. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > > KO: Hmm those ancients monks must be wrong, because if they are > > not intentional going to visit Buddha to learn, how do they listen. > > Their past accumulations transport them there. =============== J: I know this was meant facetiously, but there is more than a grain of truth in it! Certainly without the appropriate past (wholesome) deeds performed and the appropriate (wholesome) tendencies accumulated, those monks could not have heard the teachings, even if they did everything possible to put themselves in the presence of the Buddha. So past accumulations play a very large role (although they are not of course the whole story ;-)). Jon #109954 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:55 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Dear Rob Ep, Butting in again on your various threads....:-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > "No control" is a reality that most likely *all* of us can agree on. In addition we *all* agree on the absolute reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and the fact that there are no persons in reality. ... S: Before we agree what *all* of us can agree on, I think we have to agree on what the realities, the paramattha dhammas are. For example, many people think of dukkha just in terms of sorry or grief or pain. Or they may think of anicca in terms of losing their possessions or changing weather. They may think of anatta or "no control" in terms of not being able to stop such losses. Having studied and carefully reflected on the Buddha's teachings, we begin to understand a little more that dukkha refers (in its deepest sense) to the transience of all conditioned dhammas. Visible object is dukkha because it falls away as soon as it has arisen. No one can stop it from arising now or make it last for an instant. The same applies to cetena, viriya and any other conditioned dhammas. Can this be known now? First there has to be the precise understanding of visible object when it appears, quite distinct from seeing and quite distinct from thoughts about it. It is not the visible object that fell away and is being labelled now either. I think that what we can *all* agree on is that the Buddha's teachings are very, very subtle and not to be confused with general ideas about anicca, dukkha and anatta. I just had an idea - before your return, around the beginning of the year, I set out an "Anatta Quiz" for Ken O, Mike and others to see at which points our ideas diverged. I'd love you to take it. You can find it in this message to Mike who had also suggested that we all pretty much agree on anatta, as I recall. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/105430 Metta Sarah ======= #109955 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:05 pm Subject: Re: On strategic temporary attachment. sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Some take the teaching of Non-Attachment and analyse it that one shouldn't ever be attached to anything. One shouldn't be attached to precepts, abstinence, meditation and so on. Some say that you shouldn't meditate, because then you are attaching to those states of meditation and hey, attachment is bad, you shouldn't do it. .... Some: For what it's worth, I've never heard these views here:-) What I have heard is that the Buddha taught us the 4 Noble Truths and that the second NT, the cause of Dukkha, is attachment. He also taught us a path, the fourth NT, leading to the end of Dukkha, i.e the 3rd NT. This path begins with the development of Right View and associated factors. Right View has nothing to do with "shoulds" and "should nots" - it has all to do with the understanding of the dhammas which appear at the present moment. That's all! The present moment dhammas have nothing to do with our ideas about any conventionally-worded activities occurring yesterday or tomorrow or even now for that matter. They are just the realities being experienced now which can be directly known. Metta Some, as represented here by Sarah:-) ====== #109956 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:54 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, I also have to go over this 'a number of times'. Difficult, I am so used to thinking: there is dosa. Nina. Op 14-sep-2010, om 5:16 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > "When dosa arises, we call it dosa, but it is not yet realized as > just naama. [KS:]...it is still my dosa, it is still [seen as] > self. First dosa has to be seen as 'just a reality,' as a naama." > > That is very helpful, and I will go over it a number of times. #109957 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:47 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 14-sep-2010, om 5:18 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > I know I am saying the obvious, but I am just practicing: So the > world, like the body, is a concept, and the reality is that 'it' > just keeps arising and falling away in separate elements. There is > no "whole," just the individual risings and falling away. -------- N: You correctly understood that there is no whole. 'It' falls away in seperate elements: what about: there are only different elements arising and falling away. This to avoid the 'it'. Where is the 'it'? Nina. #109958 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:04 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. About nimitta, no 2. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 14-sep-2010, om 5:27 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > There is a great variety of the four Great Elements, they have > > different degrees of hardness, softness, heat or cold. This causes > > the nimittas to be varied. > > How do the four great elements exist? If they are real, while > people and things are not, how do they arise and what is their status? -------- N: First of all, this whole passage is also very difficult for me. I cannot claim to understand it completely. I quoted it because I think it is important. Now your question. Each group of ruupa, no matter inside or outside the body, consists at least of these four Great Elements. The groups of ruupa arise and fall away all the time, they do not exist or last. Three of the four Great Elements, Earth, Fire and Wind have characteristics that can be experienced through the bodysense. Water (cohesion) can only be experienced through the mind-door, not through touch. They form the foundation of the other ruupas in a group. As explained before, the bodily ruupas can be originated by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. Ruupas outside only by temperature. I find it a helpful reminder to know that when perceiving outlines of people and things it points to the Great Elements, which are realities, and that the people and things I imagine to be there are not paramattha dhammas. But the elements are. It makes the seeing of visible object very natural. Just outlines, or colour, or whatever you like to call it, appearing through the eyes which do not appear when closing one's eyes. Perhaps this may also answer Alex' s question about driving a car and not going through the red sign or driving into people. When we say that there are no things, no people, we do not say that there is nothing, there are the Great Elements. Kh Sujin remarked, that is why we can find a chair and sit in it. We do not sit on air. ---------- Nina. #109959 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:17 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-sep-2010, om 15:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > There is no stopping of the flow, no holding-on-to, no going back, no > undoing. As Omar Khayyam wrote, "The Moving Finger writes; and, > having writ, > moves on: nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel > half a line, > nor all your tears wash out a word of it." ------- N: Yes, it is so irrevocable, and as Omar Kh says, what has fallen away never returns, not even by tears. Crying over spilt milk. That is the meaning of the five khandhas: they arise and fall away never to return. I heard a discussion on a recording about each sense object that is also experienced through the mind-door. I asked Kh Sujin whether one could know the difference and she said that it is too fast. You wrote: ------ N: Yes, it is such a habit (for so long, many lives) to think of arms and sensations as if they are always there. So common that this occurs all the time. Only at the third and fourth stage of insight rise and fall will be realised. At the first stage, as you know, the difference between nama and rupa is known and it will also be known what a mind-door process is. Nina. #109960 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:34 am Subject: Re: q. no 1. (to be continued) chandrafabian Dear Nina, ------------------------ Dear Fabian, You have many important points, good you bring them up. I just take one point today. Op 2-sep-2010, om 16:57 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: -------- N: Often ruupakhandha is translated as body and this may be confusing. The ruupakkhandha includes ruupas of the body and ruupas outside the body. All 28 ruupas. The Vis. Ch XIV explains this in detail. Ruupas of the body are produced by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. Ruupas outside are produced by temperature only. Garden, car, etc. are concepts, they are not outside ruupas, thus not object of awareness. When you touch a car hardness may appear and this is the ruupa that is the earth element and it can be object of awareness. ------ Nina. FABIAN: Dear Nina, thank you for your reply. As far as I know, rupa outside the body did have 4 great elements as well? As I learnt before, 4 great elements present in every material, garden, car etc, are composed of these great elements. Of course we see them as concepts, because in reality they just composition of elements. Mettacittena, fabian #109961 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: q. chandrafabian Dear Nina, ------------------ Dear Fabian, Op 2-sep-2010, om 16:57 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: FABIAN: <.......> N: I think that you use the word thought for citta. First kusala and akusala should be known as 'just a conditioned reality'. Insight develops in stages and in the beginning the three general characteristics are not clearly known. Only the arahat can eradicate all attachment, as you know. FABIAN: Dear Nina, to be honest sometimes I confuse the translation of citta, thought and knowing mind. Knowing mind in my understanding is just know everything without responding, grasping or attached. When thought arises, it is defiled with attachment, pure unattached knowing mind just know. I agree with you, only Arahat can eradicate all attachment, but some meditators who practice Vipassana until reaching certain insight, would experience non-attachment to some degree too ---------------------------------------- F: <.......> N: They are paramattha dhammas, not concepts. Kusala citta and akusala citta are cittas, realities. and so is the hetu: the roots are cetasikas. F: <........> N: Perhaps you use the word root in another sense, not in the sense of hetu. Lobha, dosa and moha are three different hetus. FABIAN: Yes I think so, I see it in different angle, if an impulse arises (whether kusala or akusala), the mind respond by grasping or refusing, this acts would condition involvement/attachment, and this involvement would condition hatred or greed arises. So, if the mind doesn't respond to these impulses(kusala or akusala), it would pass away. Therefore attachment causes greed and hatred to arise. ------------------------------------------ F: <.......> N: Can we say: develop understanding? Non-attachment arises with each kusala citta and thus also with the kusala citta that develops understanding. But we do not have to think of developing non- attachment, it grows by conditions as understanding develops. FABIAN: I agree non attachment arises with kusala citta or maybe also correct to say non-attachment to these impulses are kusala citta? Of course we should not THINKing of developing non-attachment, because non-attachment develop by deep penetrative understanding not by wise thinking, and deep penetrative understanding can be develop by meditation, not by wise thinking. Vipassana meditation is condition for deep penetrative understanding to develop. ------------------------------------------- F: <.........> N: Sure, when we are generous, there are bound to be akusala cittas as well. We cling to our kusala. But also the akusala cittas are realities and they can be known as only dhammas. We should have no idea of having to let go of akusala. As Jon once said: kusala and akusala are equally worthy to be objects of mindfulness. FABIAN: Dear Nina mostly I agree, but about akusala thought, when we analyse the thought kusala or akusala, the mind would attached and getting involved and we will be thinking not concentrating. ---------------------------------------- F: <.......> N: Perhaps the solution is not having any idea of analysing or not analysing. There may be an idea of self who analysis or does not analyse. It depends on the citta at that moment, is it accompanied by pa~n~naa or not?And anyway, each moment of citta falls away immediately. True, at the moment of kusala one is not attached; attachment falls away but there are still conditions for its arising, until one has become an arahat. Nina. FABIAN: The twist of the mind: by the time we analyse, there are always attachment, always...... Does not analyse (pure knowing only) is panna, and it should be develop. It is true according to Abhidhamma citta arise and falls instantly, but attachment would cause the thought that arise and falls are the same kind of thought, therefore we experience lingering attachment to a certain thought for long time, for example when we angry at someone, the thought would keep coming again and again for long time, especially if the person is dosa type It needs practice to let go, therefore we create condition for this same kind of thought does not arise again and again... Mettacittena, fabian #109962 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: q. no 1. (to be continued) nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 14-sep-2010, om 14:34 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > As far as I know, rupa outside the body did have 4 great elements > as well? As I learnt before, 4 great elements present in every > material, garden, car etc, are composed of these great elements. ------- N: Yes, groups of ruupa outside the body also consist of the four Great Elements and other ruupas. What we call car are in fact only groups of ruupa arising and falling away. No lasting car. Touch what we call a car: just hardness or heat may appear. No car through touch. We just think of a car because we remember this is a car because of sa~n~naa, the cetasika remembrance accompanying each citta, also citta that thinks. --------- > > F: Of course we see them as concepts, because in reality they just > composition of elements. ----- N: Yes, but we forget most of the time that they are concepts. Nina. #109963 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: q. chandrafabian Dear Nina, ------------------------------- Dear Fabian, Op 2-sep-2010, om 16:57 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: FABIAN: <......> N: The arahat can. By the eradication of ignorance there will not be any fuel for rebirth. But for us: let us learn to be aware of whatever reality appears through one of the six doors. FABIAN: Dear Nina, may we call "aware of whatever reality appears through one of the six doors" as sati-sampajanna? But penetrative understanding can be achieved only by a person who practice sati-sampajanna continuously/incessantly, until they acquired insight. If they don't practice continuously/incessantly it is very hard for them to acquired insight. Unless they have practiced laboriously in past life. ------------------------------------ FABIAN: <......> N: Agreed. And what is that practice? Not avoiding to be aware of and understand any reality appearing at this moment. Nina. FABIAN: As far as I know, that is what we do in Vipassana.... aware of any reality appearing at this moment, but not try to understand, trying to understand is analyzing. The knowledge and understanding would arise by itself, just like a person standing over a very deep and steep cliff, without thinking or analysing the understanding would arise by itself that if he falls, he would die. likewise in Vipassana, if he experienced something, understanding would arise by itself without thinking. Mettacittena, fabian #109964 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Rob E > >I think you are reserving the word "direct" for "100% true" experience. I am >using it in a more partial way. I don't think I see anything "completely >directly" but I do think there are moments of more direct discernment as opposed > >to the normal perception. Otherwise there would be no gradual coming to such a >direct experience. > KO:? I prefer the words like panna becomes more refine.? Direct in my personal interpretation is to the core of nama and rupa so I tend not to use it because nowadays many people claim they have direct experience which i felt is likely to be their panna have become subtlier Ken O #109965 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Rob E and Mike as long as an object whether it is a concept or dhamma? in the citta except for bhavanga citta, it is experience by the citta.? An experience does not mean it is real.? Real in Abhidhamma must have distinct characteristics due to the dhamma qualities A beautiful chair is experience by the citta but chair has not distinct characteristics which a feeling feels Ken O #109966 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear Rob E > >Thanks for trying to answer this. I am completely clear about what you are >saying. "Concepts cannot happen without thinking." Can any thought or object >appear without a nama? I'm still not quite clear what is the distinction in this > >sense. KO:? No except for one realm of existence where it is just a solid rupa due to rejection of all forms of nama during their meditation.? Citta is king, that is the meaning that any thought or object must have a citta.? And any citta must have an object.? They are interdependent and cannot arise without the other except for the case above. Ken O #109967 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:08 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep (& Mike*) > As Azita said, sanna is busy marking the object at each moment of the day and night. So now, cittas are arising and falling away. Each one is accompanied by sanna, marking the same object that each citta experiences. > > Now, seeing sees visible object and it is followed by many moments of thinking about what is seen. Such thinking about the various concepts accumulates, so next time we read and hear about such ideas, it is a little more familiar. > > If there is wise attending to what appears now - whether it be the visible object, the confusion, the hardness or the thinking perhaps - the pariyatti-level understanding accumulates and leads to more understanding of the realities as distinct from all the concepts and imaginings about them. > > This is why the path is one of understanding the reality that appears now - not one of thinking about various ideas or concepts. > > Does this clarify at all? Thanks Sarah, this is excellent and does help to clarify a lot. A couple of questions: 1. If concepts have no characteristic [as they are imaginary] how does thinking about them accumulate? I thought that concepts are unable to accumulate because of not having characteristics. I am obviously confused about something here... 2. How is it that one can "wisely attend" concepts, if they are unreal/delusory. This is similar to my first question, but put another way. Can panna arise/develop in relation to concepts, or only in relation to realities? 3. Along the same lines, it seems that sati may be able to start observing this pattern of "seeing followed by moments of thinking about what is seen" and start to distinguish the seeing from the concepts. Is this correct? Is this how panna arises or develops? What is the role of seeing that something is a concept rather than a reality? And can this be seen directly? Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109968 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:10 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Again Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > p.s Rob, super to see you so active again... Thanks, Sarah. I may disappear again for a while if things get too busy, but I appreciate the warm welcome. Thanks also for putting up with my trouble-making tendencies. ;-) I am getting a lot out of being here, and I also enjoy the company of this sangha. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #109969 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. ashkenn2k Dear Nina and Rob E >> Visible object arises and falls away and there is nothing left of it, >> only the sign, the nimitta of it remains. With perverted sa~n~naa, >> sa~n~naa vippallaasa we see people. Visible object should be >> understood as no one at all. >> >> When sati arises it is very precise, it is aware of what? Of visible >> object without a person in it, or of seeing, and no self who is >> thinking about it. One can realise the difference between the >> experience and the object that is experienced, one at a time. > > >I appreciate these transcripts. They are very clear. > >Let me review and see if I understand: >Sati is aware of both the rupa and the nama in the experience, can distinguish >them from each other, and also understands at the same time that there is no >person having the experience, just the experience, and the object. Is that >right? KO:? I differ from Nina, sati partake the experience of?the object of?citta.? If the object is concept, then the object of sati is also concept.??During jhanas, sati is strong and it needs to be strong in order for one to develop jhanas, and still the object of this jhanas is a concept.?? Likewise for panna. It is panna that understand the words in the dhamma texts, and words are concept which are just objects of a citta which panna arises with So I ask Ken H this question, must the object of a citta be a dhamma for satipatthana, what is your answer Nina. Ken O #109970 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:13 am Subject: Re: concept of concept epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > I believe that the folks in this group additionally believe that the legend that Buddha himself delivered the Abhidhamma in a continuous sermon in one of the higher spiritual planes after his parinibbana is literally true. > ... > S: Nothing could be taught by anyone, not even the Buddha, after parinibbana. This is a misunderstanding that somehow some cittas continue on "in higher spiritual planes" after parinibbana. > > Parinibbana is the final death of the arahat, the "death" of samsara - no more becoming of any kind in any plane whatsoever. Is there an earlier time, prior to parinibbana, when the Buddha is said to have delivered the Abhidhamma on one of the immaterial planes? Also, does parinibbana mean that this particular Buddha cannot come back in any way, shape or form? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #109971 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:19 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? Is it volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? Is it volition that follows and understanding (pa~n~naa) that understands "action"? What exactly does understanding understand action to be? Is it understanding an idea or concept, such as sitting or standing, or is it understanding any realities as having "no actor"? I will admit that I am not sure what the status of actions are in terms of arising realities. That is actually one of my unanswered questions which you may be able to help me with. What is an action? Do they in fact take place, or is that an illusion? Although I am not sure what the conditions are that cause Right Intention and Right Effort to arise and lead to certain actions or awareness coming into being, I am basically saying that: a/ There is no actor doing whatever actions take place, and b/ Intentional actions and practices can be allowed to take place without invoking or supporting self-concept. It can be understood even during a practice that there is no self doing anything, and such an understanding would not be "wrong view." Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #109972 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:25 am Subject: What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > KO: Hmm those ancients monks must be wrong, because if they are > > > not intentional going to visit Buddha to learn, how do they listen. > > > > Their past accumulations transport them there. > =============== > > J: I know this was meant facetiously, but there is more than a grain of truth in it! > > Certainly without the appropriate past (wholesome) deeds performed and the appropriate (wholesome) tendencies accumulated, those monks could not have heard the teachings, even if they did everything possible to put themselves in the presence of the Buddha. > > So past accumulations play a very large role (although they are not of course the whole story ;-)). Thanks for taking my moment of facetiousness and turning it into a learning moment. [[You people are relentless! ;-) ]] In fact, even while being facetious, it occurred to me that this was partly true. Fun! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109973 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body ashkenn2k Dear Jon >=============== > >J: I agree that without concepts there is no learning of the dhamma. My >disagreement is with the idea that concepts are "used" for the development of >the path, because that suggests they are a material factor that must somehow be >invoked. KO:? whether it is a material factor or not does not mean that concepts cannot be used to learn dhamma.? Isnt learning dhamma is for development of the path.? All learning of dhamma?is arise due?to dhamma.? it cannot happen without a dhamma. >The fact is that all communication between beings, including whatever knowledge >is acquired by one person from another, depends on concepts. But this fact is of > >no special significance in the development of the path, and so I question the >need to give it the emphasis that you do. KO:? If there is no signficance, why bother to read and listen to dhamma.? I am not giving emphasis, I am just stating a fact because panna does not differientiate what is the objects of a citta.? Panna?develops understanding of?the dhamma including itself that arise?with the citta which could experience any object.? When the citta arise is a concept,?panna?partakes the?experience of the object of the?citta which is a concept.? Ken O #109974 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Part 2 on Intentional development, simplified ashkenn2k Dear Jon >=============== > >J: Yes, as I said, there will always be intentional activity of one kind or >another associated with an instance of path development. But the question we're >discussing is the role of intentional activity in the arising of panna. KO:? isnt it panna?or?faith?that condition you to go listen to dhamma.? If it is not an intentional activity condition by panna, what is the root factor that arise in such an action to go to listen from the way from the hotel to the foundation. >It's of course true, as you say, that there are many examples of intentional >activity in the suttas and texts. But it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion >from this. We need to look to the doctrine as laid down by the Buddha. Does the >Buddha specify any particular intentional activities as being a prerequisite for > >the arising of awareness? KO:??Definitely there are?quite a few?examples in the suttas.? I dont think you need me to quote right because Alex will have given you many examples. ??I have no qualms about Buddha asking his disciples to meditate or other intentional actions because I know that intentional activity can be kusala and aksuala.?? >> >> KO: are you telling me that the middlle way depend on past kamma then :-)) >=============== > >J: Past kamma certainly has a role. Without the appropriate past kamma, there >cannot the associating with the wise person and the hearing of Dhamma >appropriately explained, no matter what kind of intentional activities are >undertaken. KO:? determining role? :-) Ken O #109975 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear pt >So, I don't think that KenH is trying to argue that concepts don't have a place >in life. They are a part of life. However, in the moments when insight happens, >it is the rupa that's going to be the object of citta with panna, not the >concept of green/red light. These concepts will still happen in the following >mind-door processes, but if insight doesn't occur (i.e. panna doesn't understand > >it as rupa), then the only thing that will happen is the conceptualisation of >green/red light, etc. KO: I disgree with this assumption because simply when you read dhamma texts, panna must arise with the citta before one could understand the meaning. the object of citta must be a dhamma for satipatthana is not the correct interpretation of the text. the correct one is that the object of satipatthana must be a dhamma but this object is not refering to the object of citta because object of citta can be a concept. Panna arise to understand the characteristics of a feeling which arise with citta of any objects be it concept or a dhamma. Ken O #109976 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Pa??aa ashkenn2k Dear Jon >J: You may have misunderstood my comment. I was acknowledging that samatha >bhavana necessarily involves panna of the mundane variety, but I was also saying > >that when the context is satipatthana, `mundane panna' is generally taken to >mean the panna associated with satipatthana rather than that associated with >samatha. > >Does this answer your question? > >By the way, to my understanding there cannot be the simultaneous arising of a >mundane jhana citta and a mundane path citta, since they are cittas of different > >kinds. So when you speak about 'instances of samantha bhavana that arise with >satipatthana', I'm not sure what you have in mind. > KO:? do all samantha bhavana need to be in jhanas :-).? Are you saying that during mundane jhanas citta panna cannot arise with jhanas.? Also are you saying during jhanas there is no?sati, viriya, concentration, ?absentices which are also mundane path factor. Ken O #109977 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept ashkenn2k Dear Rob E and Alex >I think you are correct about this, however I think I am right about the claim >of the followers of the commentaries - that the billions of cittas that take >place in a second and their accompanying cetasikas and activities such as >contact were *actually observed and recorded* by Buddha and/or the early >arahants who were able to register such things at lightning speed because of >their supernatural powers, and that these are the direct observations of the >Buddha and/or the arahants that were recorded in the Abhidhamma and/or >commentaries. > >In addition I believe that the folks in this group additionally believe that the > >legend that Buddha himself delivered the Abhidhamma in a continuous sermon in >one of the higher spiritual planes after his parinibbana is literally true. The >idea is that it is the higher actual teaching and was not given to the mass of >Buddhists while Buddha was still on earth. In that view all or many of the >suttas are the conventional teaching for those not capable of at least >developing pariyatti regarding the paramatha dhammas. Ask around here and I >think you will find that to be the case. > >I'm not saying this did or didn't happen, but I have my doubts. > >> "Citta", "vedana", "rupa" are names called "Citta", "vedana", "rupa" >> >> Some even when we use the words "Citta", "vedana", "rupa", what is being used >>is a label, a category or a name for a kind of experience. > >I agree with you, but don't think this view is shared by the core members of >dsg. KO:? I have absolutely faith that Buddha taught Abhidhamma be it it is in the devas plane or not it does not matter.? I also believe and have absolutely faith that citta must be very fast because if it is not, we cannot see light. Words are just labels for understanding, Without it how to learn dhamma in the first place. I?could not?stress enough on the importance of Abhidhmma.? Without it, it is difficult to understand the true flavours of the dhamma. the depth of it and the workings of it.? Ken O #109978 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi KenO, > KO: I disgree with this assumption because simply when you read dhamma texts, > panna must arise with the citta before one could understand the meaning. the > object of citta must be a dhamma for satipatthana is not the correct > interpretation of the text. the correct one is that the object of satipatthana > must be a dhamma but this object is not refering to the object of citta because > object of citta can be a concept. Panna arise to understand the characteristics > of a feeling which arise with citta of any objects be it concept or a dhamma. Thanks for your comments. You've expressed this view before, but I haven't yet seen a definite explanation in support of it from the texts. As far as I remember, this subject is treated in ACMA in detail, and Bhikkhu Bodhi adds the notes from Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi Sayadaw, which (as I understand it) support the argument that during a process of cognition, the following processes follow in succession: 1. sense-door process that experiences a rupa 2. first mind-door process that experiences the same rupa by way of navattabba. 3. following mind-door processes which then have concepts as the object, by which there's determining of the shape, color, name, etc, of what was experienced through the sense-door. So, in my understanding, concepts enter the stage only after the dhamma has been expereienced already by the sense-door and mind-door processes. The whole difference that makes insight happen is whether there's panna during javana cittas that arise during the sense-door process and the first mind-door process. If you're not familiar with this bit from ACMA, I'll try to find the exact page when I find time. Likewise, if you have an alternate explanation form the texts, please supply it. Thanks. Best wishes pt #109979 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:11 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. Sure I'll take the quiz! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > So, for all: Agree/Disagree. Any strong reaction? > .... > 1. There is no soul, no Almighty God I do not believe in an immortal soul, or in a personfied God. I do believe there are supernatural forces and existence beyond the physical world, but they are all subject to the three marks like anything else and are not eternal. > 2. The Buddha passed away over 2500 years ago Yes. > > 3. The Buddha taught that there are 5 khandhas Yes. > > 4. These khandhas consist of mental and physical dhammas (phenomena). Yes. > > 5. All such (conditioned) namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) are impermanent and thereby unsatisfactory. Agree. > > 6. Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma. Agree. > > 7. The Buddha taught that all dhammas (sabbe dhammaa) are anatta. I agree. > > 8. Apart from these conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma, there are no other realities, no other paramattha dhammas. I agree, although the definition of paramattha dhammas has some questions for me. > > 9. Each nama or rupa arising and falling away now, such as seeing or visible object or feeling has the characteristic of anatta. Yes. > > 10. That dhamma which has the characteristic of anatta cannot be made to arise by anyone's will. Simply, there is not *anyone* to have a will. Correct. > > 11. All conditioned dhammas arise according to various conditions (as included in the 24 paccaya), not according to anything else. I may not totally understand the 24 paccaya. I agree that things arise due to conditions. > > 12. Apart from these paramattha dhammas, anything else, anything else at all, is a concept. By definition, it is therefore not a reality. I have some problems with the way in which dhammas are defined; otherwise I would probably agree with this. I may need more thought and clarity about the relationship between that which arises and the concepts pertaining to them. > > 13. When we think of Mike, Sarah, our house or the computer, there is just the thinking about concepts. If there is no thinking about them, there is no Mike, Sarah, a house or a computer. I have some question about the reality of things apart from thought. To a great extent, I agree. > > 14. What is touched is tangible object, what is seen is visible object. That's all. Basically agree. > > 15. When there is the idea of the softness being *my arm* or *my hair* and so on (in many complex ways), there is atta-sa~n~naa, remembrance of self and wrong view of self, sakkaaya di.t.thi. I agree to a point; not 100% clear on this, although I understand the concept. :-) > > 16. When there is an idea of the tangible object or visible object being a computer, a thing, a substance or whole, it is attanu di.t.thi, also an idea of atta, but not sakkaaya di.t.thi. Basically as above in 15. > > 17. The only way that attanu-ditthi and sakkaaya di.t.thi will ever be eradicated is through the developed understanding of the reality appearing at this moment. Through such understanding of the tangible object, the feeling, the visible object or whatever appears, the characteristic of anatta becomes apparent. Basically agree. > > 18. If there's any effort to try and be aware at this moment, in order to understand the presently appearing object, or any trying to develop more kusala, such as more metta, then it's the wrong path again. Disagree to some extent. I agree up to a point. > > 19. If the development of understanding is for any purpose other than just the understanding of dhammas, it's wrong again. I don't totally agree with that. > > 20. This understanding of the present reality is the Middle Way! Don't totally agree with that. Tough quiz! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #109980 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:13 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > I also have to go over this 'a number of times'. Difficult, I am so > used to thinking: there is dosa. > Nina. :-) Best, Robert E. ================== #109981 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:16 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. From a recording in India. no 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > Op 14-sep-2010, om 5:18 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > > > I know I am saying the obvious, but I am just practicing: So the > > world, like the body, is a concept, and the reality is that 'it' > > just keeps arising and falling away in separate elements. There is > > no "whole," just the individual risings and falling away. > -------- > N: You correctly understood that there is no whole. 'It' falls away > in seperate elements: what about: there are only different elements > arising and falling away. This to avoid the 'it'. Where is the 'it'? I agree there is no "it." The purpose of the "it" is to show how the concept really breaks up into separate dhammas. So the "it" is like the equal sign in the equation: Concept of whole {in reality is} separate arising dhammas. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109982 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:21 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: What I heard. About nimitta, no 2. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I find it a helpful reminder to know that when perceiving outlines of > people and things it points to the Great Elements, which are > realities, and that the people and things I imagine to be there are > not paramattha dhammas. But the elements are. It makes the seeing of > visible object very natural. Just outlines, or colour, or whatever > you like to call it, appearing through the eyes which do not appear > when closing one's eyes. > Perhaps this may also answer Alex' s question about driving a car and > not going through the red sign or driving into people. When we say > that there are no things, no people, we do not say that there is > nothing, there are the Great Elements. Kh Sujin remarked, that is why > we can find a chair and sit in it. We do not sit on air. I just don't quite get the "reality" of the elements, as they only appear as "part of" rupa, am I right? So they seem to be the only part of dhammas that is a "constituent" of something else, contained within rupa, rather than arising "on their own." So it seems like rupa is both "what it is" at the moment AND some combination of the 4 elements at the same time, which seems like it is not a basic element, but a combination in that case. I may be quite confused, but I hope I am communicating this question clearly. I wonder why the 4 great elements have this special place in the arising of rupa, and nothing else is part of something else. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #109983 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear pt > >Thanks for your comments. You've expressed this view before, but I haven't yet >seen a definite explanation in support of it from the texts. As far as I >remember, this subject is treated in ACMA in detail, and Bhikkhu Bodhi adds the >notes from Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi Sayadaw, which (as I understand it) support >the argument that during a process of cognition, the following processes follow >in succession: > >1. sense-door process that experiences a rupa >2. first mind-door process that experiences the same rupa by way of navattabba. >3. following mind-door processes which then have concepts as the object, by >which there's determining of the shape, color, name, etc, of what was >experienced through the sense-door. > >So, in my understanding, concepts enter the stage only after the dhamma has been > >expereienced already by the sense-door and mind-door processes. The whole >difference that makes insight happen is whether there's panna during javana >cittas that arise during the sense-door process and the first mind-door process. > >If you're not familiar with this bit from ACMA, I'll try to find the exact page >when I find time. Likewise, if you have an alternate explanation form the texts, > >please supply it. Thanks. > KO:? Definitely,?rupa arise in the sense door process and?then the?mind door process.? There are two types of process, sense door process and purely mind door process???Impossible for concepts to arise in?sense door process as sense citta only have rupa as objects,? Concepts only arise in mind citta?and?hence arise in mind door process only.?? At the moment of experiencing a concept, it is still dhamma that experience.? It is impossible to experience a concept without dhamma.? Insights are just panna.? Panna arise with?kusala citta during the javana process?and?kusala citta can arise in?sense door?process or purely mind door process only. ?This can be seen in the CMA.? There is no?text that say?the object citta that arise with panna must be a dhamma before vipassana stage, in fact the text indicate?otherwise by the simple example?in the?commentary of Distraction of Thoughts and also the Visud on reciting of body parts.? Is that prove enough by recitation of body parts which are concepts as a development cited by Buddha The text you quote are just talking about sense door process.? There are pure mind door processes which does not need a sense door process. simple as that and?see CMA for details :-) Ken O #109984 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E > > > > >I think you are reserving the word "direct" for "100% true" experience. I am > >using it in a more partial way. I don't think I see anything "completely > >directly" but I do think there are moments of more direct discernment as opposed > > > >to the normal perception. Otherwise there would be no gradual coming to such a > >direct experience. > > > > KO:? I prefer the words like panna becomes more refine.? Direct in my personal > interpretation is to the core of nama and rupa so I tend not to use it because > nowadays many people claim they have direct experience which i felt is likely to > be their panna have become subtlier I see what you mean. I think of "more direct" like "more clear," but I see how you use it. Best, Robert E. = = = = #109985 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E and Mike > > as long as an object whether it is a concept or dhamma? in the citta except for > bhavanga citta, it is experience by the citta.? An experience does not mean it > is real.? Real in Abhidhamma must have distinct characteristics due to the > dhamma qualities > > A beautiful chair is experience by the citta but chair has not distinct > characteristics which a feeling feels Thanks, that is helpful. Best, Robert E. = = = #109986 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept of concept epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > I?could not?stress enough on the importance of Abhidhmma.? Without it, it is > difficult to understand the true flavours of the dhamma. the depth of it and the > workings of it. Thank you for your sincere expression of this. Best, Robert E. = = = = #109987 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert & Sarah - In a message dated 9/14/2010 11:20:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? Is it volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? Is it volition that follows and understanding (pa~n~naa) that understands "action"? What exactly does understanding understand action to be? Is it understanding an idea or concept, such as sitting or standing, or is it understanding any realities as having "no actor"? I will admit that I am not sure what the status of actions are in terms of arising realities. That is actually one of my unanswered questions which you may be able to help me with. What is an action? Do they in fact take place, or is that an illusion? Although I am not sure what the conditions are that cause Right Intention and Right Effort to arise and lead to certain actions or awareness coming into being, I am basically saying that: a/ There is no actor doing whatever actions take place, and b/ Intentional actions and practices can be allowed to take place without invoking or supporting self-concept. It can be understood even during a practice that there is no self doing anything, and such an understanding would not be "wrong view." Best, Robert E. ================================== If I may butt in with my perspective on actions: Consider the action that is any particular case of "some person, P, walking across a room." It is a mere convention to consider this to be a "thing." The facts are that there is an ever-changing flow of sights, sounds, and bodily sensations (all rupas) experienced (vi~n~nana), recognized (sa~n~na), felt (sa~n~na), and emotionally reacted to and thought about (various sankhara) by P, "the walker," and there are corresponding experiences occurring "in" others who might be present witnessing the walking, and all of it is thought of and referred to as "P walking across the room." So, my answer is that actions are conceptual constructs but not baseless. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #109988 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:33 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hello Robert, KenH, all, >RE: I think it would be interesting to ask, if there is no self, how >is it that the green light is distinguished from the red, every time >you >drive, and that the left and right lanes are distinguished, >every time >you drive. It seems like a kind of mystery, from the >point of view of >no-self, doesn't it, that these functions arise >and do their job "on >their own?" It's pretty amazing that on the >conventional level, >samsara seems to move along so lawfully. Anatta issue is not a problem here. The problem is denying the agglomeration of particles that form green/red light, intersection, cars, etc. I have no problem with the idea that all wholes can be (at least theoretically) be taken apart. The wacky idea is to say that the wholes do not exist in any way or form. Then it would be difficult to reconcile such metaphysics with experiential reality of intersection, traffic lights, traffic, pedestrians, etc etc. With metta, Alex #109989 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:40 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? nama follows instructions. >Is it volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? Volition is conditioned, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't wills. If the house is on fire, a person would try one's best to get out of there ASAP. Same with samsara. >Is it volition that follows and understanding (pa~n~naa) that >understands "action"? What exactly does understanding understand >action to be? Understanding understands. Action is a namarupa process that is anicca, dukkha, anatta. But regardless of it being (anicca, dukkha, anatta) actions does happen. With metta, Alex #109990 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:43 pm Subject: Re: intentional activities truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, > J: As previously explained, I do not suggest that all and any >intention is an expression of self-view. Straw man, Alex (!!). Great. So one can have intention to develop wholesome qualities without it being an expression of self-view. It is good that we agree on this crucial issue. With metta, Alex #109991 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: And what do the Vism (and suttas) suggest such effort to be, >Alex? VsM frequently talks about arousing great effort and doing things such as 13 ascetic practices. >Do they suggest that in truth there are any conditioned dhammas >other than the 5 khandhas? How is that relevant to this discussion? Everything is made of 1-5 (not more) aggregates and any kind of action by an ardent person can be analyzed in such a fashion. Just because you can disassemble a whole into its constituent parts it doesn't mean that the whole doesn't exist. As conglomeration of dhammas it does exist. >Do they suggest there is literally "a person" to make an effort? They (suttas, VsM) do. A person made up of 5 aggregates. It is a distinct whole that does this or that. If wholes were not distinct then there would be no difference between one whole and another, no difference between an Arahant and worldling, for example. >Do they suggest that even though such dhammas are conditioned, there >are still some other dhammas which can arise now which are not >conditioned, that are within someone's will or power? Sure that there is no freedom of will. But if one is in a burning house would one do one's best to get out? The same is applicable to developing wisdom and uprooting the kilesas to get out of samsara. All is conditions, sure. No Atta, sure. But action does occur. >S: Let me suggest that the Vism defines energy/effort near the >beginning of the first chapter like this: > >"Ardent (aataapin): possessing energy. For it is energy that is >called 'ardour' (aataapa) in the sense of burning up and consuming >(aataapana-paritaapana) defilements." > >It is then said that a person said to have such energy is said to be >ardent. You've said it yourself: S: "It is then said that ***a person said to have such energy***". > In other words, right energy/effort (samma vaayaamo) is a cetasika, >a mental factor. And I've never said that it isn't. But the mental factor itself can result in certain kinds of bodily intimation. And effort is always intentional. It is not a passive effortless result, it is an active mental force directed at something. > Without an understanding of dhammas as being conditioned and >anatta, we're bound to believe in a Self having to make an effort. I don't believe in Self that makes effort. I don't believe in absolute free will either. However none of that refute the idea of practices outlined in VsM and the suttas. Those who can and who understand the benefits of those practices will do them. No freedom of unconditioned choice there. Those who do not understand (or misunderstand) those practices and for some reason cannot practice, will not practice. With metta, Alex #109992 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept of concept truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >KO: I have absolutely faith that Buddha taught Abhidhamma be it it is >in the devas plane or not it does not matter.? I also believe and have >absolutely faith that citta must be very fast because if it is not, we >cannot see light. Words are just labels for understanding, Without it >how to learn dhamma in the first place. > >I?could not?stress enough on the importance of Abhidhmma.? Without it, >it is difficult to understand the true flavours of the dhamma. the >depth of it and the workings of it.? As I recollect, the discussion was not about Abh itself, but regarding certain interpretations and misinterpretations of it. With metta, Alex #109993 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:05 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi pt, and all, -------- <. . .> pt: > They are a part of life. However, in the moments when insight happens, it is the rupa that's going to be the object of citta with panna, not the concept <. . .> ------- I like your personal perspective on this point, pt. I find it helpful in understanding various things about the Dhamma. For example, it helps to explain why the Buddha agreed to teach. The texts tell us his decision was motivated by compassion, and it's interesting, isn't it, that they should say compassion rather than insight? I think it fits in with your perspective. The decision to teach was made when a concept (sentient beings) was the object of the Buddha's consciousness. Therefore, insight could not arise at that moment. But compassion could. Other Buddhas (pacceke-Buddhas) have proceeded to parinibbana without ever teaching. And there is nothing wrong with that! There are, after all, only dhammas, and there is no point in teaching dhammas. (They aren't interested!) The Buddha, however, was different from pacceke-Buddhas. He experienced the concept of sentient beings, and infinite compassion (as distinct from infinite wisdom) arose with that experience. It was sufficient, in the circumstances, to condition forty-five years of teaching. Ken H #109994 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ashkenn2k Dear pt So, in my understanding, concepts enter the stage only after the dhamma has been >expereienced already by the sense-door and mind-door processes. The whole >difference that makes insight happen is whether there's panna during javana >cittas that arise during the sense-door process and the first mind-door process. > >If you're not familiar with this bit from ACMA, I'll try to find the exact page KO:? I like to add on.?If insight only arise in the this stage, how are you going to develop panna.? Also are you saying panna only arise in that stage where the object of the citta is nama and rupa?and not during the stage of where the object of citta is a concept.?? then pse explain how panna arise during listening of dhamma?words where the objects of the citta are words and not nama and rupa.? Ken O #109995 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:27 pm Subject: Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! glenjohnann Hi Jon and Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: We did however have a lengthy chat on the general subject of whether intentional activities directed towards the development of awareness/insight are of a different calibre (i.e., `better') than practices that clearly have no connection whatsoever with the development of the path. > And how did the conversation re intentional activities directed towards the development of awareness/insight go? (she asks, planning a trip to Thailand in the new year!) I know that we all would like to think that those activities are of a different (ie more useful, wholesome) calibre than practices unconnected with the path. However, I expect that if the intention is doing something (going to a discussion, for example, or listening to a tape, or reading posts on this site) in order to gain awareness, then that would be wrong practice. What about doing it thinking that it may lead to more understanding? I would be interested in your thoughts on this. Ann #109996 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Part 2 on Intentional development, simplified glenjohnann Hello Jon and Robert (again) I can see that the discussion below is related to my asking you in my previous post (immediately above) about intentional activity. Perhaps what I should do is look at the posts preceeding your remarks below and follow this thread. Ann --- > > J: Yes, as I said, there will always be intentional activity of one kind or another associated with an instance of path development. But the question we're discussing is the role of intentional activity in the arising of panna. > > It's of course true, as you say, that there are many examples of intentional activity in the suttas and texts. But it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion from this. We need to look to the doctrine as laid down by the Buddha. Does the Buddha specify any particular intentional activities as being a prerequisite for the arising of awareness? > > > Jon > #109997 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:55 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > > Butting in again on your various threads....:-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > "No control" is a reality that most likely *all* of us can agree on. In addition we *all* agree on the absolute reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and the fact that there are no persons in reality. > ... > S: Before we agree what *all* of us can agree on, I think we have to agree on what the realities, the paramattha dhammas are. > > For example, many people think of dukkha just in terms of sorry or grief or pain. Or they may think of anicca in terms of losing their possessions or changing weather. They may think of anatta or "no control" in terms of not being able to stop such losses. At this point, I have a sense of both ways of thinking of the three marks - in conventional terms as I see myself get older or see a favorite object get broken - and also on a moment-to-moment level. I appreciate your underlining of the importance of where anicca and the other characteristics really take place - in the rising and falling of dhammas that make up human reality itself. These days I have been more inclined to focus on the shifting of everything that seems solid - self, body and other experiences, all held together by conceptual glue; and get a sense of the ground of reality shifting constantly and that there is nothing solid or stable anywhere. As experiences flit in and out of existence, there is no place for a self, no control, and no ultimate satisfaction as vedana constantly shifts without control also. Anyway, I have a sense of that. ... > Can this be known now? First there has to be the precise understanding of visible object when it appears, quite distinct from seeing and quite distinct from thoughts about it. It is not the visible object that fell away and is being labelled now either. Can you explain this order a little bit more: first understand rupa - visible object; then understand seeing - as a nama...? then understand thoughts about it - concept/proliferation...? How can one understand "visible object" apart from contact, which involves the seeing...? A little confused. Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #109998 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:01 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert & Sarah - > > In a message dated 9/14/2010 11:20:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" > wrote: > > > S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? Is it > volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? Is it volition that follows > and understanding (pa~n~naa) that understands "action"? What exactly does > understanding understand action to be? Is it understanding an idea or > concept, such as sitting or standing, or is it understanding any realities as > having "no actor"? > > I will admit that I am not sure what the status of actions are in terms of > arising realities. That is actually one of my unanswered questions which > you may be able to help me with. What is an action? Do they in fact take > place, or is that an illusion? > > Although I am not sure what the conditions are that cause Right Intention > and Right Effort to arise and lead to certain actions or awareness coming > into being, I am basically saying that: > > a/ There is no actor doing whatever actions take place, > > and > > b/ Intentional actions and practices can be allowed to take place without > invoking or supporting self-concept. It can be understood even during a > practice that there is no self doing anything, and such an understanding > would not be "wrong view." > > Best, > Robert E. > ================================== > If I may butt in with my perspective on actions: Consider the action > that is any particular case of "some person, P, walking across a room." It > is a mere convention to consider this to be a "thing." The facts are that > there is an ever-changing flow of sights, sounds, and bodily sensations (all > rupas) experienced (vi~n~nana), recognized (sa~n~na), felt (sa~n~na), and > emotionally reacted to and thought about (various sankhara) by P, "the > walker," and there are corresponding experiences occurring "in" others who > might be present witnessing the walking, and all of it is thought of and > referred to as "P walking across the room." So, my answer is that actions are > conceptual constructs but not baseless. I am most interested in the "not baseless" part - what part of action is real? I understand that we conceptually "sew together" the idea of a "someone" continuously "going somewhere," but what I would like to know is what are the elements that make up the "walking?" Is there motion? Motion of what? What is actually taking place if you observed it without concept from moment to moment? How does the occurrence proceed in such a way that the "person" winds up "on the other side of the room?" Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #109999 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:11 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > The Buddha, however, was different from pacceke-Buddhas. He experienced the concept of sentient beings, and infinite compassion (as distinct from infinite wisdom) arose with that experience. It was sufficient, in the circumstances, to condition forty-five years of teaching. Given that in this view the Buddha was teaching for delusory [conceptual] reasons, not conditioned by wisdom, was the Buddha's 45 years of teaching a product/expression of wrong view? You say it could not be an expression of the Buddha's wisdom arising. Was it an expression of ignorance? Was it kusala or akusala? I can't see how it would be kusala to give a conceptual teaching to a bunch of nonexistent concepts [people.] I guess in this view the immeasureable kusala of compassion can only be a product of ignorance? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = =