#110600 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:07 pm Subject: Without Wavering! bhikkhu5 Friends: Seeing the momentary Arising & Ceasing gives Calm! The Venerable Channa once said to a fellow disciple: Friend Sariputta , it is because I have seen, known and directly experienced the momentary arising & ceasing of the eye, eye-consciousness, and any phenomena recognizable by eye-consciousness, that I indeed regard them all thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self... Furthermore: It is because I have seen, known & directly experienced the momentary arising & ceasing of the ear, ear-consciousness, & any phenomena recognizable by ear-consciousness, the nose, olfactory consciousness, and any phenomena recognizable by such nose-consciousness, the tongue, gustatory- consciousness, and any phenomena recognizable by this tongue-consciousness, the body, body-consciousness, and any phenomena recognizable by this tactile consciousness, the mind, mental-consciousness, any phenomena recognizable by mental-consciousness, that I now indeed consider all these states thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self... Then Venerable Mahacunda said to Venerable Channa : Then friend Channa , this teaching of the Buddha is to be given acute, constant & close attention: In any dependence, there is always a shaky, risky & vacillating wavering! In all independence, there is neither any shaky, nor any risky wavering! When there is no wavering, then there is tranquillity. When there is tranquillity, there is neither inclination, nor bias, nor bending, nor attraction, nor repulsion... When there is no such inclination, then there is neither any coming, nor any going! When there is no coming & going, there is no passing away, nor any being reborn... When there is neither passing away, nor being reborn, then there is neither here, nor beyond, nor in between the two. This –itself- is the very End of all Suffering... Stable Independence and Unstable Dependence... Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book IV [59] Section 35: On The 6 Senses. Channa: 87. 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 Samāhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Without Wavering! #110601 From: "Christine" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:43 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Wow! That is very interesting. I guess you could say Buddha didn't leave much out! I guess if singing chants has that much potential danger, it might be worth asking why sing at all? They could have just recited the Dhamma rather than chanting it, but there must be some positive aspect to chanting that is worth the potential danger. [Other than my reason for thinking it's a good idea - that it would make it more enjoyable. :-) ] > > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = > Hello Robert E., all, You may find this article of interest. with metta Chris The Practice of Chanting in Buddhism - Bhikkhu Dhammasami Chanting is very common to any religion. Buddhism is no exception in this regard. However, the aim and purpose of chanting is different from one religion to another. Buddhism is unique in that it does not consider chanting to be prayer. The Buddha in many ways has shown us to have confidence in our own action and its results, and thereby encouraged us to depend on no one but ourselves. This in fact is the sum and substance of His last message in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. One of the passages in this discourse reads: "Ananda, be dependent on yourself, take refuge in yourself and not in others, by this mean be dependent on the Dhamma, go for refuge to the Dhamma -- the righteous principles". When a Buddhist does chanting, he is not asking some one to save him from evil nor is he hoping to be given a place in heaven as a result after he dies. Instead, through chanting he may be learning, teaching, philosophising or re-memorising the discourse. Actually, in the Anguttara Nikaya there are some discourses dealing with chanting like Dhammavihari Sutta. It mentions five categories of people who make use of the discourses. The first one studies it just for the sake of study without putting it into practice or explaining it to others. He even does not reflect deeply on what he has studied. He is known as 'Pariyatti-bahulo' who is keen on studying it alone. The second one preaches or teaches what he has learnt from the discourses but does not follow it himself. He is 'Pannyatti-bahulo' who is keen only on teaching. The third one does chanting. He philosophises about the discourses, trying all the time to satisfy his philosophical thirst. He forgets to make use of as mode or life. He is called 'Vitakka-bahulo' who is eager only to indulge in philosophical aspects of the Suttas (Discourses). The fourth one is the one who chants the discourses to make them last for a long time in his memory. He memorises and re-memorises. Nevertheless, he does not go further to follow it in daily life. He is 'Sajjhayaka-bahulo' who is enthusiastic only in memorising or chanting the teachings of the Buddha, He may even expect some magical power from chanting. The fifth and last one is who studies the discourses, teaches them to others, reflects on their philosophical points, chants them regularly and above all actually practices it in daily life. He is the one the Buddha praises to be 'Dhammavihari' -- a practitioner of the Dhamma, which he has learnt from the discourses. Having reflected on this Sutta, it is left to us to judge ourselves to which category we belong and why we study or chant the discourses. I would like to dwell a bit more on chanting in general. This is, after all, an All-night Chanting ceremony. It is nothing but right for us to be fully convinced of what we are doing. Initially I did mention that Buddhism is unique because it does not consider chanting to be a form of prayer. Then why do we, Buddhists, chant? In the olden days, before there were sufficient support materials for study like books, translations and computers we had to memorise to learn a discourse. After we had learnt it, we still had to chant regularly to protect it and hand it down to future generations. If we did not recite it daily we might forget it and omit some part of it. The Anguttara Nikaya says that if the discourses are poorly maintained this will lead to the disappearance of the Sasana.[1] It was so important those days to memorise and chant it regularly. This must have definitely contributed in developing chanting practice. Chanting meant almost for the survival of the Dhamma itself. Now we have sufficient support materials, why we should then be still chanting? Is there any more reason to do this? There are some reasons sufficient to continue chanting practice. Regular chanting gives us confidence, joy and satisfaction, and increases devotion within us. This devotion is really a power. It is called the Power of Devotion (Saddhabala). It energises our life in general. I do not know about the others. For me I often have a joyous feeling when the chanting goes right. I become more confident of myself. I see it as a part of developing devotion. In Buddhist monastic education tradition, chanting and learning by heart still forms a part of it. We study some of the Theravada Abhidhamma texts -- the highest teachings of the Buddha which deal with the ultimate nature of things -- in that way in Burma. We are explained the meaning and how the logic develops in the Abhidhamma. In the night we try to chant without having learnt it by heart. We could do it because of the technique. It is known as evening-class (nya-war) over there. It means a certain technique of studying the Abhidhamma and some of the Suttas. It is very helpful as it helps you to reflect very quickly. When we examine the nature of the discourses, the reasons for chanting will become clearer to us than ever. THE NATURE OF THE DISCOURSES A Sutta (Discourse) like Mangala Sutta was an answer to the Deva who asked the Lord Buddha about the real progress in social, economic and spiritual life. It is the vision of the Buddha on those issues as much as his advice to all of us who genuinely want those progresses in social and spiritual life. It is some thing that we should follow throughout our life starting from childhood to the day we take our last breath. Most of the Suttas are of this nature. They are descriptions as well as prescriptions for the common diseases like Lobha, Dosa and Moha (Greed, Hatred and Delusion). Another nature of the discourses is protection or healing. Ratana Sutta is one of the best-known examples here. It was first taught to Venerable Ananda who in turn chanted in Vaisali to ward off all the evils and famine the people were then facing. Angulimala Sutta also falls into this category as it relieves the pains and trouble of a would-be mother. Mahasamaya Sutta and Atanatiya Sutta come under the same category because they emphasise much on protection and healing. Remember that Venerable Ananda and Venerable Angulimala did cultivate love and compassion before they chanted the discourse for this particular kind of blessing. The three Bojjhanga Suttas [2] (Maha Kassapa/Moggallana/Cunda) [3] have been in common use to help relieve the suffering of a patient. This is the third nature of the discourses I am trying to understand and reflect. Even the Buddha asked Venerable Cunda to chant this Bojjhanga Sutta when He was ill. He himself did the chanting of the Bojjhanga Sutta when his senior disciples, Venerable Maha Kassapa and Venerable Maha Moggallana, were sick. These are the kind of Suttas that have both instructions for meditation practice and healing power. Karaniyametta Sutta has these same natures: instruction for daily practice to develop our spiritual benefit and to ward off the evils. In other words, Buddhist chanting serves as a reminder of the practice we need to follow in daily life. If we understand and learn how to do it properly, it is another type of meditation in itself. It is also at the same time a healing or blessing service. The last benefit we may get from chanting discourses is meditative one. When we chant if we try to concentrate well on the chanting, our mind becomes contemplative, not wandering, not engaging in unwholesome thoughts. The late Venerable Dr. H. Saddhatissa Mahanayaka Thero, the founder of SIBC [4], has rightly remarked in his work [5] that almost all Buddhist practices are nothing else but some form of meditation./. Bhikkhu Dhammasami, 1999 ________________________________________ [1] "Dve 'me bhikkhave dhamma saddhammassa sammosaya antaradhanaya samvattanti. Katame dve. Dunnkikkhittam ca pada-byancanam attho ca dunnito." [2] Samyutta Nikaya, In the Mahakassapa Sutta, the Buddha chanted the Sutta to ailing Venerable Maha Kassapa while the second to another patient, Venerable Maha Moggallana, His own chief disciple. In the Mahacunda-bojjhanga Sutta, Venerable Cunda was asked by the Buddha who was then ill to chant (expound) the Bojjhanga. All were reported to have recovered at the end of the Sutta. [3] Also Girimananda Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya; Girimananda bhikkhu was ill. That was reported to the Buddha by Venerable Ananda who was then taught this Sutta and asked to go back to Girimananda for expounding, reminding him of ten factors. At the end, he got recovered. [4] Saddhatissa International Buddhist Centre. London [5] Facets of Buddhism by Venerable H. Saddhatissa; World Buddhist Foundation, London, 1991; p. 267. Source: Nibbana.com, http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ #110602 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Thank you, Chris. A very good article! Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > You may find this article of interest. > > with metta > Chris > > The Practice of Chanting in Buddhism - Bhikkhu Dhammasami ... #110603 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics from Manly (2) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, [choco break, looking for the Turkish Delight amongst Pt's assorted bars of choc] Herman arrived, looking just the same as when we'd met him in the Botanic Gardens a few years ago. Greetings, the pic on the balcony and then down to serious business:-) 1. Herman's interest in Theories of Human Nature, his Philosophy degree, work with the brain-damaged, musical interests - all relating to the present moment. 2. The supposed "DSG PLedge on Meditation", whatever that might be.... 3. Wholesome thoughts and deeds bringing results, but how can we know the future? Doesn't sound like just the present moment..... (magpie singing all the while) 4. Can we really speak of consciousness without an object? Always the experiencing of an object... 5. Seems to be hearing all the time, but seems one has to avert to listen....long discussions (magpie still singing, waves, quiet, gentle discussion with no interruptions, no raised voices... quite remarkable) Roof and walls example, hearing and sound - lots for folk to elaborate on. 6. Wave theories, sound particles, sound as movement of ear - Herman and Pt going great guns on shared acoustic and dhamma interests... the perfect pitch at 440 secs(?), momentary - meaningless. Just sound heard, the rest are concepts. Time in relation... As Ken clarified, we're not talking about sound particles but rupas. More on the nature of sound. 7. Thinking vs processing. Thinking as a misleading term for all the cittas arising and falling away now in between the sense processes. Is it necessary to stop talking to understand hearing? (Alex, you got many mentions!) The distinction between the senses, the Buddha's pointing to the truths to be known now, awareness now as ordinary as seeing. No need to stop any activity. 8. Initial training, meditation training? - J. present moment training by understanding dhammas now. Not selecting an object, not trying to analyse what is occurring. [Cake break and of course, the choco cake was the favourite. Next time, the choice will be choc, choc or more choc:-)] 9. Back to Ken's smelling issue from Bangkok. He had asked a question about knowing smelling and KS had asked in return whether there was smelling appearing at that moment. No, it wasn't, but was he "hard done by"? Surely, it arises throughout the day. Yes, but if it doesn't appear, it can't be known.... more to go on this... 10. Intellectual curiosity about conditions, not understanding, not pariyatti. 11. Use of words, conventional, absolute truths - clarifications. Pacceka and Sammasambuddhas, why Pacceka Buddhas cann't teach. Arahats using words, languages, still thinking. 12. Liberation, suffering caused from attachment. Pt's computer example (but I forget how this relates). Attachment reducing according to the degree of understanding. Should the reduction be noticeable in our behaviour? Less choc cake, for example? 13. The difference between understanding and experiencing a dhamma. Is understanding equivalent to non-attachment? [side note, still to date, no fights, no mediating, no raised voices....] 14. Khun Bong's notes (which Nina is translating) - taking opportunities to study and learn about dhammas. Without understanding, this can be misunderstood too and may cause anxiety for some. Actually, if appreciated leads to contentment rather than anxiety. 15. Herman - BUT, one still needs to sell one's surfboards, get on in the world, go the the fridge and check the light. The way we act reflects our attachment to the idea of self. Alex's examples again about driving into the tree... Slamming on the breaks with or without understanding? 16. Qu from Herman's lunch friends about the monks in Bhutan going up the remote mountains....with their mobiles.... Any conflict? 17. More on meditation, driving down the road - can one really be detached? Detached in society - is it reckless? Nothing meditative while driving (more Alex...) Pt- metta while driving? Detachment at that moment. J- must be known in daily life. H - cannot look at the building without attachment. Is all meditation deluded? K - if there is any idea of control. Wrong understanding at that moment needs to be understood. A recent phenomenon - the idea of "doing" rather than understanding. H - dircting yourself, steering this way, avoiding anxiety, like a meditation. (difficult to understand my notes here...) 18. Modification of behaviour, eating another piece of cake. Only namas and rupas. Fact? Last bits of choc cake went to Vicki and Pt and a little later Herman and Pt left and the rest of us went for a stroll by the beach... ***** Metta Sarah ======= #110604 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics from Manly (3 and final) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Definitely the main and best discussion was during the "organised" session with Herman. Other tit-bits while strolling or returning for some more snacks (inc. final choc sharing hints) inc. 1. Merriment as near enemy of mudita 2. Patience as viriya, kusala or akusala when, for example, one foregoes the cake, thinking of one's figure? Some chat about breaches of sila and the monks' restraint. [Turkish delight time again] 3. World spheres? 4. How to explain conditions to a beginner? E.g. dosa.... dhammas, attachment, not getting what one wants.... Pt left as we were all falling asleep... *** Sun morning, we'd been promised a demonstration of the dolphin kick body surfing technique, but the waves weren't up to it, so we walked along the coast instead. Over a simple lunch before Ken H started his journey back to Noosa, he brought up a couple of suttas which Steve (on DSG) used to raise when they were at meetings in Cooran, the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta and the Bhikkhuni Sutta - different understandings, maybe more to go on them... Also a little discussion on social drinking, being teetotal at Xmas and so on. Ken likes flying and had worked out his journey details down to the finest detail. Simple, ferry, easy train to the airport, flight to near his home where his wife and friends would be picking him up, taking him out for dinner, back to his own bed in good time. Well, we never know...seems like he fell asleep or something on the train, nearly missed his flight, then couldn't land and had to be diverted and when eventually he got home, the area had lost all its power.... and so it goes on in samsara, namas and rupas beyond anyone's control, never arising by any self-will - on and on and on. Lots of webs and stories and how very little understanding there is at this moment! Metta Sarah ====== #110605 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:06 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi Jon Thanks for the below. As you may have picked up from my recent posts, I am very interested in the ten impediments and concede that most people in this day and age have them, thus today there are unlikely to be conditions for meditation to be practiced fruitfully as described in Vism. My contention is not about today's practicioners, it is about the oft stated (only by studnets of A.S, as far as I know) conteniton that the Budda didn't teach formal meditation, and that the practices in Vism are not instructions. So we agree about today, but I guess our disagreement is more academic. You guys are wrong when you say that the Buddha didn't teach formal meditation, but you might be or probably are right when you question the way meditation is taught today. Another point you fail to see in my opinion is that even if meditation is not taught correctly today, it is still conducive to sila, people who practice meditation as taught today will have better sensitivity to what is going on in their minds, and will have more resilience to objects, and thus better conditions for sila, there will be less likely to be behaviour that is harmful to oneself and others, whether "clinging to rules and rituals" is involved or not. Whendramatic reduction of harmful, toxic bvehaviour is the result, I don't give a damn whether "clinging to rules and rituals" is involved, the ends outweighs the means, in this case. On the other hand, if there are people claiming that the way meditation is practiced during 10 day meditation retreats etc is on par with the way it is taught in Vism, well, I would agree with you there, for what it's worth. OK, all done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. Thanks! Metta, Phil > See particularly III, 28: > #110606 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! philofillet Hi Robert E, Chris, and especially the guy who asked the question in the first place, and all... > Wow! That is very interesting. I guess you could say Buddha didn't leave much out! I guess if singing chants has that much potential danger, it might be worth asking why sing at all? They could have just recited the Dhamma rather than chanting it, but there must be some positive aspect to chanting that is worth the potential danger. [Other than my reason for thinking it's a good idea - that it would make it more enjoyable. :-) ] Let's not forget the text Chris posted is from the Vinaya, the guide of behaviour for monks. I don't think the prescriptions and prohibitions in the Vinaya apply to householders except perhaps during the full moon observances when 8 precepts rather than the usual 5 are followed, including avoiding musical entertainment, etc. The question for householders is whether behaviour consitutes akusala kamma patha and whethere it causes harm to ourselves, others, or both. So for example, singing BUddhist verses with great joy and longing, even all full of wrong view and clinging to a misguided belief that the practice could lead to favourable rebirth would not be so bad, but using one's beautiful singing voice to seduce a woman and lead her into sexual misconduct (e.g a married woman, or a minor) would constitute akusala kamma patha and be harmful for one's self, for the other, for both. That's the only kind of case, to give just one example, where entertainment would be considered harmful by the Buddha as far as it applies for the householder, I think. To give another example, watching violent or pornographic movies that condition violent or pornographic behaviour (including mental behaviour) in oneself. It's all about behaviour for the householder. The wise man is one who behaves in a wise way, that's the AN sutta that never fails to inspire me. So the connection between entertainment and behaviour that follows conditioned by it is the key! Metta, Phil #110607 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:27 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. philofillet Dear Nina and all Thank you very much for the below, Nina. I need this sort of thing these days, I am feeling very intoxicated by health (joined a gym last month and my body is hard and muscular...YAY!) and energy and relative youth. I feel drunk with health and energy these days, and while there is of course a tendency to remind myself that health is an illusion, physical energy is an illusion, who but an idiot would compare his body to another's favourably, the intoxication is very powerful and I would be a liar if I said I was not enjoying it, and also the implied connection to sex that is involved in having a muscular body. (Especially for a bisexual man like myself, my body and certain aspects of it are of a very valuable currency when it comes to men.) So what do I do when this intoxication rages? I'm sorry, but reflection on impermenance of dhammas won't help. Of course I want to listen to the five recollections of ageing, illness, death etc as often as possible, I have it in my i-pod chanted in Thai and Pali. But when the intoxication rages, there is not room for really reflecting on the truth, the delusions rule. For me, the main thing is to keep wathcing my behaviour. Fortunately even at the most health intoxicated, youth intoxicated times, there is no forgetting that behaviour that is harmful to oneself, harmful to others, and harmful to both must be avoided. That remembrance is what saves me from going straight to the hell of gross, wild indulgence. Hopefully there will be conditions for deeper, wiser, truer, more paramattha reflections someday. But for now, no. Oh, and the messengers! On my cell phone there is a picture of my mother's Alzheimer's addled expression that I see every time I open it, we resemble each other so very effective. And I see messengers, like today the elderly couple who could barely manage to ride an elevator, or like that great story from a couple of years ago. Let me tell it again. I was walking along a street and saw a sexy woman's hips chugging ahead. I actually said out loud "mmmm! the Buddha can't beat that!" I actually said it! Then glanced across the street, and saw a man who was moving about one foot per minute with his walker. The Buddha beath the sexy booty, I saw the messenger! Thanks for letting me share some reflections, I think it will help me get throught this intoxication. Should I post a picture of my sexy body in the member's corner!? NO! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Khun Bong's Diary. > > Our friend Khun Bussabong Ramphai (Khun Bong) who has passed away > kept a diary during her sickness, the last four months before she > died. We all can learn from the way she coped with her suffering > because she had great confidence in the Dhamma. Her husband, Khun > Weera Phlawadana, had this diary printed in Thailand. He was a great > support during her illness and asked questions on her behalf at the > Dhamma session. #110608 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:41 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi again Jon Just to clarify, I think you win on this point. The "clansman who is a beginner" has conditions that are laid out in the Vism text you provided, he is not a beginner in the sense that can be easily grasped in modern contexts, in my (new) opinion. As I've said before, the 10 impediments is where the crux lies, this ongoing debate about the suitability of meditation can be so easily settled by going to that paragraph, in my opinion. But of course it is Buddhagosa, not the Buddha, that laid out the 10 impediments (unless I'm mistaken and they come from a sutta) so room for contention remains - hopefully I will remain removed from that contention, because my meditation is not about bhavana as much as it is about sila (for reasons explained in last post) so I don't have a vested interest in the debate...yet. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Jon > > Thanks for the below. #110609 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! szmicio > This might be of interest: > > Bhikkhus, there are these five dangers when Dhamma is chanted with a long, singing sound: > 1. He is pleased with himself regarding that sound, (= pride) > 2. others are pleased regarding that sound (they have regard for it but not for Dhamma) > 3. householders look down upon him (as music is for those who enjoy sense-pleasures) > 4. while trying for accuracy of sound his concentration is broken, (he neglects the meaning of what he is chanting) > 5. people coming after fall into views (by emulation) ("saying: Our teachers and preceptors sang it thus" [Commentary] a source of both pride and quarreling among later generations of Buddhists). > Vinaya Pitaka, ii. 108 L: Wonderful Chris, This is very accurate. Quite many buddhist teachers states this in very similar way, considering chantings as not for beginners and very hard. But of course no one is against chantings, I think they can support kusala citta. Best wishes Lukas #110610 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:54 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Philip, Op 11-okt-2010, om 7:27 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > And I see messengers, like today the elderly couple who could > barely manage to ride an elevator, or like that great story from a > couple of years ago. ------ N: Very good you see the messengers, this appeals to Lodewijk very much. He is always afraid when hearing the sutta about Yama. Did he perform enough kusala? He says, hardly any at all. I try to encourage him, what about kusala when he sends all those books of mine, going to the postoffice. True, kusala is always alternated with akusala, some subtle some more coarse. Certainly, it is good you try to avoid coarse akusala. That is kusala in itself. Intoxication of youth and health, these are exactly the words of the Book of Analysis, Vibhanga, of the Abhidhamma. It is daily life. As you say: 'But when the intoxication rages, there is not room for really reflecting on the truth, the delusions rule. ' Again, daily life. When there is delusion there cannot be wise reflection at the same time. This is conditioned. All that you write is very true. Nina. #110611 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! szmicio Hi Robert E, > I think there is a worthwhile distinction between two ways of looking at samvara sila. One would be to avoid sensory activity that might excite the senses and cause disruptive reactions; and the other is the amount of restraint or control one has over the senses that keep akusala reactions from coming up when there is sensory experience. I think the latter is real restraint, whereas the former is more like avoidance. If there is enough sati and other qualities to guard the senses, then the reactions will be mindful instead of disruptive to development. > > If we are developed enough in our mindfulness and understanding [which I'm probably not] we can endure entertainments without getting lost in them or having akusala reactions. L: There is a quote in Visudhimagga about that: Best wishes Lukas #110612 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:34 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. philofillet Dear Nina > Intoxication of youth and health, these are exactly the > words of the Book of Analysis, Vibhanga, of the Abhidhamma. It is > daily life. > As you say: 'But when the intoxication rages, there is not room for > really reflecting on the truth, the delusions rule. ' Again, daily > life. When there is delusion there cannot be wise reflection at the > same time. This is conditioned. All that you write is very true. Thank you Nina, I feel encouraged. Metta, Phil #110613 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 hallo Sarah and other temporary Manly-ites:) > Dear Friends, > > A few topics discussed with Ken and Pt before Herman's arrival, mostly over a simple Mod-lunch on our balcony with the surfers and waves in the background. Perhaps Jon, Ken and Pt will help "colour them in", if interested to do so only, if they ring a bell at all, that is: > ...snip.... > - meditation and how the 2 hrs seems to calm down the mind, the mind stops jumping, some sort of awareness of breath? less nervousness...feels like it's the right way... What about if it's staring at the waves or a candle flame or any other object? In what way is it kusala? azita: always an interesting discussion eh? Having done an intensive w/shop on yogic pranayama jst this year, I've become very aware of breath! It is a very pleasant abiding sitting quietly in the early morning doing 'breathin'! However, I have no idea if its kusala or akusala but would bet a million dollars {aussie$ that is - we are equal to US$}!! that its akusala. I say this bec altho it feels peaceful, I think its mostly attachment to pleasant feeling. I'm thinking that if it is/was kusala then there would be 'knowing' the kusala. Like some sort of understanding that would know the kusala from the akusala. > > - Escape from sense impressions a *result* from the development of samatha, not a setting up in order to develop samatha. In the beginning of the development of samatha, no escape from sense objects. Pasaddhi arising now? Rushing round in the supermarket or relaxing, looking at the waves - can one say there is more kusala, more calm in one situation? azita: relaxing always feels better than rushing round shopping, but in my case its jst attachment versus dosa. I recall Phra Alan saying something like 'its better to make someone happy than unhapppy' - now not sure what he meant by that, but at the time I thought its sounded quite right. Mayb bec making someone happy can be kusala while making someone unhappy is more likely akusala. But now that I think about this, I dont think so, however I have already written it so wont delete:) patience, courage and good cheer azita #110614 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:07 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Azita, (Pt & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > azita: always an interesting discussion eh? Having done an intensive w/shop on yogic pranayama jst this year, I've become very aware of breath! It is a very pleasant abiding sitting quietly in the early morning doing 'breathin'! > However, I have no idea if its kusala or akusala but would bet a million dollars {aussie$ that is - we are equal to US$}!! that its akusala. I say this bec altho it feels peaceful, I think its mostly attachment to pleasant feeling. .... S: Yes, exactly so. In fact, I even used you as an example to Pt as someone I don't "give a hard time to", because this is what you like to do/what you consider good for the health and yet have no illusions about it being anything to do with the Path. I also mentioned my yoga, tai chi, acupuncture etc in this connection. It's all about the understanding, rather than the activity. And of course, sati can slip in anytime at all, but a lot more difficult if there is the taking of the wrong path for the right path. .... > azita: relaxing always feels better than rushing round shopping, but in my case its jst attachment versus dosa. .... S: Yes, lots of ignorance regardless.... but we all like the pleasant feelings. .... >I recall Phra Alan saying something like 'its better to make someone happy than unhapppy' - now not sure what he meant by that, but at the time I thought its sounded quite right. Mayb bec making someone happy can be kusala while making someone unhappy is more likely akusala. .... S: Just as we like pleasant feelings, so do others. So we give a gift that others will like rather than dislike. This is kusala. It doesn't mean making ourselves happy is kusala, however! Same as the metta to others, not oneself debate again. .... >But now that I think about this, I dont think so, however I have already written it so wont delete:) ... S: Glad you didn't delete - we should remove that button on your keyboard:-). It always comes back to the present citta, "our" kusala intentions. Of course, when others receive kusala vipaka, most likely the pleasant experiences will condition attachment for them, but that doesn't mean we don't give and help as we can. It does explain why the highest gift is the gift of Dhamma, however. Hope your family gatherings and commitments have been joyful ones for all and that you'll be able to join us Manly-ites next time.... Metta Sarah ======= #110615 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:50 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) kenhowardau Hi all, It was very nice to see Jon and Sarah again, and to meet pt and Herman for the first time. Also, I find Dhamma discussions in real time have advantages over the internet. They are more testing for people like me - who generally take a lot of time to formulate their thoughts. ------------- S: > Perhaps Jon, Ken and Pt will help "colour them in" <. . .> - hearing the Dhamma, but not understanding it, but as value as a condition for understanding in future lives. --------- Coincidentally, this was a bit of Dhamma that I had heard several times on DSG without understanding. I'm still not ready to answer questions. I also mentioned my general slowness in learning new Abhidhamma points - due to a mixture of laziness and dim-wittedness. Not to worry! ------------------- - forgetfulness of different kinds, different moments, old age ------------------- Nothing to be frightened of; only dhammas, arising and falling away. --------------------- - tone of posts, causing offence, offence caused, different cittas --------------------- An interesting discussion, even to a model poster such as myself. And that was a good point about 'causing offence' and 'offence caused' applying to different cittas. ------------------------- - wrong view as being blind to hearing Dhamma, attachment to wrong view (with Ken & Pt) - life of the monk, understanding one's true accumulations. ------------------------ Someone might find he is a much better-behaved person when living as a monk than when he is living as a householder. But that does not necessarily mean he has the accumulations for being a monk. ---------------------------------- - Jhanas possible if in daily life there's a lot of attachment, aversion and so on? - Ken's first book on 5 mins to jhana ---------------------------------- Don't laugh, I have done it! At least, I have according that book. :-) ----------------------- - Visuddhimagga and metta in various directions. Counting the surfers in one direction and then extending metta to them in turn? ----------------------- No chance of metta while there is concern for oneself, though. --------------------------- - satipatthana and vipassana nanas....realities all the way. What exactly is known? --------------------------- From what I could gather, the difference is partly a matter of degree. (?) ----------------- - anusayas and right effort, the reality, the nama which doesn't arise. Levels of defilements, the abandoning of akusala, anusayas being accumulated, microbes, barnacles, day-time and night-time (!!),seeds (helpful, Howard), anantara paccaya ------------------ Hmm, Howard gets "helpful" and I get two exclamation marks! But I must admit, the example Howard gave in a post to Ari was quite a good one. ---------------------------- - bhavanga cittas - anchored in place, Ken's theories about the object of cuti citta conditioning plane of rebirth (:-//) - we didn't hear the end because we all jumped on him! Then there was something about bhavanga and default options, but I switched off whenever computer terminology was introduced:-) ----------------------------- Cuti cittas will be the death of me! ------------------------------------ - meditation and how the 2 hrs seems to calm down the mind, the mind stops jumping, some sort of awareness of breath? less nervousness...feels like it's the right way... What about if it's staring at the waves or a candle flame or any other object? In what way is it kusala? ------------------------------------ I'll let pt colour that one in. ------------------------- - Escape from sense impressions a *result* from the development of samatha, not a setting up in order to develop samatha. In the beginning of the development of samatha, no escape from sense objects. Pasaddhi arising now? Rushing round in the supermarket or relaxing, looking at the waves - can one say there is more kusala, more calm in one situation? - Reflecting on Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha - kusala or akusala? Attachment and ignorance or understanding and calm? Kusala now, understanding now leads to kusala in future. Not focussing on the Buddha. Meaning of samatha. - Why breath? So cool? Kusala or akusala? --------------------------- I see Azita has commented, and I think we mentioned her (and her yoga) at the time, didn't we? Just as with Sarah (who also enjoys yoga) Azita does not claim to be developing samatha. --------------------------- and then, waiting for Herman's arrival.... --------------------------- When the discussion *really* got going! Ken #110616 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:46 am Subject: Khun Bong's Diary, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Khun Bong listened to the Dhamma for twenty years and she realised that the understanding of anattaa should become firmer. She wrote: When satipa.t.thaana arises there is no self. There is nobody who can force anything, there is no owner of realities. There are only characteristics of dhammas that appear one at a time and then fall away completely. There is no I, no self to be found. There are people only when we think of them, but my understanding is not ready for this yet. I like the idea of there being people. Acharn telephoned her and asked whether she listened to the Dhamma. She answered that she did not. But she often thought about the Dhamma. She thought: There is no self who develops understanding but this is only a characteristic of naama dhamma. If I say that thinking is a naama dhamma this is only understood at the level of thinking. At that moment I do not study the characteristic of naama dhamma which is really not I She wrote that she likes to listen to Acharn, because what she did not understand at first she can come to understand, and as to what she understood already, she can become more convinced of. Khun Bong wrote about a visit of Acharn and Khun Duangduen. Khun Duangduen brought along delicious food for her as she did many times. Acharn explained that kusala can change ones life. Khun Bong wrote: It makes me study the Dhamma instead of shopping and carrying things home. Now instead of this I carry things outside, giving them away. Because I know that I cannot take them with me. I feel very happy. I came into this life without anything and I I will go without anything. One has enough things already and it is not necessary to search for more. The ariyan wealth is of the highest value. Acharn said: We are born, we see things, and we cannot do anything about them anymore, and then we are born again. We shall not have understanding if we do not develop it. Khun Bong remembered Acharns words: In truth, there is no person, no being, but wrong remembrance of self (attaasa~n~naa) remembers that there are people, there is I. Ruupa, the four Great Elements, can be known through the bodysense. Thinking is not the same as knowing through the bodysense. We know the ruupas that are cold and heat through the bodysense. When mahaa-kusala citta arises with sati and pa~n~naa there are conditions to understand that it is wrong thinking and wrong remembrance to believe that the ruupas of the body are I, that they are Bussabong Ramphai. In reality this is only thinking. There is no I who will die, there are only ruupas which are cold, heat, softness, hardness, motion or pressure. These arise and fall away. Do I understand this or not yet? She looked into the mirror and found that she was very thin and she found herself very ugly. She realized that her way of thinking was not according to the Dhamma when she disliked what appeared through the eyes. She paid respect to the feet of Acharn and Khun Duangduen who visited her and then she felt cheerful at heart. ---------- Nina. #110617 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, thanks for adding your comments, witty as usual:-) Look f/w to your one-liners interspersed in the other set of notes. You mean you find "Dhamma discussions in real time" more testing? Just wasn't sure.... it's very different, isn't it? And when did you turn 60? we'd have found a candle for one of those choco cakes if we'd known! Seems to be a very prestigious club on DSG - the over 60s... congratulations! Metta Sarah --- On Mon, 11/10/10, Ken H wrote: >It was very nice to see Jon and Sarah again, and to meet pt and Herman for the first time. Also, I find Dhamma discussions in real time have advantages over the internet. They are more testing for people like me - who generally take a lot of time to formulate their thoughts. #110618 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:25 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Azita I found your comments interesting, because the kind of meditation I do, although taught in a Theravadin tradition, feels more like some kind of pranayama than "kosher" meditation on the breath. But it is so very deeply pleasant and, more importantly, seems to condition more resilience to objects. Haven't you found that the pranayama you do during the morning stays with you during the day, that you can fall into it easily at any time during the day and that, whether it is akusala or kusala when you're during it, it can help you have more resilience, less sensitivity to objects, and therefore more likely to have non-harmful-to-others, non hostile, non averse, non greedy response to objects? I always remember Nina saying she didn't understand why everyone wants to be calm, have calm, but for me, it is the above kind of resilience that makes calm so important. I remember once I was sitting on the train meditating in the method I use, that is very suspect from a kosher point of view, but I just fall into it so easily, and there I was on the train, meditating quite deeply, this pleasant sensation filling the body. When I sat down the train was empty, but as I sat people gradually filled the train, and when I opened my eyes, I found myself looking right into a woman's low cut blouse! There were her mammarian treasures, right in front of my eyes. And I'll always remember just thinking "oh, breasts" but then just falling back into the meditation, because it was so much more pleasant than trying to glance surreptisiously (?) at those breasts. At any other time, there would have been a lot of akusala, and maybe transgression by looking in a way that made the woman uncomfortable. That's just one example, but I think there are many. So don't you think that using the breath in that way, whether akusala or not at the time you are doing it, helps to make you less prone to have aksuala responses to sensory objects during the day? Metta, Phil p.s oops, I erased your comments, but you know which post I'm referring to. #110619 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting egberdina Hi pt and all, On 10 October 2010 11:44, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi all, > > A short report on the Saturday meeting in Manly - I had the pleasure of > meeting KenH, Herman, Sarah and Jon for a discussion, and despite all the > hype and anticipation, I have to say it's been one of the nicest meetings > I've attended. I expected KenH and Herman to be a couple of these really > sullen and stern old men, and yet, they both turned out to be really nice > and soft spoken guys. So, despite what everyone thought, the meeting itself > was productive and there wasn't any real confrontation as far as I could > tell. There were differing positions and viewpoints on some matters, but I > was really glad that there also seemed to be a genuine attempt to try and > understand each other despite the differences in terminology. In fact, by > the end, when everyone realised how well the meeting went, KenH and Herman > tried to have a big argument on purpose, pulling up all the most > controversial subjects like formal meditation and the like, but it just > didn't work :) So, all in all, I found it to be a very pleasant and useful > discussion. Hopefully, others might add a bit more, and I'll also add a bit > later on some of the topics we discussed. > > Thank you for this great account of our meeting, pt. It was indeed a pleasure to meet you and KenH, and to catch up with Sarah and Jon again. Vicki and I have only just returned to Bathurst a few hours ago, so it will take a while before we get back into the swing of things. But I've got my priorities straight, and I've just posted to dsg one of the photos that you took on the balcony. One day your turn will come, to be on a photo, that is :-) I don't wish to embarrass anyone, but I would just like to publicly apologise to you and KenH for some of the things I have written to you both in the past. Turns out I had you confused with another person ( who I would never ever apologise to :-)), and turns out I jumped to the entirely wrong conclusion about KenH. I had wrongly assumed that Ken does not consider anew each time he hears something relevant to the dhamma, I had wrongly assumed that he was like a broken record, a needle stuck in a groove. Well, I was wrong. If it helps anybody, I'm here to tell you that Ken does consider, with care, every time he hears something relevant to the dhamma. So again, sorry, guys. It turns out that I need to carefully consider more often, rather than jump to conclusions. More about the business-end tomorrow, god willing :-) Herman #110620 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:56 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Let's not forget the text Chris posted is from the Vinaya, the guide of behaviour for monks. I don't think the prescriptions and prohibitions in the Vinaya apply to householders except perhaps during the full moon observances when 8 precepts rather than the usual 5 are followed, including avoiding musical entertainment, etc. > > The question for householders is whether behaviour consitutes akusala kamma patha and whethere it causes harm to ourselves, others, or both. So for example, singing BUddhist verses with great joy and longing, even all full of wrong view and clinging to a misguided belief that the practice could lead to favourable rebirth would not be so bad, but using one's beautiful singing voice to seduce a woman and lead her into sexual misconduct (e.g a married woman, or a minor) would constitute akusala kamma patha and be harmful for one's self, for the other, for both. You mean, you can pick up women with Buddhist chants? [Note to self...] That's the only kind of case, to give just one example, where entertainment would be considered harmful by the Buddha as far as it applies for the householder, I think. To give another example, watching violent or pornographic movies that condition violent or pornographic behaviour (including mental behaviour) in oneself. > > It's all about behaviour for the householder. I have an interesting question about this. Let's say that you watch pornography and don't engage in any unwholesome behavior as a result, does the watching of the pornography itself constitute unwholesome behavior? After all, there are activities that are done alone that are not considered correct behavior. For instance, if I get drunk alone I may not behave improperly in public, but the drunkenness is still akusala in its own right, isn't it? Another related issue - let's say the people in the porn film have been exploited. Does one create negative kamma by supporting that activity? I remember a passage which surprised me, in which Buddha said that it was okay to eat meat if the monk didn't kill the animal himself. So is it okay to benefit from exploitative behavior if one does not directly cause the exploitation? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110621 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:08 am Subject: Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Thanks for letting me share some reflections, I think it will help me get throught this intoxication. > > Should I post a picture of my sexy body in the member's corner!? NO! Of course you should! We're all very disciplined here - we won't fantasize! :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - #110622 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:46 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Lukas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > The experience of paccayas [conditions] coming together is also included in ~naa.nasa.mvara. As to the sa.mvara mentioned in 'the bhikkhu is tolerant/stoic in the face of cold and heat' (M.i,10), it is called khantisa.mvara [restraint through tolerance/forebearance]. And the sa.mvara that is mentioned in 'the bhikkhu does not accept/receive/take the kaamavitakka [pleasurable preoccupation] that has arisen' is called viiriyasa.mvaro [the restraint through diligence/effort]. Viiriyasa.mvaro also includes aajiivapaarisuddhi [pure livelihood]. The said five sa.mvaras as well as the abstention from objects experienced by kulaputtas [clansmen/sons of a (good) lineage/family] who fear evil, are altogether called sa.mvara siila.> Just broke this down a little above for closer inspection. These distinctions are useful - thanks for quoting this section of the Vism. So there is being "tolerant/stoic" in the face of conditions; there is "not accepting/receiving" the "pleasurable preoccupation," and there is "abstention from objects" - three different capabilities or levels of capabilities, which also form three strategies or means for guarding the senses from disruptive conditions. To my interpretation, working backwards, the third way of dealing with disruptive experiences is to avoid them; the second way is to "not let them in," and the first way is to accept the experiences but to be "tolerant/stoic," which implies that the effect on the mind is controlled even though the conditions are experienced. This first way of dealing with conditions would probably be for one who has sufficient sati and understanding to "guard the senses" even while experiencing potentially disruptive conditions. I recall a discussion - I think on another list - where it was said that the arahat while in the world still experiences contact and vedana, but instead of the vedana becoming the springboard for proliferations causing further kamma, the arahat detaches from the vedana and the reaction stops at simple pleasantness or unpleasantness without further delusory concept or attachment being formed. I wonder what others think about this? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110623 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:46 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! truth_aerator Hi RobertE, all, > I have an interesting question about this. Let's say that you >watch pornography and don't engage in any unwholesome behavior as a >result, does the watching of the pornography itself constitute >unwholesome behavior? There is akusala kamma being done on a mental level that doesn't spill to body/verbal action. Still bad, just not as bad as action done in mind and the body. >Another related issue - let's say the people in the porn film have >been exploited. Does one create negative kamma by supporting that >activity? As long as you don't pay, it probably isn't a physical support. Only akusala action at the mind only. >So is it okay to benefit from exploitative behavior if one does not >directly cause the exploitation? Except for food, then probably No. IMHO. With metta, Alex #110624 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 2. glenjohnann Hello Nina Thank you so much for translating and posting these parts of Khun Bong's diary. It is so helpful to read her reminders and particularly her expression of the Dhamma. She was very brave to face the truth of what she understands directly and what she understands intellectually. I particularly like the following comment: > There is no `I', no self to be found. There are > people only when we think of them, but my understanding is not ready > for this yet. I like the idea of there being people." Such a good way of putting it: "There are people only when we think of them ..." I remember times of looking for visual object, the rupas we take for our body etc. - when in reality, these are constantly arising and falling away. It is ignorance which shields the truth about realities and only when there is sufficient panna can one accept that for the most part we live in a world of concepts. When one realizes (initially through intellectual understanding) that "there are people only when we think of them" - it is very different from "looking for" nama's and rupa's when we think about them. Later Khun Bong spoke of attaasannaa being that which remembers (wrongly) that there are people. And then of wrong thinking and wrong remembrance which takes the four great elements that can be known through bodysense for *I* or me. Her writing has left a strong impression. She made a great gift with her writing. Anumodana - for the diary, for Khun Weerat sharing it and for the translation and posting it here. Ann > > Acharn telephoned her and asked whether she listened to the Dhamma. > She answered that she did not. But she often thought about the > Dhamma. She thought: " There is no self who develops understanding > but this is only a characteristic of naama dhamma. If I say that > thinking is a naama dhamma this is only understood at the level of > thinking. At that moment I do not study the characteristic of naama > dhamma which is really not `I' " > > She wrote that she likes to listen to Acharn, because what she did > not understand at first she can come to understand, and as to what > she understood already, she can become more convinced of. > > Khun Bong wrote about a visit of Acharn and Khun Duangduen. Khun > Duangduen brought along delicious food for her as she did many times. > Acharn explained that kusala can change one's life. Khun Bong wrote: > "It makes me study the Dhamma instead of shopping and carrying things > home. Now instead of this I carry things outside, giving them away. > Because I know that I cannot take them with me. I feel very happy. > > I came into this life without anything and I I will go without > anything. One has enough things already and it is not necessary to > search for more. The ariyan wealth is of the highest value." > > Acharn said: " We are born, we see things, and we cannot do anything > about them anymore, and then we are born again. We shall not have > understanding if we do not develop it." > > Khun Bong remembered Acharn's words: "In truth, there is no person, > no being, but wrong remembrance of self (attaasa~n~naa) remembers > that there are people, there is "I". Ruupa, the four Great Elements, > can be known through the bodysense. Thinking is not the same as > knowing through the bodysense. > > We know the ruupas that are cold and heat through the bodysense. When > mahaa-kusala citta arises with sati and pa~n~naa there are conditions > to understand that it is wrong thinking and wrong remembrance to > believe that the ruupas of the body are "I', that they are Bussabong > Ramphai. In reality this is only thinking. There is no `I' who will > die, there are only ruupas which are cold, heat, softness, hardness, > motion or pressure. These arise and fall away. Do I understand this > or not yet?" > > She looked into the mirror and found that she was very thin and she > found herself very ugly. She realized that her way of thinking was > not according to the Dhamma when she disliked what appeared through > the eyes. > > She paid respect to the feet of Acharn and Khun Duangduen who visited > her and then she felt cheerful at heart. > > ---------- > > Nina. > > > > > > #110625 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:05 pm Subject: Serene Calm! bhikkhu5 Friends: Imperturbable Calm! The Blessed Buddha once said: Knowing that the other person is angry, The one who remains aware and calm acts in and for his own best interest, and for the other's interest, too! Samyutta Nikaya I, 162 Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages: One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! Udana IV, 7 Calm is his mind. Calm is his speech. Calm is his action. So is the tranquillity; So is the equanimity; of one freed by the insight of right understanding... Dhammapada 96 More on this sweetly silenced Tranquillity (Passaddhi): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Forest_Bliss.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Feeding_Tranquillity.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Tranquillity_Passaddhi.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #110626 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 6 October 2010 15:27, Robert E wrote: > > > > > I only ever got the feeling that the concepts that were a no-no for the > > Buddha was "the self" (and thus permanence), and that the purpose of any > > teaching re seeing hearing only etc was to undermine that concept. I mean > to > > say, the Buddha still addresses Bahiya, doesn't he, and speaks to him > after > > hearing his repeated questions for advice. > > There's a functional, but not a final, contradiction between an absolute > acknowledgment of anatta, and the conventional world that we live in and > refer to each other within. You seem to keep wanting an either/or choice > between conventional reality and the realization of what conventional > reality is composed of. > An absolute acknowledgment of anatta, to me, equates with an absolute denial of kamma, not with a denial of the conventional world. Anatta doesn't imply that "the world" isn't happening, it only implies that there is no-one doing anything to make it happen. > That would be like a biologist insisting there are only cells because that > is what he sees in the microscope and that we cannot reconcile the > understanding of whole solid organisms and the cells of which they are > composed. > > Buddha can seamlessly get Bahiya's attention by calling Bahiya, thus > appealing to the sense of identity of the organism then known as Bahiya, > while at the same time instructing that identity that the sense of self is > an unreal mental fabrication. > And conversely, Bahiya can get the Buddha's attention with his persistent nagging. What goers out the door with wonderful suttas like this one is the notion that beings are causally discrete beings. We all influence each other. There's no such thing as a discreet self, with its own discreet kamma. > What you, me and Bahiya do with that information is take a closer look at > what's actually going on, while still cooperatively responding to our names > and to-do lists. Without abandoning conventional reality, we can still > become smarter about what is actually taking place. > Yes, agreed. > > Does knowing that the walls of my house are made of atoms which are mostly > composed of space interfere with my walking around the house or leaning on a > wall? Buddha doesn't have to get stupider in order to get smarter. He can > function normally and develop wisdom at the same time. > > We can use concepts but also see through them to what they are referring > to. That is a more precise development of mindfulness and discernment. I > think that Buddha also said to see through concepts and meanings attached to > objects, body, other people and the world in general in order to see them as > phenomena to detach from and reduce our clinging and craving for them. > > It's hard to have anatta with regard to oneself without challenging our > attachment to all the people and objects that we take as part of self > through association and clinging. > > The Bahiya Sutta starts of with Bahiya's question whether he himself was an arahant or not. The Buddha is able to make it clear to him that the idea of a self being an arahant is a delusional nonsense. But let's be clear, anatta does not imply that the bull that gored Bahiya was a concept. Concepts do not bleed to death. Cheers Herman > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = > > > #110627 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:45 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Sarah and all, I'll leave 1, 2 and 3 for now: ----------------- 4. Can we really speak of consciousness without an object? Always the experiencing of an object... -------------------- The Abhidhamma clearly says that namas are experienced separately from their arammana. I think the big question is, why do so many people prefer the contrary theory? Does it seem more logical? Are there examples in conventional reality that would support the contrary theory? I can't see any. When a car contacts a tree we don't say the car and the tree are one. ----------------------------- 5. Seems to be hearing all the time, but seems one has to avert to listen....long discussions (magpie still singing, waves, quiet, gentle discussion with no interruptions, no raised voices... quite remarkable) Roof and walls example, hearing and sound - lots for folk to elaborate on. ----------------------------- It would be good if we did have to avert to listen. We could ignore that dripping bathroom tap at 3 o'clock in the morning. -------------------------------------- 6. Wave theories, sound particles, sound as movement of ear - Herman and Pt going great guns on shared acoustic and dhamma interests... the perfect pitch at 440 secs(?), momentary - meaningless. Just sound heard, the rest are concepts. Time in relation... As Ken clarified, we're not talking about sound particles but rupas. More on the nature of sound. ------------------------------------------- We don't need to disbelieve in science in order to believe in satipatthana. As pt explained, the two run parallel. I think it's a point that we need to be really sure about. We mustn't have any unspoken suspicions that the Dhamma and science run counter to each other. --------------------------------- 7. Thinking vs processing. Thinking as a misleading term for all the cittas arising and falling away now in between the sense processes. Is it necessary to stop talking to understand hearing? (Alex, you got many mentions!) The distinction between the senses, the Buddha's pointing to the truths to be known now, awareness now as ordinary as seeing. No need to stop any activity. ---------------------------------- Even that (stopping) would be an activity. ---------------------------------------- 8. Initial training, meditation training? - J. present moment training by understanding dhammas now. Not selecting an object, not trying to analyse what is occurring. [Cake break and of course, the choco cake was the favourite. Next time, the choice will be choc, choc or more choc:-)] ----------------------------------------- Remember too, it was mud cake - not just the ordinary kind. (Not that I am interested in trivialities.) ---------------------------------- 9. Back to Ken's smelling issue from Bangkok. He had asked a question about knowing smelling and KS had asked in return whether there was smelling appearing at that moment. No, it wasn't, but was he "hard done by"? Surely, it arises throughout the day. Yes, but if it doesn't appear, it can't be known.... more to go on this... ----------------------------------- Some people might say it's time Ken got over it. I'll stop there for now and let pt have a turn. ------ <. . .> S: > Last bits of choc cake went to Vicki and Pt and a little later Herman and Pt left and the rest of us went for a stroll by the beach... ------- Let me assure everyone, there *is* a typo in there. :-) Ken H #110628 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 7 October 2010 06:57, epsteinrob wrote: > > > > I imagine that the state being spoken about is not one in which the > > > experiencer is stupified and senseless > > > > > > > What makes you believe that babies are stupified or senseless? > > I am just responding to your statement and using the baby in terms of your > analogy from above, which I here repeat: > > > "I imagine that this would be like the conceptless state of the stupid baby > lying on its back." > > So since you called the baby "stupid" I just extended it a bit into > "stupified and senseless," accepting your characterization for the sake of > discussion of the subject. > I was only quoting the Buddha, who in MN78, refers to a stupid baby boy lying on its back. > If you would like to use a stupider example than a lively and healthy baby, > such as a lobotomized zebra, that would be fine with me too. > > I think the point you were making however was that without concepts we are > dumbfounded in some way. > > > Exactly. And that is the Buddha's point as well, in that sutta. > > > like a little baby who can't tell one sensation from another, or one > person > > > from another, but rather someone who's senses have been refined to the > point > > > of microscopic discernment and who can see directly what is in front of > them > > > at a particular time, rather than confusing it with errant concepts > that do > > > not truly represent what is there. > > > > > > > > A baby has no concepts, IMO. Not even a self-concept. I am sure that a > baby > > experiences exactly and only what it experiences, and not what it thinks. > > Because it doesn't think, IMO. Still the Buddha does not think much of > > genuine, but baby, anatta. > > I think the point is that while the baby, like anyone else, including an > amoeba, the baby's failure to conceptualize does not make it the equivalent > of an amoeba, and the arahant's refraining from conceptualization does not > make him the equivalent of a baby. The refined wisdom, understanding, > concentration and discernment of the arahant > Sorry, Rob E, but I read you as making the same mistakes that Bahiya was. An arahant can be an arahant only to others, not to themselves. are not based on conceptualization, but on direct mental functions that have > been skillfully developed. If I see a car coming I don't have to go through > a complex thought process to realize it's dangerous and get out of the way. > I already know that and as soon as I see it I see "what it is" in that > situation, without any necessity for additional thought. A baby would *have* > to conceptualize to learn that where I would not. And an arahant who has > been trained to look at things directly rather than add a bunch of > unnecessary explanatory or delusory proliferations on top of what is > perceived, thus distorting what is perceived, does not have to conceptualize > in order to see what is there. It's the skill set in which he's been > trained. He's been trained to tell a physical impression from a subsequent > mental process about the physical impression, ie, rupa from nama, and he > knows it when he sees it. The idea that the lack of conceptualization > stupefies or infantalizes him is not correct. He already has enough mental > prowess that he doesn't need to think. > > It is not what the Buddha says. From MN78 "So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments." > We have many many examples of this in our lives - we don't have to think > about how to use language, how to walk, how to eat, etc., etc., because > we've been trained. And a lot of the thinking and conceptualizing that we > engage in does not have to do with necessary problem-solving but with > neurotic and delusory conditioning, worry, anxiety, greed, jealousy, regret, > etc., the whole plethora of craving-and-aversion-based proliferations. > Getting rid of that kind of thinking makes us smarter, not stupider. That > kind of thinking is dumb and is the support structure for samsara's delusory > aspect. > > We don't lose the ability to conceptualize by reaching this skill set. We > can go back to thinking of a "table" as a "table" any time we want. But to > see the nature of perception and meaning that we are conditioned into we > need to be able to perceive the building blocks. Even right now we can see > that the table is a smooth square surface on four legs and that each of > these components breaks down even further into various raw perceptions that > are assembled into a table. Buddha advised that we understand the nature of > the object as an experience, what the contact is like, what the basic > emotional reaction is like, how it is perceived, how it is mentally > processed, what kinds of unnecessary proliferations are then caused, and how > consciousness takes it all in. So that is the process in question. Then we > can perhaps go back to the experience itself and refrain from taking vedana > all the way up into neurotic proliferations and live a saner existence on > the way to detaching and letting go of craving and clinging. > > That's sort of the picture to me. You accept the conditioned meanings as an > inevitable fixture of life, perhaps the basis of our lives, but I think > Buddha advised us to step back and attempt to look at those conditioned > meanings with a critical view, and then detach from them. Isn't that the > path? > > I think the Buddha's focus was to demonstrate the illusory nature of the concept of self, not concepts in general. > > > > It would be like an artist who focuses on the exact texture or color of > a > > > patch of oil paint and follows and shapes it exactly. That artist may > have a > > > concept of what he is doing before and after the moment, but in that > moment > > > he focuses totally on the exactness of what is there. Thus his > conceptual > > > understanding afterwards has more precise knowledge and experience to > work > > > with when he goes back to thinking. > > > > > > > > Again, I suspect you have some representational theory going on. In that > > framework, I suppose that you will think that developing an exact concept > of > > reality means something. > > The construction of our reality and how it causes suffering is most at > issue. To understand how it works may allow us to get some creative freedom > within it, and make choices about what to adopt and what to detach from. > Maybe you think that's impossible. > > I do not understand the Buddha to be saying that concepts in general cause suffering, only the illusory concept of self, with its illusory kamma. Cheers Herman > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = > > > #110629 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 12 October 2010 14:45, Ken H wrote: > > > > 4. Can we really speak of consciousness without an object? Always the > experiencing of an object... > -------------------- > > The Abhidhamma clearly says that namas are experienced separately from > their arammana. I think the big question is, why do so many people prefer > the contrary theory? Does it seem more logical? > > I am just working my way through the beautiful volume "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" which Sarah kindly gave to me. On pg 21 it says "There cannot just be citta alone, without an object, that which is known by citta". To me, citta being an object for itself would lead to an infinite regress of objectless knowing, and therefore unreal and quite illogical. So, what remains unclear is how citta can be said to be experienced separately from an object other than itself. > Are there examples in conventional reality that would support the contrary > theory? I can't see any. When a car contacts a tree we don't say the car and > the tree are one. > > What is clear is that there cannot be citta without object. But there can be car without tree, or tree without car. If you could make it clear how citta can experience itself, without being its own object, that would be helpful towards understanding why you say what you say. Cheers Herman #110630 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The 3 Types of Persons... sarahprocter... Dear Han, Many thanks for your additional comments and interesting quote from Ledi Sayadaw. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > 3) A person who will recover if he takes the right medicine and treatment, but who will fail to recover and die if he fails to take the right medicine and treatment. <...> > So for me, I still have a lot to do more for a good recovery. .... S: Yes, we all have to keep taking the right medicine and treatment and now is the time for it! I would say that only a sotapanna is certain of regaining health or a bodhisatta destined to become a Pacceka Buddha or Sammasambuddha. What do you think? Metta Sarah ======= #110631 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:20 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Azita, and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > - meditation and how the 2 hrs seems to calm down the mind, the mind stops jumping, some sort of awareness of breath? less nervousness...feels like it's the right way... What about if it's staring at the waves or a candle flame or any other object? In what way is it kusala? > > azita: always an interesting discussion eh? Having done an intensive w/shop on yogic pranayama jst this year, I've become very aware of breath! It is a very pleasant abiding sitting quietly in the early morning doing 'breathin'! > However, I have no idea if its kusala or akusala but would bet a million dollars {aussie$ that is - we are equal to US$}!! that its akusala. I say this bec altho it feels peaceful, I think its mostly attachment to pleasant feeling. > I'm thinking that if it is/was kusala then there would be 'knowing' the kusala. Like some sort of understanding that would know the kusala from the akusala. A few thoughts about attachment to pleasant feeling, and knowing kusala vs. akusala. It seems to me that "pleasant feeling" is one thing, and attachment another. While it may be that one is more likely to be attached to pleasantness than to unpleasantness, Buddha talks about jhana as a "pleasant abiding," and talks about the pleasure derived from the state that is "beyond feeling and perception." While this is a highly advanced sort of pleasantness, there is no doubt that pleasantness itself is not the problem, but attachment in general and attachment to lower pleasures in particular. My convoluted point is that rather than get rid of, or avoid, or dismiss, pleasant experiences, it might be better to focus on the attachment, and allow the pleasantness. Doesn't pleasant experience give some preview of the higher pleasantness of the more detached spiritual states? And if we can detach from the pleasant experiences without suppressing them, perhaps we can get a preview of that combination of detachment and pleasantness that attends greater discernment. I think that things like samatha meditation, pranayama and other spiritual disciplines have that dual potential to form attachment to pleasant - and sometimes blissful - sensations or states, while at the same time elevating the awareness to a state that is more likely to discern kusala and detach from clinging and craving - if mindfulness and sampajaa are cultivated at the same time. If detachment is practiced, I think that yoga, pranayama, meditation and other disciplines that purify and raise the energy and awareness level, have the capacity to increase awareness and lead to more kusala development. ... I recall Phra Alan saying something like 'its better to make someone happy than unhapppy' - now not sure what he meant by that, but at the time I thought its sounded quite right. Mayb bec making someone happy can be kusala while making someone unhappy is more likely akusala. Just a thought on this too - Although we may become attached to happiness and sometimes may be too attached to making sure others are happy too, again with detachment isn't it better to cultivate and spread happiness rather than unhappiness? Isn't the ultimate point of the path an unalloyed happiness that is no longer marred by delusion and clinging? Buddha has spoken of the life of the arahant and the experience of nibbana as the highest, unalloyed happiness in many different ways. So I don't think happiness itself is to be shunned, though happiness dependent on attachment causes suffering. So I think the comment by Phra Alan and your original instinct about it is correct. The problem is when attachment "ruins" the happiness and makes it dependent on an object that is conceptual, changeable and unsatisfying. One can't depend on such an object, but happiness itself, with detachment and freedom, I think is good to cultivate, and is, as you originally said, more likely to be kusala. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110632 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:30 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Ken H., and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > - Why breath? So cool? Kusala or akusala? > --------------------------- > > I see Azita has commented, and I think we mentioned her (and her yoga) at the time, didn't we? Just as with Sarah (who also enjoys yoga) Azita does not claim to be developing samatha. Nice to hear your comments. Just focusing on this one point - since samatha itself is not an invention of the Buddha's but along with jhanas was practiced for many centuries, why would one doubt that yoga and other disciplines develop samatha? I would think that understanding-based qualities such as sati, panna, vipassana, satipatthana, might be more in doubt, but samatha is not that mysterious. Do we not accept the possibility of genuine calm and peacefulness being developed from psychophysical disciplines? Sometimes it seems that too much mystery is imbued into some fairly straightforward areas, and they are made almost impossible when they are not. If one experiences greater peace and equanimity from yoga or calming meditation, why doubt it? Even the Buddha's version of jhana is based on suppression of defilements rather than eradication, and the role of insight is an additional factor that is added to the way in which jhana is treated by investigation, but samatha or jhana themselves are kusala and can be developed in a fairly straightforward way. I'd be interested in what others think about this. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110633 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ...as I sat people gradually filled the train, and when I opened my eyes, I found myself looking right into a woman's low cut blouse! Phil, you have intriguing kamma. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110634 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:37 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > I have an interesting question about this. Let's say that you >watch pornography and don't engage in any unwholesome behavior as a >result, does the watching of the pornography itself constitute >unwholesome behavior? > > There is akusala kamma being done on a mental level that doesn't spill to body/verbal action. Still bad, just not as bad as action done in mind and the body. > > > >Another related issue - let's say the people in the porn film have >been exploited. Does one create negative kamma by supporting that >activity? > > As long as you don't pay, it probably isn't a physical support. Only akusala action at the mind only. > > > > >So is it okay to benefit from exploitative behavior if one does not >directly cause the exploitation? > > Except for food, then probably No. Thanks for your comments. Obviously, the kind of kamma and conditions that are caused by various types of thought and action is a complex area - difficult to sort out. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110635 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:43 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, You wrote to Pt: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >...The biggest thing I noticed when I returned to meditation (such taht it is) is that the Dhamma kind of came down into my body more, which I would dare say is akin to mindfulness of the body, and we know how valuable the Buddha said that is, and that it must come first. .... S: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "mindfulness of the body" here. Usually, people take such references to an idea of a body, "my body" as a whole. As the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, it is awareness of the rupas (mistakenly) taken for "my body" that there is awareness and understanding of. "There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and derived materiality, in a body." "...The character of contemplating the collection of primary and derived materiality is comparable to the separation of the leaf covering of a plantain-trunk, or is like the opening of an empty fist." Just dhammas, just elements, not "my sexy body" or "my ugly body" to be found:-)) Further quoting: "In this body, apart from the above mentioned collection, there is no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong belief, in many ways, in the bare groups of things mentioned above. Therefore the men of old said: 'What he sees that is not (properly) seen; 'What is seen, that he does not (properly) see; Not seeing (properly) he is shackled clean; And he, the shackled fool, cannot get free." "Not seeing properly he is shackled = Not seing this body as it actually is, with the eye of wisdom, he thinks: 'This is mine, this am I, this is my self,' and is bound with the fetter of defilement." Where does it say in the texts what object of satipatthana must be known first or that there must be awareness of, say, tangble objects taken for the body first? How many and for how long first? Does it also mean that there must be awareness of feelings before awareness of cittas and then awareness of cittas before awareness of dhammas such as greed and anger? Dhammas are conditioned. No one can select or know what will appear at any given moment. We find our self, our body, very, very important, so I believe this is why the dhammas taken for the body are elaborated on at the outset - to lead to more detachment from "my body", "my special body". It doesn't mean there cannot be or should not be awareness of visible objects, sounds, feelings, likes, dislikes and any other dhammas that may be apparent. Always glad to hear your reflections! Metta Sarah p.s. Like Rob Ep, I'm curious to see your new Member pic too:-) Test us out, as he says!! ========= #110636 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > An absolute acknowledgment of anatta, to me, equates with an absolute denial > of kamma, not with a denial of the conventional world. Anatta doesn't imply > that "the world" isn't happening, it only implies that there is no-one doing > anything to make it happen. This statement seems true and yet is too complicated for me to deal with easily. I have to think about it. Can there be kamma without a person? If not, there is no anatta. I'm not sure if anatta can be met halfway. If yes, you are saying there is no kamma. But that assumes that kamma occurs to an individual rather than to a configuration of kandhas. If kamma and anatta are in conflict, how would you resolve that conflict? I think this is a place you often wind up, from my experience of your posts and our discussions - where the final conclusion is in some way that the self is real, because people treat each other as real. But where does that really leave anatta and the idea that there is no self? Is that not a denial of anatta? The fact that I move a table and chairs around does not imply that I think the table has a "self," yet when I move my body around it seems to imply that I am saying that body contains or is contained by a self. However, why can't I move that body around, respond to my name etc. while understanding it is like moving the table around, nothing more? If that is not acceptable then isn't one still attached to the concept and sentiment of one's self being actual? ... > > What you, me and Bahiya do with that information is take a closer look at > > what's actually going on, while still cooperatively responding to our names > > and to-do lists. Without abandoning conventional reality, we can still > > become smarter about what is actually taking place. > > > > Yes, agreed. ... > > It's hard to have anatta with regard to oneself without challenging our > > attachment to all the people and objects that we take as part of self > > through association and clinging. > > > > > The Bahiya Sutta starts of with Bahiya's question whether he himself was an > arahant or not. The Buddha is able to make it clear to him that the idea of > a self being an arahant is a delusional nonsense. So then what becomes an arahant? That is a nonsense question too, yes? There are just delusory thoughts versus clear seeing. Other than that, is anyone home? > But let's be clear, anatta does not imply that the bull that gored Bahiya > was a concept. Concepts do not bleed to death. The body bleeds to death, and where is Bahiya in all that? What is he? And what is the experience of the body bleeding to death? What does that mean for Bahiya? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110637 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:20 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------- KH: > > Millions of people spend a fortune on self-help books courses and seminars that simply don't work. >> R: > How do you know? I would say, as opposed to a black-and-white point of view, that some of them are helpful and some of them are not. Too wishy-washy? :-) But it's the truth. Not everything can be painted with the same brush. I would judge a program, whether it's yoga, therapy or a seminar of some kind, on what it purports to do and whether it does it or not. <. . .> -------------- I should have been clearer that I was only talking about psychobabblers. Legitimate therapists, and other people who are honest about what they are teaching, are not included in my tirade. My main source of information has been a radio interview with the author of "SHAM (How the Self Help Actualization Movement made America helpless.)" ------------------------- RE: > TV therapy with Dr. Phil is another matter - I don't think that has great value, but it may to those who are on the show. Who knows? ------------------------ I think I know, and I have never seen an episode of Dr Phil! :-) --------------------------------- KH: > > Not only do they not work, they actually leave those people more dependent, more demoralised and more helpless than ever. >> RE: > How do you know this? Do you have a basis for thinking this that has some sort of data or knowledge to back it up? Or is just another convenient thing for you to make up and then think you are right without real evidence? It's easy to say things, Ken. That doesn't mean they are true. ---------------------------------- I think the modern popular culture, which started in America and has spread to just about every other country, is pathetic. And being as pathetic as possible has become a matter of pride! "Ignorant, and proud of it!" is one way I have seen it described. ---------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Some of those teachers may claim to have "achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana" I don't know. <. . .> Now that I have acquired my new "no-control" perspective on the Dhamma, I am more skeptical of their claims than ever. >> RE: > You're free to be skeptical, but still - if someone has the discipline to follow the actual monastic practices that Buddha described a couple thousand years ago, one can't assume that they haven't achieved a high degree of jhana or accomplishment in satipatthana, or that they are busy exercising some sort of "control" that goes against your definition of kusala and anatta. Truth is you just don't know. ------------------------- I think if I heard one of them giving a Dhamma talk I would "know" within seconds. --------------------------------- RE: > I respect someone who follows the Buddha's teaching and stays with it for decades developing skill and understanding. When Buddha described the advanced monks in the anapanasati sutta, we agree that for *them* the practices he described were kusala and skillful. --------------------------------- They were just doing what came naturally to them. And vipassana was conditioned to arise while they were doing it. --------------------------- RE: > So why would they not be for a modern practitioner who has followed the exact same path? Your view on this seems inconsistent to me. We have seen criticism of householders who try to do these practices without developing samatha, but surely someone who is following the monastic path in this way is in a different category. --------------------------- Only if the monastic life comes naturally to them. If it is lived with the aim of gaining something then it is affected, and inappropriate. ----------------------------------- <. . .> RE: > What I find offensive is not your forthrightness, which I admire, but I think you are too self-assured that whatever glib conclusion you come to about what others are doing must be correct just because you think it. That is dangerous and is based on your thinking that only your own discipline is correct, so everything else must be wrong, and not even worthy of respect. I just don't buy such a dogmatic view. ------------------------------------ I think all I would need to ask any purported Buddhist teacher is: "Is the Dhamma (the teaching of the Buddha) a way of understanding the realities of the present moment?" Ken H #110638 From: han tun Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: The 3 Types of Persons... hantun1 Dear Sarah, > S: Yes, we all have to keep taking the right medicine and treatment and now is the time for it! I would say that only a sotapanna is certain of regaining health or a bodhisatta destined to become a Pacceka Buddha or Sammasambuddha. What do you think? Han: I agree with you, partner! Respectfully, Han #110639 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:47 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Herman, ---- <. . .> H: > On pg 21 it says "There cannot just be citta alone, without an object, that which is known by citta". To me, citta being an object for itself would lead to an infinite regress of objectless knowing, and therefore unreal and quite illogical. So, what remains unclear is how citta can be said to be experienced separately from an object other than itself. ---- I think the argument was about the separate characteristics of citta and its object. Citta always has an object, but they are two distinct dhammas. Immediately (or almost immediately) after they have fallen away either one of them may be experienced by a following citta. They can't both be experienced by the same citta. ------------ <. . .> H: > What is clear is that there cannot be citta without object. But there can be car without tree, or tree without car. If you could make it clear how citta can experience itself, without being its own object, that would be helpful towards understanding why you say what you say. ------------ Citta can't experience itself. (There has never been any suggestion that it could.) Ken H #110640 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:04 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 hallo Phil, firstly, yr comments re the train ride and ladies breasts has elicted the shortest post I have ever seen from RobE - you've left him speechless!!:) LOL >> Hi Azita > > I found your comments interesting, because the kind of meditation I do, although taught in a Theravadin tradition, feels more like some kind of pranayama than "kosher" meditation on the breath. But it is so very deeply pleasant and, more importantly, seems to condition more resilience to objects. Haven't you found that the pranayama you do during the morning stays with you during the day, that you can fall into it easily at any time during the day and that, whether it is akusala or kusala when you're during it, it can help you have more resilience, less sensitivity to objects, and therefore more likely to have non-harmful-to-others, non hostile, non averse, non greedy response to objects? azita: Sometimes. Altho I dont think that my diminishing bad moods come from Pranayama but from learning the Dhamma. For example, I had to do some shopping and I greatly dislike big shopping centres and all the people wandering around doin' what, I ask myself? However, today, sort of 'out-of-the-blue' came a much friendlier sensation like 'we are all the same here, all in need of some loving kindness, all wandering around in samsara and here we are.....shopping????" It did make me smile. Phil: I always remember Nina saying she didn't understand why everyone wants to be calm, have calm, but for me, it is the above kind of resilience that makes calm so important. I remember once I was sitting on the train meditating in the method I use, that is very suspect from a kosher point of view, but I just fall into it so easily, and there I was on the train, meditating quite deeply, this pleasant sensation filling the body. When I sat down the train was empty, but as I sat people gradually filled the train, and when I opened my eyes, I found myself looking right into a woman's low cut blouse! There were her mammarian treasures, right in front of my eyes. Azita: i had heard that Japanese trains do get very crowded!!! Phil: And I'll always remember just thinking "oh, breasts" but then just falling back into the meditation, because it was so much more pleasant than trying to glance surreptisiously (?) at those breasts. At any other time, there would have been a lot of akusala, and maybe transgression by looking in a way that made the woman uncomfortable. That's just one example, but I think there are many. So don't you think that using the breath in that way, whether akusala or not at the time you are doing it, helps to make you less prone to have aksuala responses to sensory objects during the day? Azita: certainly helpful when stuck in traffic:) why not take some nice deep breaths, but not so sure that I'm less prone to akusala, mayb less dosa and more lobha - I dont really know - not enuff Panna to know those very moments. Nice chattin with you, Phil patience, courage and good cheer, azita #110641 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:48 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi Sarah > S: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "mindfulness of the body" here. > Usually, people take such references to an idea of a body, "my body" as a whole. > > As the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, it is awareness of the rupas (mistakenly) taken for "my body" that there is awareness and understanding of. " Thanks, I can't quite follow what you wrote, the attention isn't there tonight. But I'm reading Ven. Anaalayo's "Satipatthana, The Direct Path to Realization" so perhaps, *perhaps*, it will be a source I can use to engage in proper discussion. I doubt it though, not yet. I'm really not so concerned about what exactly mindfulness in the body is, when correctly understood. I just know that, as I was writing to Azita, when I use my method of meditation (highly suspect from an orthodox point of view, I'm the first to admit it) in which one uses the breath (which of course is not kosher) to fill the body with pleasant "breath energy", there is a kind of settling of the mind in a way which feels to me to be "in" the body, and that is good enough for me, for now. As you know, my main interest is in my conventional behaviour, and I use, yes use, gladly use, meditation, such as it is, to condition better behaviour. And I think it works. As for the member photo, well, we'll see, my body gets hotter looking every day, I had best wait until it reaches a peak of perfection before the inevitable decline. :) Metta, Phil #110642 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:49 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 Hallo Rob, : > > Hi Azita, and all. > > > > azita: always an interesting discussion eh? Having done an intensive w/shop on yogic pranayama jst this year, I've become very aware of breath! It is a very pleasant abiding sitting quietly in the early morning doing 'breathin'! > > However, I have no idea if its kusala or akusala but would bet a million dollars {aussie$ that is - we are equal to US$}!! that its akusala. I say this bec altho it feels peaceful, I think its mostly attachment to pleasant feeling. > > I'm thinking that if it is/was kusala then there would be 'knowing' the kusala. Like some sort of understanding that would know the kusala from the akusala. > Rob: A few thoughts about attachment to pleasant feeling, and knowing kusala vs. akusala. It seems to me that "pleasant feeling" is one thing, and attachment another. While it may be that one is more likely to be attached to pleasantness than to unpleasantness, Buddha talks about jhana as a "pleasant abiding," and talks about the pleasure derived from the state that is "beyond feeling and perception." While this is a highly advanced sort of pleasantness, there is no doubt that pleasantness itself is not the problem, but attachment in general and attachment to lower pleasures in particular. My convoluted point is that rather than get rid of, or avoid, or dismiss, pleasant experiences, it might be better to focus on the attachment, and allow the pleasantness. Doesn't pleasant experience give some preview of the higher pleasantness of the more detached spiritual states? And if we can detach from the pleasant experiences without suppressing them, perhaps we can get a preview of that combination of detachment and pleasantness that attends greater discernment. azita: I agree that pleasant feeling is one reality while attachment is a very different one. I dont think I was dismissing pleasantness, but trying to make a point that I dont know the difference between kusala and akusala. I mean I do on the intellectual level but when it comes to moment by moment - no idea, as I stated to Phil, not enuff Panna to know. "..detach from the pleasant experience without suppressing it...and perhaps get a preview of that combination of detachment and pleasantness that attends greater discernment..." Sorry Rob, but this sounds like something straight out of the 'impossible to do' yoga mags. Rob: I think that things like samatha meditation, pranayama and other spiritual disciplines have that dual potential to form attachment to pleasant - and sometimes blissful - sensations or states, while at the same time elevating the awareness to a state that is more likely to discern kusala and detach from clinging and craving - if mindfulness and sampajaa are cultivated at the same time. > > If detachment is practiced, I think that yoga, pranayama, meditation and other disciplines that purify and raise the energy and awareness level, have the capacity to increase awareness and lead to more kusala development. azita: how do you practise detachment? I have moved thro the yoga community for the last 40 yrs and unfortunately what I have observed is the huge egos of the yoga professionals, but you are saying that to practise detachment first, right? Gosh, Rob, some good ideas but not practical IMHO, no-one to practise detachment! > I recall Phra Alan saying something like 'its better to make someone happy than unhapppy' - now not sure what he meant by that, but at the time I thought its sounded quite right. Mayb bec making someone happy can be kusala while making someone unhappy is more likely akusala. > > Just a thought on this too - Although we may become attached to happiness and sometimes may be too attached to making sure others are happy too, again with detachment isn't it better to cultivate and spread happiness rather than unhappiness? Isn't the ultimate point of the path an unalloyed happiness that is no longer marred by delusion and clinging? Buddha has spoken of the life of the arahant and the experience of nibbana as the highest, unalloyed happiness in many different ways. So I don't think happiness itself is to be shunned, though happiness dependent on attachment causes suffering. So I think the comment by Phra Alan and your original instinct about it is correct. The problem is when attachment "ruins" the happiness and makes it dependent on an object that is conceptual, changeable and unsatisfying. One can't depend on such an object, but happiness itself, with detachment and freedom, I think is good to cultivate, and is, as you originally said, more likely to be kusala. azita: the point I was making was not to cultivate happiness but in relation to another being it was more likely to be kusala by making them happy than by making them sad bec that would surely be akusala. However I think that in both situations it would be akusala. Again, only Panna can know for sure...... Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #110643 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:55 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Azita > firstly, yr comments re the train ride and ladies breasts has elicted the shortest post I have ever seen from RobE - you've left him speechless!!:) LOL Ph: That was no lady, that was a messenger sent from the Deva realm to boost my confidence in sort-of-samattha meditation! ,> > azita: Sometimes. Altho I dont think that my diminishing bad moods come from Pranayama but from learning the Dhamma. For example, I had to do some shopping and I greatly dislike big shopping centres and all the people wandering around doin' what, I ask myself? However, today, sort of 'out-of-the-blue' came a much friendlier sensation like 'we are all the same here, all in need of some loving kindness, all wandering around in samsara and here we are.....shopping????" > It did make me smile. Ph: Yes, I know what you mean. I find reflecting that everybody who was born in the human realm must have some pretty good kamma at work in past lives to be a helpful reflection. But I'd be interested if you come to sense that the Pranayama conditions a kind of resilience, a kind of wooden door vs the soft ball of clay response to objects. Of course that is the simile used to describe the benefits of mindfulness in the body. As I was just writing to Sarah, I don't have the attention span to study seriously and discusss seriously what a correct understanding of mindfulness in the body is, but for me it could be found in or conditioned by yoga, and I would be surprised if it wasn't...the kind of meditation I do is closer to pranayama than proper Buddhist meditaiton, I think...and that's fine for me. > > >>> Nice chattin with you, Phil > You too Azita, thanks. Metta, Phil #110644 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:57 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Rob > Phil, you have intriguing kamma. I'm more a vipaka man myself! ;) Metta, Phil #110645 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Rob E, On 7 October 2010 07:04, Robert E wrote: > > > > > Perhaps I'm reading too much into your usage "representation", but I > don't > > buy into the view that there is a real world "out there" that is somehow > > being represented to experience "in here". Experience has no inside or > > outside. > > Yeah, in this case I meant "represent" to mean "an example of," not "a > concept or model of." Alternate meaning and totally different sense. I just > meant that even though it's anicca all the way through with no moment that > is unchanging, there are things that can be seen to happen and identified, > although not an "exact moment" when they take place. > > > > > even though isolating them may be artificial. If we watch a wave rise > and > > > fall on the sea, we can see a definite time when it is no longer moving > up > > > to a peak, but is moving down in collapse. There may not be a fixed > moment > > > in time when that transition takes place, but there is a time when it > has > > > changed from one predominant direction or action to another. So how > would > > > you define a "moment" or "series of moments" in those terms? > > > > > > > > In the context of experience, I would say that a moment was the deluded > > belief/thought that things had stood still, that nothing was changing. As > to > > a series, it would be a belief that there were identifiable beginnings > and > > endings within change, somehow punctuated by periods of non-change. In my > > experience, in the absence of such thinking / believing, there are > > no discernible boundaries in experience, only change. > > Well what about all the concrete things that take place within the flow of > change? You are the one who always says that we really do these things - > life a glass, take a sip, smile and say hello, acknowledge another person > and see that they are "there." So what's the status of those concrete > events? > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't think there is a one-to-one relation between experience and how it is described. There are many other ways of describing the experience you describe as "lifting a glass", there is not one concrete, correct way. It isn't even necessary to describe it. After all, experience isn't verbal in nature. I acknowledge again that I may have totally misunderstood you :-) > > > > There is no moment when we stop being "young" and become "old" and yet > we > > > can see that we are no longer young after a certain point or period of > time. > > > So how does this take place, and what sort of process would you propose > for > > > it? > > > > > > > > That would come down to adopting some view or other about causality or > > conditionality. No doubt, interesting stuff to theorize about. But, we > don't > > > experience causality, we think it. There's nothing wrong with induction > or > > deduction, but strictly, experience is limited to one thing following > > another. That is the limit of what there can be certainty of. > > Well if I get hit by a car and get thrown down the street, do you think it > is a concept that the car knocked me down the street, or is that what > actually happened? > > I would feel very comfortable describing the event in the way you do. There's nothing conceptual, to me, about being hit by a car. Working with people with brain injuries has made me aware, however, that my understanding of causality isn't shared by everyone. There is no point, IMO, where beliefs in certain causal mechanisms become something more than well-grounded expectations ie become actual as you say. > > > I have a practical definition of a moment: that is, one discrete > > > intentional action, which is usually aligned with one movement, one > action, > > > one intention, one breath. While there may be many other things going > on at > > > the same time, you can identify a main responsive event. Someone says > hello > > > to you. You have a moment when you take in their point of view, > behavior, > > > etc., and then you have a response that starts internally as an > intention > > > and then expresses as behavior back as you say "hello" back, also with > a > > > certain emotion, point of view, etc. So you can identify a kind of > exchange > > > between stimulus and response and see these stimulus-response moments > > > ticking along. Just another way of looking at the changing course of > events, > > > although much more macroscopic than millions of dhammas per second. > > > > > > > > I can relate to your descriptions of daily life stuff. It doesn't sound > like > > you buy into absolute, discrete units of stuff either. > > No, every beginning is also a middle of something else; every end another > beginning or middle - there's no absolute beginnings or endings to anything > in life. > > > I don't know how many more posts I will reply to tonight. We're off to > > Sydney in the morning for four days, so I'll be off the air for a while. > > Hope you have a good time in Sydney. I'll look forward to more when you are > back online. > > Cheers Herman > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = > > > #110646 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Phil, 2010/10/11 philip > > > Should I post a picture of my sexy body in the member's corner!? NO! > > The great news is that there is no moral dilemma here. You can post a photo of your body, for sure, but unfortunately, you cannot make anyone find it sexy :-) Cheers Herman #110647 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Herman > The great news is that there is no moral dilemma here. You can post a photo > of your body, for sure, but unfortunately, you cannot make anyone find it > sexy :-) I think in Abhidhamma it is said that there are intrinsically pleasing sense objects, favourably received by all.... ...seriously, interesting point. One man's (or woman's) beefcake, is another woman (or man's) slowly festering nest of ageing, disease and death. Metta, Phil #110648 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:06 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 2. nilovg Dear Ann, I appreciate your mail very much. I find it very good you highlight things from Kh Bong's diary. I sent your letter to Khun weera, because I think it will support him. You write in such an inspiring way, I think. Op 12-okt-2010, om 0:54 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > >There is no `I', no self to be found. There are > > people only when we think of them, but my understanding is not ready > > for this yet. I like the idea of there being people." > > Such a good way of putting it: "There are people only when we think > of them ..." ------- N: Yes, and so honest. We are not ready yet for the Truth. We have not eradicated wrong view of self. It means that we have to listen more, consider more, being aware more often. It is not yet enough, for a long, long time. ------ > A: > When one realizes (initially through intellectual understanding) > that "there are people only when we think of them" - it is very > different from "looking for" nama's and rupa's when we think about > them. ------ N: Yes, we may on purpose be looking for namas and rupas, instead of knowing, as Kh Sujin often says, there is just a dhamma now. ------ Nina. > #110649 From: A T Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >I think in Abhidhamma it is said that there are intrinsically pleasing >sense objects, favourably received by all.... > > ...seriously, interesting point. One man's (or woman's) beefcake, is >another woman (or man's) slowly festering nest of ageing, disease and >death. > > Metta, > > Phil Speaking precisely, all feelings (including “pleasant” ones) are ultimately just greater or lesser dukkha, now or later. SN36.2, SN36.5, SN36.11. Even pleasant feelings are ultimately just suffering, only to a lesser degree. Even blissful Jhānic feelings are stressful (AN 9.41) in comparison with higher Jhanas (where more and more vedana and other mental factors have ceased). Since there is less suffering, the more pleasant feeling are only mispercieved as happiness in contrast to much greater suffering that came before. Their pleasure is due to absence of most suffering. The pleasant feelings are pleasant only in comparison with far greater suffering. One of the perversions of perception is seeing pleasure in painful. So due to this perversion people actually think that some things are happy. It is perversion of perception and view, not how it actually is. So ultimately all feelings are directly or indirectly included in Suffering/Stress. It is just a matter of degree. Pleasant feelings do not have inherent nature of pleasure. How could they? How can inherent nature produce opposite result when taken in greater quantity or at some other time? For example: will lots of sugar change its sweet taste to something opposite (such as salty)? No. It is sweet and more of sugar produces more of the like qualities. If something is inherently pleasurable than it will only produce pleasure when increased in quantity, and no matter when taken it is supposed to produce more pleasant feelings, but from real life experience we see something else. Why does indulging excessively in what is supposed to be inherently pleasurable feels painful? Why is taking what is supposed to be happy at wrong times actually hurt? Perhaps because these feelings were never pleasurable in the first place and when the quantity was increased, their painful nature became more salient. Ex of excessive “pleasant feeling” and at inoportune time is warming yourself up. If it is very cold outside then warming up feels pleasant. But if you try to warm yourself up when you are already hot or if you use very warm (very hot) temperature it will feel uncomfortable. On one occasion it feels pleasant on another if feels discomforting. So is it really inherently pleasant? Same with cooling oneself. It feels pleasant to take a cold drink outside in hot day under scorching sun. But try to take it when it is freezing cold outside with snow up to the knees. Same thing taken on different occasions feels different. So where is the inherent nature of pleasure? Another example: You are tired of being on foot all day and decide to lie down and rest. Lying down and resting feels pleasant (at first) because much greater stress of walking has ceased, and stress of lying down hasn’t increased enough yet. But try to remain in that pleasant position motionless for may hours (lets say 12+) and it will feel painful, you will want to get up and stretch or stand or walk. So in one case it felt pleasant due to the fact that it didn’t become painful enough, but when you got more of it it added up to lots of discomfort. Changing posture seems pleasant because one substitutes greater discomfort for less, but try to remain in that “pleasant” posture for too long. You will be unable to bear that “pleasure”. Salt can may the bland food taste “better”. But just try to add up that better and very soon it will be too bad. So maybe it wasn't inherent pleasure even in the beginning. The bland taste was much worse than taste of food with a little bit of salt. Try to take your favorite meal 3 times a day, each day. Very soon you will be sick from eating food that you’ve previously considered to be “pleasant”. Remember that it is mispercepetion to see pleasure in what is painful and that "all that is felt is included in suffering". The difference of suffering is what is responsible for perception of pleasure. Where there is less suffering, there is pleasure (of having less pain), but it is pain nonetheless. Sutta quotes: “Whether it be pleasant or painful, Along with the neither-painful-nor-pleasant, Both the internal and the external, Whatever kind of feeling there is: Having known, This is suffering (dukkhanti), Perishable, disintegrating, Having touched and touched them, seeing their fall, Thus one loses one's passion for them” SN36.2(2) "Pleasant feeling, bhikkhus, should be seen as painful;" Sukhā, bhikkhave, vedanā dukkhato daṭṭhabbā -SN 36.5(5) "Whatever is felt is included in suffering." yaṃ kiñci vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmi’nti - SN 36.11(1) Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’’ti , All formations are stressful. Dhp 278 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Stressful' with regard to the stressful is a non-perversion of perception, a non-perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.than.html With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, I entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. "As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of nothingness. That was an affliction for me. Just as pain arises as an affliction for a healthy person, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of nothingness that beset me was an affliction for me. "So at a later time, having seen the drawback of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of the cessation of perception & feeling, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at the cessation of perception & feeling, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, I entered & remained in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as I saw with discernment, the mental fermentations went to their total end. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html With metta, Alex #110650 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:32 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > -------------------------------------- > 6. Wave theories, sound particles, sound as movement of ear - Herman and Pt going great guns on shared acoustic and dhamma interests... the perfect pitch at 440 secs(?), momentary - meaningless. Just sound heard, the rest are concepts. Time in relation... As Ken clarified, we're not talking about sound particles but rupas. More on the nature of sound. > ------------------------------------------- > > We don't need to disbelieve in science in order to believe in satipatthana. As pt explained, the two run parallel. > > I think it's a point that we need to be really sure about. We mustn't have any unspoken suspicions that the Dhamma and science run counter to each other. Picking off a single topic again, which I have been trying to clarify. Science says that the physical world is prior to and independent of experience. Abhidhamma, at least the local view of it, says that there are "dhammas only," and that rupa does not reflect a larger, more coherent object, but only single physical qualities. So are science and Dhamma in harmony or not? Does rupa reflect an objective physical world, or does Dhamma say that there is only deluded conceptual experience that supposes a world of objects and others, and that they don't exist in reality? I'd love an answer to this question - so far I have not gotten a direct answer on this question. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #110651 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I do not understand the Buddha to be saying that concepts in general cause > suffering, only the illusory concept of self, with its illusory kamma. It sounds like you are saying that only anatta is at issue for the Buddha, but it is craving and clinging for that which is anatta, anicca and dukkha that causes suffering and negative kamma. Is it only personal self-concept that causes such attachment, or is it attachment to the objects, memories, identities in our life that we attach treasured meanings to? Those extensions of self-concept in the world, in our minds and in our lives, need to be detached from as well. If one could blow personal self-concept out of the water, perhaps all these other attachments would go as well, but it seems to me that the concept of self is intertwined with all the attachments we have in the world and in our lives, and that they all need to be unwound together. In the world of atta, what that we enjoy and cling to is not a part of atta? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110652 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:40 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > > > Phil, you have intriguing kamma. > > I'm more a vipaka man myself! ;) My mistake - you seem to experience interesting and unusual vipaka. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110653 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:56 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, > > ------- > KH: > > Millions of people spend a fortune on self-help books courses and seminars that simply don't work. > >> > > R: > How do you know? I would say, as opposed to a black-and-white point of view, that some of them are helpful and some of them are not. Too wishy-washy? :-) > But it's the truth. Not everything can be painted with the same brush. I would judge a program, whether it's yoga, therapy or a seminar of some kind, on what it purports to do and whether it does it or not. <. . .> > -------------- > > I should have been clearer that I was only talking about psychobabblers. Legitimate therapists, and other people who are honest about what they are teaching, are not included in my tirade. > > My main source of information has been a radio interview with the author of "SHAM (How the Self Help Actualization Movement made America helpless.)" I appreciate your sourcing this. My own sense is that generally a single source for a diverse and complex subject is far from adequate to understand it. It will generally only reflect one point of view, and have a selection of examples that proves one's point of view. > ------------------------- > RE: > TV therapy with Dr. Phil is another matter - I don't think that has great value, but it may to those who are on the show. Who knows? > ------------------------ > > I think I know, and I have never seen an episode of Dr Phil! :-) Then you think you know more than you know. It is not possible to know something without knowing anything about it. I'm not defending good old Dr. Phil, but I think that's a dangerous assumption without checking something out. Anything. > --------------------------------- > KH: > > Not only do they not work, they actually leave those people more dependent, more demoralised and more helpless than ever. > >> > > RE: > How do you know this? Do you have a basis for thinking this that has some sort of data or knowledge to back it up? Or is just another convenient thing for you to make up and then think you are right without real evidence? It's easy to say things, Ken. That doesn't mean they are true. > ---------------------------------- > > I think the modern popular culture, which started in America and has spread to just about every other country, is pathetic. And being as pathetic as possible has become a matter of pride! "Ignorant, and proud of it!" is one way I have seen it described. Who does that represent? It seems to me that you have settled on a cheap and unfounded concept, that may represent some group of people, but definitely doesn't represent many of them. Without some research or a lot of personal experience, it's as pathetic to reach a cheap and easy conclusion about a culture as it is to be in such a culture. > ---------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > Some of those teachers may claim to have "achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana" I don't know. <. . .> Now that I have acquired my new "no-control" perspective on the Dhamma, I am more skeptical of their claims than ever. > >> > > RE: > You're free to be skeptical, but still - if someone has the discipline to follow the actual monastic practices that Buddha described a couple thousand years ago, one can't assume that they haven't achieved a high degree of jhana or accomplishment in satipatthana, or that they are busy exercising some sort of > "control" that goes against your definition of kusala and anatta. Truth is you just don't know. > ------------------------- > > I think if I heard one of them giving a Dhamma talk I would "know" within seconds. Well you would know what your opinion is anyway. By hearing a Dhamma talk you might instantly know whether you agreed with it or not. That does not constitute a demonstration of the speaker's integrity, though you clearly think your instant and unfounded judgment is adequate to assess just about anything. > --------------------------------- > RE: > I respect someone who follows the Buddha's teaching and stays > with it for decades developing skill and understanding. When Buddha described the advanced monks in the anapanasati sutta, we agree that for *them* the practices he described were kusala and skillful. > --------------------------------- > > They were just doing what came naturally to them. There's nothing all that natural about thousands of years of a culture of spiritual activity, anymore than it's natural today. You are idealizing and romanticizing a culture just as manufactured as ours today. > And vipassana was conditioned to arise while they were doing it. And so it may be today by like practices. No reason to think otherwise unless you are lost in a fairy-tale that the past is superior to the present. As if the kandha have gone through some inherent modification of their nature. Samsara is still samsara and Dhamma is still Dhamma. > --------------------------- > RE: > So why would they not be for a modern practitioner who has followed the exact same path? Your view on this seems inconsistent to me. We have seen criticism of householders who try to do these practices without developing samatha, but surely someone who is following the monastic path in this way is in a different category. > --------------------------- > > Only if the monastic life comes naturally to them. If it is lived with the aim of gaining something then it is affected, and inappropriate. I doubt it was "natural" for anyone. Even in ancient times, the decision to become a monk and follow that path was an unusual and powerful decision, followed by arduous practice. It didn't must fall off a tree, as you seem to think in your idealized notion of the past and of your "natural" philosophy which is full of concepts of what is spiritual and how far it is from us today. All concepts, all stories. > ----------------------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > What I find offensive is not your forthrightness, which I admire, but I think you are too self-assured that whatever glib conclusion you come to about what others are doing must be correct just because you think it. That is dangerous and is based on your thinking that only your own discipline is correct, so everything else must be wrong, and not even worthy of respect. I just don't buy such a dogmatic view. > ------------------------------------ > > I think all I would need to ask any purported Buddhist teacher is: "Is the Dhamma (the teaching of the Buddha) a way of understanding the realities of the present moment?" Many who would agree to this statement would have a radically different way of acting on it. Many serious students of Abhidhamma, of the distinction between nama and rupa, and of the discernment of realities of arising dhammas in the moment would follow the meditative practices of the Buddha in order to realize sati, insight and knowledge of dhammas, in tandem with their studies of Dhamma. That's how the Abhidhamma is combined with meditation practices in most of the world that takes it seriously. But your view would only allow for your own interpretation of Dhamma, and that is dogmatic and not by any means assured to be correct. If someone were literally able to enter jhana regularly and achieve an actual state of deep peace with sensory experience blocked off by deep concentration, actually fitting the Buddha's description, you might doubt this great achievement of Buddha's path because it didn't fit your view of naturally arising dhammas. It's easy to judge those who have done the work, while sitting back immersed in treasured concepts. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110654 From: "turncoatgreen" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:11 am Subject: mandala / thanka for 4 contemplations? turncoatgreen After 5 or so years of casual interest I have left the beach and hope to walk to the dropoff. :) I have been drawn to Sati-Patthana and am looking for resources to help me hold in awareness the various elements of the 4 contemplations - so I can "label and move on" as i hear taught. To this goal, I have begun "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation." Perhaps my Qs will be answered there but I also want to begin to engage a Sangha (albeit virtual :) [actually i'm impatient] MAIN?: To become skillful at the filing/labeling; is there a *visual* that helps in remembering the classifications? I have assumed that Tibetan Thankas or other such elaborations represent these kind of things. If that is the case, is there one for this application? Other resource (book/audio) suggestions also valued. CURIOSITY?: If bare attention is to be practiced, isn't the "labeling" process itself an elaboration? Or is this a matter of advanced practice after simple Bare Attention (noting) is solidified? If I am going about this the wrong way (as a beginner) please correct and advise. I know the B has some programmatic ("gradual") methods but I came to Buddhism via my heart and prefer to continue its lead. Blessings and THANKS for your valuable resource! basil #110655 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:54 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't think there is a one-to-one > relation between experience and how it is described. There are many other > ways of describing the experience you describe as "lifting a glass", there > is not one concrete, correct way. It isn't even necessary to describe it. > After all, experience isn't verbal in nature. I acknowledge again that I may > have totally misunderstood you :-) I don't know whether you've misunderstood me or not - which leads to me to think this is a confusing area. :-) I'm not sure it's fair to say that all the things you describe as ordinary events, saying hello, acknowledging that the other person is "really there," etc., are real because we treat them as real, and then say at the same time that they are "not as described." If they are "not as described," then what are you saying is actual? A kind of raw, indescribeable experience? If so, then aren't you saying that the conventional ways we think and describe things, which is how we know them conceptually, is *not* actual and that in fact there is another kind of "pure experience" being posited, just as esoteric as the Abhidhammic definition of arising dhammas that you appear to be critiquing? Unless I am totally misunderstanding *you*...... ;-) I thought the idea that you were putting forward was that our conceptual life - which is largely reflected in language and the way we describe and think of things - was necessary and actual and that Buddha acknowledged this as well.... ... > > Well if I get hit by a car and get thrown down the street, do you think it > > is a concept that the car knocked me down the street, or is that what > > actually happened? > > > > > I would feel very comfortable describing the event in the way you do. > There's nothing conceptual, to me, about being hit by a car. Working with > people with brain injuries has made me aware, however, that my understanding > of causality isn't shared by everyone. There is no point, IMO, where beliefs > in certain causal mechanisms become something more than well-grounded > expectations ie become actual as you say. It's silly to say in terms of life as we live it, that someone isn't hit by a car and thrown down the street if that's what happens. If someone prefers to say that the car and the person met and they had a mutual effect on each other, that doesn't change the practical import for the people involved. It's just philosophy. There are points though where anatta gives a certain different perspective towards such an event, and there are also frames of reference in terms of where events begin and end and where it fits into a larger pattern of reference, but I'll leave it at that for now. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110656 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:19 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > azita: I agree that pleasant feeling is one reality while attachment is a very different one. I dont think I was dismissing pleasantness, but trying to make a point that I dont know the difference between kusala and akusala. I mean I do on the intellectual level but when it comes to moment by moment - no idea, as I stated to Phil, not enuff Panna to know. > "..detach from the pleasant experience without suppressing it...and perhaps get a preview of that combination of detachment and pleasantness that attends greater discernment..." Sorry Rob, but this sounds like something straight out of the 'impossible to do' yoga mags. Well, I guess my main point is that it's not necessary to attack pleasant sensation in order to discern it with detachment. I'm not saying one can do this by snapping the fingers, however. Just saying that seeing pleasant sensation as an object of discernment might be better than confusing pleasant sensation with clinging, etc. A lot of times I think we see experience as akusala instead of how it is attended. Maybe that will make sense... > Rob: If detachment is practiced, I think that yoga, pranayama, meditation and other disciplines that purify and raise the energy and awareness level, have the capacity to increase awareness and lead to more kusala development. > > azita: how do you practise detachment? I would say it's a question of how you look at experiences and of the intention towards them. > I have moved thro the yoga community for the last 40 yrs and unfortunately what I have observed is the huge egos of the yoga professionals, but you are saying that to practise detachment first, right? Not really. I'm really saying practice detachment as things come up. As for the "huge egos," my guess is they have a different perspective towards yoga, such as self-perfection, than you might have if looking at it with an eye towards discernment. > Gosh, Rob, some good ideas but not practical IMHO, no-one to practise detachment! I agree that there is "no one to practice" but I don't share the belief that this means that intention and volition cannot arise and cause a positive outcome. If one has the intention to step back from pleasant feeling, thoughts of self, etc., and see them as anatta, I think it can give a different perspective and cause a more kusala standpoint. I know that view is not shared by everyone... ... ...happiness itself, with detachment and freedom, I think is good to cultivate, and is, as you originally said, more likely to be kusala. > > azita: the point I was making was not to cultivate happiness but in relation to another being it was more likely to be kusala by making them happy than by making them sad bec that would surely be akusala. However I think that in both situations it would be akusala. Again, only Panna can know for sure...... So the best we can hope for is either very akusala or a little less akusala? That is sad... :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110657 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:03 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> KH: > > Just as with Sarah (who also enjoys yoga) Azita does not claim to be developing samatha. > > RE: > Nice to hear your comments. Just focusing on this one point - since samatha itself is not an invention of the Buddha's but along with jhanas was practiced for many centuries, why would one doubt that yoga and other disciplines develop samatha? ---- There is a big difference between samatha (calm) and the development of samatha. Every kusala citta is calm. That is, every kusala citta arises with kusala concentration, equanimity and other tranquil cetasikas. However, only one kind of kusala - bhavana - actually *develops* calm. Basically, the difference is that both types of bhavana (samatha and vipassana) contain panna (right understanding). Therefore yoga, and the other disciplines you refer to, can only develop samatha if they teach right understanding of kusala/akusala consciousness. As you say, there were wise people before the Buddha who could teach samatha. And I think it should be stressed that they were very wise - extremely wise - when it came to knowing kusala from akusala. They weren't just like you or me - able to sit quietly for a few minutes and get the impression of being calm. ----------------------- RE: > I would think that understanding-based qualities such as sati, panna, vipassana, satipatthana, might be more in doubt, but samatha is not that mysterious. Do we not accept the possibility of genuine calm and peacefulness being developed from psychophysical disciplines? Sometimes it seems that too much mystery is imbued into some fairly straightforward areas, and they are made almost impossible when they are not. If one experiences greater peace and equanimity from yoga or calming meditation, why doubt it? ----------------------- I agree there is no need to doubt yoga and meditation as such. The problem arises only when we mistake them for something they are not. (Namely, samatha or samatha--bhavana.) --------------------------------- RE: > Even the Buddha's version of jhana is based on suppression of defilements rather than eradication, and the role of insight is an additional factor that is added to the way in which jhana is treated by investigation, but samatha or jhana themselves are kusala and can be developed in a fairly straightforward way. ---------------------------------- You will find that the non-meditators at DSG have a higher regard for samatha and jhana than the meditators have. ---------------------- RE: > I'd be interested in what others think about this ---------------------- It's one of DSG's most popular topics. Ken H #110658 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 2. glenjohnann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Such a good way of putting it: "There are people only when we think > > of them ..." > ------- > N: Yes, and so honest. We are not ready yet for the Truth. We have > not eradicated wrong view of self. It means that we have to listen > more, consider more, being aware more often. It is not yet enough, > for a long, long time. A: It is sometimes difficult to admit that we are not yet ready for the Truth - we want to think that we are, but if we are really honest, it is difficult because of the wrong view of self and insufficiently developed understanding to say that we can do without people, especially those closest to us. It is equally difficult to say that we can do without worldly comforts etc - because there is so much still to understand, intellectually and directly. We like our "lives" for the most part - so very, very much more to see and experience of dukkha. > > When one realizes (initially through intellectual understanding) > > that "there are people only when we think of them" - it is very > > different from "looking for" nama's and rupa's when we think about > > them. > ------ > N: Yes, we may on purpose be looking for namas and rupas, instead of > knowing, as Kh Sujin often says, there is just a dhamma now. > ------ A: Lack of panna developed through direct understanding prevents us from knowing and remembering that what we see and think about are just namas and rupas. We don't have to look for them, they are arising and falling away continuously, but not understood as such because of ignorance and insufficiently developed panna. So easy to say, but so subtle and gradual is the development of satipatthana. Reading Khun Bong's thoughts when she knew that she was dying is way to see how much of the path lies before us. Ann #110659 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > You will find that the non-meditators at DSG have a higher regard for samatha and jhana than the meditators have. Ha, I think you are showing your usual high regard for your own point of view. I wouldn't say that meditators don't have as "high a regard" for samatha and jhana. I'd say meditators have a more practical understanding of it, whereas yours is thoroughly mystical. Instead of understanding samatha as spiritual calm and peace, which meditators do actually experience, you see it as a complex formula that requires a set of specially configured conditions that come together like a lightning bolt from the sky and bestow it upon a person who hasn't actually done anything to develop it. And this you call "the development of..." It doesn't matter whether you never experience it in your lifetime, while meditators have actual criteria for jhana and vipassana that can be experienced and verified, but you are right of course and they are wrong. Why? Because you think so. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110660 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 12 October 2010 20:47, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > ---- > <. . .> > H: > On pg 21 it says "There cannot just be citta alone, without an object, > that which is known by citta". To me, citta being an object for itself would > lead to an infinite regress of objectless knowing, and therefore unreal and > quite illogical. So, what remains unclear is how citta can be said to be > experienced separately from an object other than itself. > ---- > > I think the argument was about the separate characteristics of citta and > its object. Citta always has an object, but they are two distinct dhammas. > Immediately (or almost immediately) after they have fallen away either one > of them may be experienced by a following citta. > > They can't both be experienced by the same citta. > > ------------ > <. . .> > H: > What is clear is that there cannot be citta without object. But there > can be car without tree, or tree without car. If you could make it clear how > citta can experience itself, without being its own object, that would be > helpful towards understanding why you say what you say. > ------------ > > Citta can't experience itself. (There has never been any suggestion that it > could.) > > OK. But my question was what experiences namas? And that would have been followed by a question regarding the supposed characteristics of namas. You wrote "The Abhidhamma clearly says that namas are experienced separately from their arammana." I think you are saying that namas can be experienced after they have fallen away. This also makes me wonder what the value of "present" in "present moment" is. It seems that the theory of perception as outlined in Abhidhamma commentary includes the immediate past in the present. I wonder how this can be experienced to be the case. I prefer the much more straightforward and verifiable sutta approach. Whatever is experienced, besides whatever positive, knowable characteristic it has eg blue, loud, pleasant, also has the negative characteristic of "I am not it". In terms of the senses, that translates into seeing, hearing etc having only the negative quality of not being their object. Namas are not positive, they are purely negative. Namas are not known as presence, they are known as absence. Now, these considerations are not just matters of theory or intellectual understanding; they have serious implications for how the dhamma is lived. As the Buddha makes clear in his teachings on sunnata / emptiness eg MN121, the world is empty of whatever is not there, only what is there is present. The pursuit of knowledge of namas as separate present entities is guaranteed to fail, because emptiness isn't present. Cheers Herman #110661 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:18 pm Subject: The Other Side... bhikkhu5 Friends: Running up & down the beach delays any crossing! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, these 8 things, when cultivated and refined, lead to going beyond from this near shore, right here, to the far shore beyond all... What eight? Right View (sammā-ditthi) Right Motivation (sammā-sankappa) Right Speech (sammā-vācā) Right Action (sammā-kammanta) Right Livelihood (sammā-ājīva) Right Effort (sammā-vāyāma) Right Awareness (sammā-sati) Right Concentration (sammā-samādhi) These 8 things, when cultivated and refined, lead to going beyond from this near shore, right here, to the far shore beyond. This is what the Blessed Buddha said. The Well-Gone-One, this supreme Teacher, then added this: Few humans cross to that sublime far shore beyond all being. Mostly, people just run up & down along this barren bank! Those whose praxis is like this even and exact Dhamma, Will pass beyond the State of Death in quiet harmony! Having left all the dark and evil doing, any intelligence Seeks the luminous bright light by leaving this turmoil, and by going forth into solitary & silent homelessness. Secluded from lust, he experiences an unworldly bliss! Owing nothing, the wise & clever man thereby cleans himself of all these mental pollutions and defilements... Mentally well evolved by the 7 links to enlightenment, Delighting in non-clinging and relinquishment of all, Such luminous ones having quenched fermentation , Are fully released even right here in this world. Crossing... To the Other Side... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:24] section 45: The Way. 34: Gone to the other side ... 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 Samāhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Other Side... #110662 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 12 October 2010 17:48, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > An absolute acknowledgment of anatta, to me, equates with an absolute > denial > > of kamma, not with a denial of the conventional world. Anatta doesn't > imply > > that "the world" isn't happening, it only implies that there is no-one > doing > > anything to make it happen. > > This statement seems true and yet is too complicated for me to deal with > easily. I have to think about it. Can there be kamma without a person? If > not, there is no anatta. I'm not sure if anatta can be met halfway. If yes, > you are saying there is no kamma. But that assumes that kamma occurs to an > individual rather than to a configuration of kandhas. > > If kamma and anatta are in conflict, how would you resolve that conflict? > How about we say that kamma is a law of delusion and anatta is a law of wisdom / insight. Kamma revolves around the doer and/or doing of deeds, and anatta underscores that phenomena merely happen, they are not the products of autonomous agents. > I think this is a place you often wind up, from my experience of your posts > and our discussions - where the final conclusion is in some way that the > self is real, because people treat each other as real. But where does that > really leave anatta and the idea that there is no self? Is that not a denial > of anatta? > > It is clear to me that in the case of kamma and anatta, we cannot have both. It is also clear to me that there is no autonomous self that directs or controls the flow of experience. It has to follow that to the extent that we hold "persons" responsible for their "deeds", as though there are persons that are doers of their deeds, we are deluded. In other words, I'd sooner reject kamma than anatta. > The fact that I move a table and chairs around does not imply that I think > the table has a "self," yet when I move my body around it seems to imply > that I am saying that body contains or is contained by a self. However, why > can't I move that body around, respond to my name etc. while understanding > it is like moving the table around, nothing more? If that is not acceptable > then isn't one still attached to the concept and sentiment of one's self > being actual? > > I think it is a matter of understanding the difference between "this is happening" and "I am doing this". > ... > > > > > It's hard to have anatta with regard to oneself without challenging our > > > attachment to all the people and objects that we take as part of self > > > through association and clinging. > > > > > > > > The Bahiya Sutta starts of with Bahiya's question whether he himself was > an > > arahant or not. The Buddha is able to make it clear to him that the idea > of > > a self being an arahant is a delusional nonsense. > > So then what becomes an arahant? That is a nonsense question too, yes? > There are just delusory thoughts versus clear seeing. Other than that, is > anyone home? > > No, that's just it. There is no-one at home. > > But let's be clear, anatta does not imply that the bull that gored Bahiya > > was a concept. Concepts do not bleed to death. > > The body bleeds to death, and where is Bahiya in all that? What is he? And > what is the experience of the body bleeding to death? What does that mean > for Bahiya? > > Well, Bahiya will experience what he will. And to the extent that that includes prospective, future-oriented thinking as in "I will do this" or "I won't do that" then there is no awareness of what is already happening (NB: happening - as opposed to being done) presently. And the same goes for retrospective, past-oriented thinking as in "I did this" or "I didn't do that". Cheers Herman > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = = > > > #110663 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> > My main source of information has been a radio interview with the author of "SHAM (How the Self Help Actualization Movement made America helpless.)" >> RE: >I appreciate your sourcing this. My own sense is that generally a single source for a diverse and complex subject is far from adequate to understand it. It will generally only reflect one point of view, and have a selection of examples that proves one's point of view. ---- When I said that was my main source of information I meant it contained details, statistics and expert commentary. I already knew about the decadence of modern popular culture. ----------- RE: > > > TV therapy with Dr. Phil is another matter - I don't think that has great value, but it may to those who are on the show. Who knows? >>> KH: > > I think I know, and I have never seen an episode of Dr Phil! :-) >> RE: > Then you think you know more than you know. It is not possible to know something without knowing anything about it. I'm not defending good old Dr. Phil, but I think that's a dangerous assumption without checking something out. Anything. ------------ I know only too much about it. Almost every time I switch on my television set I see disingenuous people engaging in phoney conversations. Their audiences love it and hate any sign of sincerity. Most of all they love fake sincerity - schmaltz. -------------------- <. . .> RE: > Who does that represent? It seems to me that you have settled on a cheap and unfounded concept, that may represent some group of people, but definitely doesn't represent many of them. Without some research or a lot of personal experience, it's as pathetic to reach a cheap and easy conclusion about a culture as it is to be in such a culture. -------------------- Have you been living under a rock, Robert? Do you realise that the majority of Americans believe (for example) that evolution science is wrong, and that the world was created six thousand years ago? Maybe the appalling statistics are not made public in your country, but I am only too aware of how helpless and pathetic people in general are. ------------------------------------- <. .. > KH: > >They were just doing what came naturally to them. >> RE: > There's nothing all that natural about thousands of years of a culture of spiritual activity, anymore than it's natural today. You are idealizing and romanticizing a culture just as manufactured as ours today. > KH: > > And vipassana was conditioned to arise while they were doing it. >> RE: > And so it may be today by like practices. No reason to think otherwise unless you are lost in a fairy-tale that the past is superior to the present. As if the kandha have gone through some inherent modification of their nature. Samsara is still samsara and Dhamma is still Dhamma. -------------------- Isn't it possible, in theory at least, that all of the really wise people in the Buddha's day, who were ready to hear the Dhamma and become enlightened, have in fact heard the Dhamma and become enlightened (and moved on)? Maybe the human world today is populated by people who were not ready at that time, or who were not even in the human realm at that time. Whatever the reason, the Buddha's sasana is drawing to a close, and there are no arahants in the human realm today. I suspect there very few ariyans of *any* kind. --------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Only if the monastic life comes naturally to them. If it is lived with the aim of gaining something then it is affected, and inappropriate. >> RE: > I doubt it was "natural" for anyone. Even in ancient times, the decision to become a monk and follow that path was an unusual and powerful decision, followed by arduous practice. It didn't must fall off a tree, as you seem to think in your idealized notion of the past and of your "natural" philosophy which is full of concepts of what is spiritual and how far it is from us today. All concepts, all stories. ----------------------------- You simply need to understand what anatta (no-control) means. It means dhammas are arising and ceasing in the complete absence of any controlling entity. Whether dhammas are understood or not, they *do* exist and they are *all* that exists. Dhammas create concepts, and when there is wrong understanding they create concepts of controlling, permanent beings. In the absence of wrong understanding dhammas still create concepts of beings and things to do, but there are no illusions of control in the ultimate sense. Therefore, if a person with right understanding decided to live as a monk there would be no expectations of any kind. There would be no thoughts of a future time in which that person would continue to exist and experience a reality other than the present one. ------------------------------------- <. . .> RE: > If someone were literally able to enter jhana regularly and achieve an actual state of deep peace with sensory experience blocked off by deep concentration, actually fitting the Buddha's description, you might doubt this great achievement of Buddha's path because it didn't fit your view of naturally arising dhammas. It's easy to judge those who have done the work, while sitting back immersed in treasured concepts. ------------------------------------- Jhana is, as you say, a great achievement, but it does not form part of the Buddha's path. It was practised by the Buddha and by many of his disciples, but it was never part of the path. The path was always right understanding of whatever paramattha dhamma had become the present object of consciousness. And that paramattha dhamma could be nibbana, jhana-citta, or any other nama or rupa. Ken H #110664 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > If kamma and anatta are in conflict, how would you resolve that conflict? > > > > How about we say that kamma is a law of delusion and anatta is a law of > wisdom / insight. Kamma revolves around the doer and/or doing of deeds, and > anatta underscores that phenomena merely happen, they are not the products > of autonomous agents. Now that I'm getting your drift a bit better, maybe we could say that anatta is the understanding that kamma happens by itself, not "to someone," and that it is part of dependent origination. The dominos fall where they will, but there's no one pushing them. Holding people responsible for their actions may be delusory, but the alternative would lead to a whole different set of consequences. I think that's probably the reason for doing so, rather than thinking it is the way things actually take place. ... > It is clear to me that in the case of kamma and anatta, we cannot have both. > It is also clear to me that there is no autonomous self that directs or > controls the flow of experience. It has to follow that to the extent that we > hold "persons" responsible for their "deeds", as though there are persons > that are doers of their deeds, we are deluded. In other words, I'd sooner > reject kamma than anatta. Well, I don't see why we have to have a "self" to have kamma. Kamma implies that a pattern of cause and effect is set in motion, and that those consequences are experienced as vipaka, but it doesn't need a self to make that happen. Why is that a conflict? > > The fact that I move a table and chairs around does not imply that I think > > the table has a "self," yet when I move my body around it seems to imply > > that I am saying that body contains or is contained by a self. However, why > > can't I move that body around, respond to my name etc. while understanding > > it is like moving the table around, nothing more? If that is not acceptable > > then isn't one still attached to the concept and sentiment of one's self > > being actual? > > > > > I think it is a matter of understanding the difference between "this is > happening" and "I am doing this". Can't the same be said for kamma? ... > > The body bleeds to death, and where is Bahiya in all that? What is he? And > > what is the experience of the body bleeding to death? What does that mean > > for Bahiya? > > > > > Well, Bahiya will experience what he will. And to the extent that that > includes prospective, future-oriented thinking as in "I will do this" or "I > won't do that" then there is no awareness of what is already happening (NB: > happening - as opposed to being done) presently. And the same goes for > retrospective, past-oriented thinking as in "I did this" or "I didn't do > that". Not to rub it in too much, but wouldn't that apply just as well to the distinction between "kamma happens" and "my kamma?" Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110665 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/12/2010 9:21:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Rob E, On 12 October 2010 17:48, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > An absolute acknowledgment of anatta, to me, equates with an absolute > denial > > of kamma, not with a denial of the conventional world. Anatta doesn't > imply > > that "the world" isn't happening, it only implies that there is no-one > doing > > anything to make it happen. > > This statement seems true and yet is too complicated for me to deal with > easily. I have to think about it. Can there be kamma without a person? If > not, there is no anatta. I'm not sure if anatta can be met halfway. If yes, > you are saying there is no kamma. But that assumes that kamma occurs to an > individual rather than to a configuration of kandhas. > > If kamma and anatta are in conflict, how would you resolve that conflict? > How about we say that kamma is a law of delusion and anatta is a law of wisdom / insight. Kamma revolves around the doer and/or doing of deeds, and anatta underscores that phenomena merely happen, they are not the products of autonomous agents. --------------------------------------------------- Kamma is intention. It can be infected by sense of self or not. The Buddha had no sense of self, but certainly "he willed". -------------------------------------------------- > I think this is a place you often wind up, from my experience of your posts > and our discussions - where the final conclusion is in some way that the > self is real, because people treat each other as real. But where does that > really leave anatta and the idea that there is no self? Is that not a denial > of anatta? > > It is clear to me that in the case of kamma and anatta, we cannot have both. It is also clear to me that there is no autonomous self that directs or controls the flow of experience. It has to follow that to the extent that we hold "persons" responsible for their "deeds", as though there are persons that are doers of their deeds, we are deluded. In other words, I'd sooner reject kamma than anatta. > The fact that I move a table and chairs around does not imply that I think > the table has a "self," yet when I move my body around it seems to imply > that I am saying that body contains or is contained by a self. However, why > can't I move that body around, respond to my name etc. while understanding > it is like moving the table around, nothing more? If that is not acceptable > then isn't one still attached to the concept and sentiment of one's self > being actual? > > I think it is a matter of understanding the difference between "this is happening" and "I am doing this". --------------------------------------------------- Yes. Yet there is a difference between, for example, "my" tasting food and "your" tasting it. What makes it "me" tasting the food? I believe that is has to do with the kammic relationships holding between the various mental states in the two mind streams. The mental states within each stream are more closely interrelated than they are related to states in the other stream. There is no memory in the mind stream called "Herman" of my tasting the food, but there is in the mind stream called "Howard." (And vice-versa, of course.) --------------------------------------------------- > ... > > > > > It's hard to have anatta with regard to oneself without challenging our > > > attachment to all the people and objects that we take as part of self > > > through association and clinging. > > > > > > > > The Bahiya Sutta starts of with Bahiya's question whether he himself was > an > > arahant or not. The Buddha is able to make it clear to him that the idea > of > > a self being an arahant is a delusional nonsense. > > So then what becomes an arahant? That is a nonsense question too, yes? > There are just delusory thoughts versus clear seeing. Other than that, is > anyone home? > > No, that's just it. There is no-one at home. ----------------------------------------------- Of course, there isn't. But the arahant-stream is radically different from what "it" previously was, and speaking of that stream as a single reality, merely a matter of convention and a literal fiction, of course, one may say that a worldling or lesser ariyan has become an arahant. ------------------------------------------------- > > But let's be clear, anatta does not imply that the bull that gored Bahiya > > was a concept. Concepts do not bleed to death. > > The body bleeds to death, and where is Bahiya in all that? What is he? And > what is the experience of the body bleeding to death? What does that mean > for Bahiya? > > Well, Bahiya will experience what he will. And to the extent that that includes prospective, future-oriented thinking as in "I will do this" or "I won't do that" then there is no awareness of what is already happening (NB: happening - as opposed to being done) presently. And the same goes for retrospective, past-oriented thinking as in "I did this" or "I didn't do that". Cheers Herman ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110666 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:14 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I know only too much about it. Almost every time I switch on my television set I see disingenuous people engaging in phoney conversations. Their audiences love it and hate any sign of sincerity. Most of all they love fake sincerity - schmaltz. I agree there is a lot of phoniness in modern culture. It's not isolated to Americans or to modern life. It's always been a byproduct of samsara in all times and cultures to one extent or another. > RE: > Who does that represent? It seems to me that you have settled on a cheap and unfounded concept, that may represent some group of people, but definitely doesn't represent many of them. Without some research or a lot of personal experience, it's as pathetic to reach a cheap and easy conclusion about a culture as it is to be in such a culture. > -------------------- > > Have you been living under a rock, Robert? Do you realize that the majority of Americans believe (for example) that evolution science is wrong, and that the world was created six thousand years ago? Maybe the appalling statistics are not made public in your country, but I am only too aware of how helpless and pathetic people in general are. The statistics are available and the U.S. has been going through a time of increased conservatism, false religiosity and lack of understanding of science, to be sure, and it is appalling. I would make a distinction between the super-fundamentalist culture that doesn't believe in science and those who are into phoney sentimentality and Dr. Phil. In fact those two groups hardly overlap at all, though they are both "bad" from a certain point of view. They are two distinct unfortunate phenomena. I don't lumping separate things together into one thing when they are not the same. It doesn't increase our intelligence about what is happening. > ------------------------------------- > <. .. > > KH: > >They were just doing what came naturally to them. > >> > > RE: > There's nothing all that natural about thousands of years of a culture of spiritual activity, anymore than it's natural today. You are idealizing and romanticizing a culture just as manufactured as ours today. > > > > KH: > > And vipassana was conditioned to arise while they were doing it. > >> > > RE: > And so it may be today by like practices. No reason to think otherwise unless you are lost in a fairy-tale that the past is superior to the present. As if the kandha have gone through some inherent modification of their nature. Samsara is still samsara and Dhamma is still Dhamma. > -------------------- > > Isn't it possible, in theory at least, that all of the really wise people in the Buddha's day, who were ready to hear the Dhamma and become enlightened, have in fact heard the Dhamma and become enlightened (and moved on)? > > Maybe the human world today is populated by people who were not ready at that time, or who were not even in the human realm at that time. Whatever the reason, the Buddha's sasana is drawing to a close, and there are no arahants in the human realm today. I suspect there very few ariyans of *any* kind. I don't have this mystical formulaic philosophy. I believe that samsara is a continued production of delusion in consciousness. Arahants come when they come, and go when they go, and there are always some people who are gaining greater realization and others who are just lost in the wash for the time being. Do you think that delusion is permanent and that most of us will never be enlightened? We've missed the "time of the arahants," and that's it for us? That is not my view. ... > You simply need to understand what anatta (no-control) means. It means dhammas are arising and ceasing in the complete absence of any controlling entity. Whether dhammas are understood or not, they *do* exist and they are *all* that exists. > > Dhammas create concepts, and when there is wrong understanding they create concepts of controlling, permanent beings. > > In the absence of wrong understanding dhammas still create concepts of beings and things to do, but there are no illusions of control in the ultimate sense. > > Therefore, if a person with right understanding decided to live as a monk there would be no expectations of any kind. There would be no thoughts of a future time in which that person would continue to exist and experience a reality other than the present one. And with right understanding one could engage that process today as well. Why not? Why would we be attracted to a practice if it were not "natural" to us? Doesn't everything arise from accumulations and conditions? > ------------------------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > If someone were literally able to enter jhana regularly and achieve an actual state of deep peace with sensory experience blocked off by deep concentration, actually fitting the Buddha's description, you might doubt this great achievement of Buddha's path because it didn't fit your view of naturally arising dhammas. It's easy to judge those who have done the work, while sitting back immersed in treasured concepts. > ------------------------------------- > > Jhana is, as you say, a great achievement, but it does not form part of the Buddha's path. It was practised by the Buddha and by many of his disciples, but it was never part of the path. The path was always right understanding of whatever paramattha dhamma had become the present object of consciousness. And that paramattha dhamma could be nibbana, jhana-citta, or any other nama or rupa. I think that's a great misunderstanding, and I don't know where you got this idea from, but not from the Buddha. Of course the ultimate qualities necessary for enlightenment are vipassana, panna etc., but Buddha did not use the jhanas as the object for awakening arbitrarily, but because the subtle states allow for greater discernment. The interplay of samatha and vipassana is part of the path; it's not an accident. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110667 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:32 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----- <. . .> H: > "The Abhidhamma clearly says that namas are experienced separately from their arammana." I think you are saying that namas can be experienced after they have fallen away. ----- That is not what I was trying to say in that sentence, but yes, namas can be experienced after they have fallen away. So can rupas (whenever they are experienced at the mind door). Namas are realities that experience an object. Can you think of any way they could, in turn, become objects of experience - other than after they had fallen away? If namas could somehow be experienced before they had fallen away, there would be consciousness experiencing itself experiencing itself experiencing . . . The feedback would be horrendous! :-) ----------------------------- H: > This also makes me wonder what the value of "present" in "present moment" is. It seems that the theory of perception as outlined in Abhidhamma commentary includes the immediate past in the present. ---------------------------- In a manner of speaking, maybe, but, as I was saying, how else could namas be experienced? ----------------------------- H: > I wonder how this can be experienced to be the case. ----------------------------- I am not sure what you are asking, but satipatthana is the answer. :-) --------------------------------------- H: > I prefer the much more straightforward and verifiable sutta approach. --------------------------------------- Hmm, this will be good! :-) -------------------------- H: > Whatever is experienced, besides whatever positive, knowable characteristic it has eg blue, loud, pleasant, also has the negative characteristic of "I am not it". ------------------------- That sounds right to me. How does it differ from the Tipitaka-as-a-whole approach? ---------------------------- H: > In terms of the senses, that translates into seeing, hearing etc having only the negative quality of not being their object. Namas are not positive, they are purely negative. Namas are not known as presence, they are known as absence. ----------------------------- Hold on! Why have you discarded your sutta approach? You said "Whatever is experienced, besides whatever positive, knowable characteristic it has eg blue, loud, pleasant, also has the negative characteristic of "I am not it"." Namas have positive characteristics that can be known. [After a quick look at Nina's book, "Cetasikas"] I can tell you that phassa, for example, has the characteristic of touching. So there goes your theory! ----------------------------------------- H: > Now, these considerations are not just matters of theory or intellectual understanding; they have serious implications for how the dhamma is lived. As the Buddha makes clear in his teachings on sunnata / emptiness eg MN121, the world is empty of whatever is not there, only what is there is present. The pursuit of knowledge of namas as separate present entities is guaranteed to fail, because emptiness isn't present. ------------------------------------------- That doesn't add up. You are making things harder than they need to be. Every paramattha dhamma has the characteristic of anatta (sunnata). When a dahamma is present so too is sunnata. What's so hard about that? Ken H #110668 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:46 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Rob It's an interesting point, though we were kind of joking. In a flash of a moment in which the visual object is pereceived and conceptualized into sexy breasts, isn't there already fresh kamma of a kind at work? Of course vipaka is called old kamma, we are to "dry out" the old kamma, and I insist that meditation on the breath, no matter how unorthodox it is for the purists, can help do so by making us more resilient (less flammable) to objects, as with the twin objects that were thrust perkily into the range of my consciousness by the workings of kamma and vipaka that day! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Phil. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob > > > > > > > Phil, you have intriguing kamma. > > > > I'm more a vipaka man myself! ;) > > My mistake - you seem to experience interesting and unusual vipaka. :-) > > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = = = > #110669 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Herman and all > > > The great news is that there is no moral dilemma here. You can post a photo > > of your body, for sure, but unfortunately, you cannot make anyone find it > > sexy :-) > > I think in Abhidhamma it is said that there are intrinsically pleasing sense objects, favourably received by all.... > > ...seriously, interesting point. One man's (or woman's) beefcake, is another woman (or man's) slowly festering nest of ageing, disease and death. I should have said, one moment's perception is that of sexy body, another moment's perception is of nest of disease/foul etc, and another moment's perception is of the body as a vehicle for practicing Dhamma, and therefore healthy is good even while we know it won't last....hopefully writing this here will condition more moments of the latter perception...! Metta, Phil #110670 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Alex > Speaking precisely, all feelings (including “pleasant Eones) are ultimately just greater or lesser dukkha, now or later. SN36.2, SN36.5, SN36.11. Yes, the Buddha said that even when he speaks of three kinds of feeling, he is ultimately speaking of just one. Thanks for the post, as with Sarah's yesterday, I don't have the attention span at the moment to concentrate on it, it's too long, but I'm sure it will be helpful for others. Metta, Phil #110671 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:48 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 2. egberdina Hi Nina, On 13 October 2010 00:06, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > Such a good way of putting it: "There are people only when we think > > of them ..." > ------- > N: Yes, and so honest. We are not ready yet for the Truth. We have > not eradicated wrong view of self. It means that we have to listen > more, consider more, being aware more often. It is not yet enough, > for a long, long time. > ------ > Let's be honest, and ask if this last line is also not just another story. Is there any understanding of what is present when imagining time immemorial, whether past or future? Cheers Herman #110672 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:08 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > It's an interesting point, though we were kind of joking. For sure. I'm just interested in the relationship of kamma to vipaka, so I couldn't let the joke pass. :) > In a flash of a moment in which the visual object is perceived and conceptualized into sexy breasts, isn't there already fresh kamma of a kind at work? Yes, that is a good point. > Of course vipaka is called old kamma, we are to "dry out" the old kamma, By detaching from it and not causing further proliferation? > and I insist that meditation on the breath, no matter how unorthodox it is for the purists, can help do so by making us more resilient (less flammable) to objects, as with the twin objects that were thrust perkily into the range of my consciousness by the workings of kamma and vipaka that day! No argument from me. The twin objects of kamma and vipaka work together to make an irresistible pair. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110673 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi all, A continuation to my Saturday report. Firstly, thank you Herman for a very kind message and thanks Sarah and KenH for giving more discussion details. Here are then some of the points that I remember most vividly. 1. Metta - when it's said that all beings are pervaded by metta in a particular direction - does that mean that (the concept of) every single person in that direction has to become the object of citta with metta in quick succession, or just 'all the people in that direction' as a single concept? The answer was 'all the people'. 2. Anusayas - relating to the sutta and commentary on right effort that Alex and Sarah provided, I found it interesting as Sarah explained that what's eradicated at the (supramundane) path moment (which is accompanied by right effort) are in fact the particular anusayas, which are 'dormant' in every citta up to that moment. So it's not like hindrances (the stronger form of the anusayas) are actually present at the time of the path moment. Hence the difficult wording of the sutta on effort. 3. Intellectual understanding vs. satipatthana vs. first tender insight stages - KenH and me were wondering what differentiates moments of satipatthana from the other two - Sarah explained that a moment of satipatthana would still have a dhamma as the object of cittas, but panna would not be as strong as during the first tender insight stage, and would probably be present during fewer mind-door processes than as during tender insight. 4. Patience - I was wondering what cetasikas are responsible for patience. Sarah explained that it is predominantly viriya cetasika. What was particularly interesting was that Sarah mentioned that patience can be both kusala and aksuala - I presume because viriya cetasika can be both kusala and akusala. E.g. if I remember right, an example of akusala patience would be waiting with anticipation (lobha) for the desert to be served. More to come shortly. Best wishes pt #110674 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:28 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 Hallo Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > azita: Sometimes. Altho I dont think that my diminishing bad moods come from Pranayama but from learning the Dhamma. For example, I had to do some shopping and I greatly dislike big shopping centres and all the people wandering around doin' what, I ask myself? However, today, sort of 'out-of-the-blue' came a much friendlier sensation like 'we are all the same here, all in need of some loving kindness, all wandering around in samsara and here we are.....shopping????" > > It did make me smile. > > Ph: Yes, I know what you mean. I find reflecting that everybody who was born in the human realm must have some pretty good kamma at work in past lives to be a helpful reflection. But I'd be interested if you come to sense that the Pranayama conditions a kind of resilience, a kind of wooden door vs the soft ball of clay response to objects. azita: mmmm - cant say I relate to the wooden door vs soft ball of clay response, however I do feel somewhat more resilent, and cannot say it is directly related to doing Pranayam. There are several circumstances where my life has changed, no longer working shift work has a big part in my extra resilence, I am sure. As I said before, I believe listening and contemplating the dhamma more and more is the most important thing for me at this point. There is a sutta in MN138 which struck me as being very precise in its teaching: The Buddha is talking to some monks: 'Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu should examine things in such a way that while he is examining them, his consciousness[citta] is not distracted and scattered externally nor stuck internally, and by not clinging he does not become agitated. If his consciousness is not distracted and scattered externally nor stuck internally, and if by not clinging he does not become agitated, then for him there is no origination of suffering - of birth, aging or death in the future' I think the key words here are '...in such a way...' but this is probably opening up a whole new topic or at least a bigger topic than the breathing one. Right now I dont want to do that! Close to my bedtime! Phil: Of course that is the simile used to describe the benefits of mindfulness in the body. As I was just writing to Sarah, I don't have the attention span to study seriously and discusss seriously what a correct understanding of mindfulness in the body is, but for me it could be found in or conditioned by yoga, and I would be surprised if it wasn't...the kind of meditation I do is closer to pranayama than proper Buddhist meditaiton, I think...and that's fine for me. Azita: mayb you were a goldfish in yr last existence, they are supposed to have an attention span of 3 seconds !!!! :) patience, courage and good cheer, azita #110675 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bongs Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Phil, 2010/10/13 philip > > > > > Hi Herman and all > > > > > > The great news is that there is no moral dilemma here. You can post a > photo > > > of your body, for sure, but unfortunately, you cannot make anyone find > it > > > sexy :-) > > > > I think in Abhidhamma it is said that there are intrinsically pleasing > sense objects, favourably received by all.... > > > > ...seriously, interesting point. One man's (or woman's) beefcake, is > another woman (or man's) slowly festering nest of ageing, disease and death. > > I should have said, one moment's perception is that of sexy body, another > moment's perception is of nest of disease/foul etc, and another moment's > perception is of the body as a vehicle for practicing Dhamma, and therefore > healthy is good even while we know it won't last....hopefully writing this > here will condition more moments of the latter perception...! > > I appreciate the distinction you are making. What I write next sort of follows on from what you are saying, and it is also prompted by the conversations at the very fine Manly get-together. I sort of get the sense from all these various discussions that there is a belief that the momentary takes precedence over, let's call it, resolve. Up front, I'll say that I must disagree with that belief. To me, the content of the moment is always up for question. We don't know what will happen next. But resolve determines the limits of what that content can be or not be. For instance, and I am definitely not moralising, in my case, my relationship with Vicki is never up for question. At a momentary level, that translates, for example, into the cleavage of any woman's chest being about as interesting as the buttcrack of an unwaxed sumo wrestler. In my coming and going, I am a man dedicated to my marriage. My resolve is not something that I have to redo every moment, it is something that determines what any moment can be. I don't for a moment suggest that it is I that made that resolution, but simply that such strong resolutions happen, and that they set a framework for "who you are", over time. Resolve is like stepping onto a train in Sydney, bound for Melbourne, a thousand kilometres away. Whatever happens at a momentary level, from centimetre to centimetre, whether it be thinking about Brisbane, Vancouver, cleavage, whatever, does nothing to alter the fact that you are on a train to Melbourne. What am I saying? Only that if awareness of the momentary present blinds one to the bigger picture of the long-term resolutions ( I will be this, I will not be that, I will be a husband, I will be a father, I will be a sex magnet) that have been made, which are undoubtedly determining factors in the continuing saga of one's life, then one may as well not be aware of the present. Cheers Herman #110676 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/12/2010 11:46:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Rob It's an interesting point, though we were kind of joking. In a flash of a moment in which the visual object is pereceived and conceptualized into sexy breasts, isn't there already fresh kamma of a kind at work? Of course vipaka is called old kamma, we are to "dry out" the old kamma, and I insist that meditation on the breath, no matter how unorthodox it is for the purists, can help do so by making us more resilient (less flammable) to objects, as with the twin objects that were thrust perkily ----------------------------------------------- Helpful, Phil, might be to train oneself to not think too much in terms of the language of old Mickey Spillane novels! ;-) How we think and speak about things and what our mind is permitted to easily turn to in unguarded moments affects our experience, and, depending on that, we may suffer more or suffer less. ------------------------------------------ into the range of my consciousness by the workings of kamma and vipaka that day! Metta, Phil =============================== With metta, Howard [and - so sorry - not a nubile nymphet! LOL!] P. S. Quite seriously, a habit of averting, not the eyes, but the mind, can be very useful, and such a habit is fostered by a regular practice of ongoing mindfulness /watchfulness and the four right efforts (a.k.a., guarding the senses). This tends towards the non-occurrence (or lessened o ccurrence) of mental proliferation (papa~nca) P. P. S. I'm far from perfect with such practice, but I've gotten MUCH better. "Practice makes perfect" IS a truism. :-) Experience Only /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) #110677 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:34 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > There is a sutta in MN138 which struck me as being very precise in its teaching: > > The Buddha is talking to some monks: 'Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu should examine things in such a way that while he is examining them, his consciousness[citta] is not distracted and scattered externally nor stuck internally, and by not clinging he does not become agitated. If his consciousness is not distracted and scattered externally nor stuck internally, and if by not clinging he does not become agitated, then for him there is no origination of suffering - of birth, aging or death in the future' Thanks for quoting this sutta. It's a wonderful sutta. I hunted around and found the translation you quoted: http://tinyurl.com/28gpxly I like it a lot better than Thanissaro's and the other translations I've seen online so far, which seem more convoluted while this translation is very clear. Here is Thanissaro's: "The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated." This is a little better -- don't know who it's translated by - I like "fixated" better than "positioned" which is vague: "The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally fixated, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated." If you took your translation, and put "fixated" in instead of "stuck," that would not be bad, though "stuck" is probably to the point. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110678 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mandala / thanka for 4 contemplations? nilovg Dear Basil, Op 12-okt-2010, om 20:11 heeft turncoatgreen het volgende geschreven: > CURIOSITY?: If bare attention is to be practiced, isn't the > "labeling" process itself an elaboration? Or is this a matter of > advanced practice after simple Bare Attention (noting) is solidified? ----- N: Welcome here to our list. It is good you ask questions. I have heard the words labeling and bare attention, and also noting. Perhaps these words are interpreted differently by different people. They are used in connection with satipa.t.thaana as far as I know. I think it is good to discuss first what mindfulness is and what the objects of mindfulness are. You have heard that the Buddha taught that there is no self. Also sati is not self, it can only arise when there are the right conditions. These conditions are: listening to the Dhamma, discussing, considering what you heard. When there is more intellectual understanding of what mindfulness is and what the objects of mindfulness are, there are conditions being cultivated for the arising of mindfulness. It does so in its own time. We shoud thoroughly understand that there is not 'me' having bare attention or labeling, or doing anything at all. Nina. #110679 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:01 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- KH: > > We don't need to disbelieve in science in order to believe in satipatthana. As pt explained, the two run parallel. > > > > I think it's a point that we need to be really sure about. We mustn't have any unspoken suspicions that the Dhamma and science run counter to each other. RE: > Picking off a single topic again, which I have been trying to clarify. Science says that the physical world is prior to and independent of experience. Abhidhamma, at least the local view of it, says that there are "dhammas only," and that rupa does not reflect a larger, more coherent object, but only single physical qualities. So are science and Dhamma in harmony or not? Does rupa reflect an objective physical world, or does Dhamma say that there is only deluded conceptual experience that supposes a world of objects and others, and that they don't exist in reality? > > I'd love an answer to this question - so far I have not gotten a direct answer on this question. ---- Certainly the Dhamma says there are only dhammas, and all conditioned dhammas behave in accordance with to the laws of conditionality. I think science says something similar. It says there are only the basic building blocks of matter (subatomic particles) and they behave in accordance with the laws of the universe. When a scientist contemplates fleeting particles (each one lasting about a trillionth of a second) he knows "This is all there is. People, planets and galaxies are just subjective creations based on countless trillions of these." So it seems to me that science sees a fundamental distinction between concepts and realities just as much as the Dhamma does. If so, why doesn't science lead to nibbana? Why doesn't the understanding "there are only subatomic particles - no self" lead to perfect detachment and the end of suffering? One possible answer is that perfect understanding cannot be reached until the mind is purified. And science doesn't know how to purify the mind. I don't know; I am only speculating. Ken H #110680 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/13/2010 6:02:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Certainly the Dhamma says there are only dhammas, and all conditioned dhammas behave in accordance with to the laws of conditionality. I think science says something similar. It says there are only the basic building blocks of matter (subatomic particles) and they behave in accordance with the laws of the universe. When a scientist contemplates fleeting particles (each one lasting about a trillionth of a second) he knows "This is all there is. People, planets and galaxies are just subjective creations based on countless trillions of these." So it seems to me that science sees a fundamental distinction between concepts and realities just as much as the Dhamma does. If so, why doesn't science lead to nibbana? Why doesn't the understanding "there are only subatomic particles - no self" lead to perfect detachment and the end of suffering? One possible answer is that perfect understanding cannot be reached until the mind is purified. And science doesn't know how to purify the mind. ================================== And how do we know as students of the Dhamma? Don't you maintain that, paraphrasing what you stated, all that is required is "When a follower of the Triple Gem contemplates dhammas (each one lasting about a trillionth of a second) he knows 'This is all there is. People, planets and galaxies are just subjective creations based on countless trillions of these.' ?? What more is there that the Buddhists have that the scientists do not, IYO? As you know, IMO it is a specific path of practice, of, yes, intentional "things to do." ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110681 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----- <. . .> H: > Don't you maintain that, paraphrasing what you stated, all that is required is "When a follower of the Triple Gem contemplates dhammas (each one lasting about a trillionth of a second) he knows 'This is all there is. People, planets and galaxies are just subjective creations based on countless trillions of these.' ?? What more is there that the Buddhists have that the scientists do not, IYO? As you know, IMO it is a specific path of practice, of, yes, intentional "things to do." ;-) ------ To recap: the Dhamma student knows, "These namas and rupas are the all, there is no self," whereas the scientist knows, "These subatomic particles are the all, there is no self." So why does one way of knowing lead to nibbana, and the other to a Nobel Prize? :-) I think, basically, it is because of the laws of conditionality. Panna (right understanding of nama and rupa) conditions magga-citta, whereas concepts don't. And the theory, that subatomic particles are the all, is just a concept. Ken H #110682 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T wrote: > > Hello Phil, all, > > >I think in Abhidhamma it is said that there are intrinsically pleasing >sense objects, favourably received by all.... > > > > ...seriously, interesting point. One man's (or woman's) beefcake, is >another woman (or man's) slowly festering nest of ageing, disease and >death. > > > > Metta, > > > > Phil > > > Speaking precisely, all feelings (including “pleasant” ones) are ultimately just greater or lesser dukkha, now or later. SN36.2, SN36.5, SN36.11. > > Even pleasant feelings are ultimately just suffering, <. . .> ----------- Hi Alex and Phil, On the return flight from Manly our plane struck bad weather - strong winds and heavy rain. The pilot made two attempts at landing and, after waiting unsuccessfully for a gap in the weather, diverted to a different airport. There, conditions were slightly better and we had smooth landing - after a very wobbly approach. It wasn't scary. I doubt any of the passengers were seriously concerned, although some did cheer when we landed. :-) But even though it wasn't scary, it made me wonder how I would have reacted in a real emergency. I wondered if I would have been strenuously reminding myself there were only namas and rupa - ultimate birth and death with every moment - and that the present moment was no different from any other. And if I had done that, wouldn't it have been just a ritual - an attempt at making things (dosa and domanassa) go away? The answer, of course, was yes, it would have been a ritual. The only time for right understanding (of nama and rupa) is right now - regardless of the situation. It's all dukkha! :-) Ken H #110683 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Azita (p.s to Tadao) > Phil: Of course that is the simile used to describe the benefits of mindfulness in the body. As I was just writing to Sarah, I don't have the attention span to study seriously and discusss seriously what a correct understanding of mindfulness in the body is, but for me it could be found in or conditioned by yoga, and I would be surprised if it wasn't...the kind of meditation I do is closer to pranayama than proper Buddhist meditaiton, I think...and that's fine for me. > > > Azita: mayb you were a goldfish in yr last existence, they are supposed to have an attention span of 3 seconds !!!! :) Yes, I started swimming again seriously for the first time in about 20 years, and I find that I am unable to stay in one lane when doing lengths, I'm always darting this way and that with my mouth gaping open, hoping for something edible to come my way. It's making me unpopular in the pool. Seriously, yes, for some reason I am unwilling to apply myself in a concentrated way to deep teachings. I'm especially challenged to read, for example, Sarah's explanation, because I can't place full confidence in her teacher, the "one moment of sati in a lifetime, wealthy man" kind of thinking seems wrong to me, but it may be more right than some corrupted understandings of mindfulness, so I should keep listening. I wish I could join you all for a Dhamma talk, live, in person, I have a real struggle with the internet, a real ambivalence about it, so it is difficult to read long posts and concentrate. I put an ad in a free magazine seeking Theravada friends to discuss Dhamma with, that would be nice, there are of course some South East Asians, Sri Lankans in Japan, let's hope some come my way... Metta, Phil p.s thanks to Tadao's recommendation, I just received 4 books of the Pali Canon in Japanese from Amazon! Amazing, I can't believe it. I'd only seen Mahayana stuff in Japanese before. Now I'm starting the Sutta Nipata. Happy, happy, I hope I can share Dhamma with some Japanese people...oh, of course I have (somewhere!) Abhidhamma in Daily Life that Robert K's students translated...but as good as the translation is, I personally don't feel Abhidhamma is a good way to introduce Dhamma to newcomers.... #110684 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:01 pm Subject: science vs dhamma truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, > > So it seems to me that science sees a fundamental distinction between concepts and realities just as much as the Dhamma does. > > If so, why doesn't science lead to nibbana? Why doesn't the understanding "there are only subatomic particles - no self" lead to perfect detachment and the end of suffering? > > One possible answer is that perfect understanding cannot be reached >until the mind is purified. And science doesn't know how to purify the >mind. Right. There is no meditation in Science. Their knowledge is purely theoretical. They do not put in practice what they know. Just like reading the menu will not satisfy your hunger, same with theoretical knowledge. IMHO. With metta, Alex #110685 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Howard > Helpful, Phil, might be to train oneself to not think too much in > terms of the language of old Mickey Spillane novels! ;-) How we think and speak > about things and what our mind is permitted to easily turn to in unguarded > moments affects our experience, and, depending on that, we may suffer more > or suffer less. Ph: Thanks, good point. And while it is easy for me to say my mindstream is so polluted by lust images (many years of accumulations in this day and age, and more so for some of us than others) and a little Spillanesque dame descriptions won't hurt, we have a responsibility to othes. My words could have caused the gross kilesa of readers to arise in a conditional way...that was careless. > With metta, > Howard [and - so sorry - not a nubile nymphet! LOL!] Ph: That's for me and my kilesas to decide! > P. S. Quite seriously, a habit of averting, not the eyes, but the mind, > can be very useful, and such a habit is fostered by a regular practice of > ongoing mindfulness /watchfulness and the four right efforts (a.k.a., guarding > the senses). This tends towards the non-occurrence (or lessened o > ccurrence) of mental proliferation (papa~nca) > > P. P. S. I'm far from perfect with such practice, but I've gotten MUCH > better. "Practice makes perfect" IS a truism. :-) Ph: Yes, this practice has been developing for about 10 years for me now. For example, I am always aware when I don't glance at passing women in a way that could make them uncomfortable, and also aware of the occasions (increasingly rare) when I do. And when there is such an occurence, I note it in my diary, as a regret from that day... Metta, Phil #110686 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Ken > The answer, of course, was yes, it would have been a ritual. The only time for right understanding (of nama and rupa) is right now - regardless of the situation. It's all dukkha! :-) Personally, I embrace rituals! The path is long and difficult, we need empowerment and support on the way. I would rather get it from Buddhist related rituals (such as reciting as I did this morning the five daily recollections) than from other non-Dhamma related sources of empowerment and encouragement. We all get it from somewhere. Where do you get it from? If you get it from your understanding of nama and rupa at this moment, you are using that understanding in a ritualistic way, in my opinion. If you get it from surfing, and other sensual pleasures, that's your business. But we have to get it from somewhere. Metta, Phil #110687 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/13/2010 8:14:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: And the theory, that subatomic particles are the all, is just a concept. ========================== But the theory that namas and rupas are the all is not? It is a theory, Ken. You believe that theory. Do you also believe that believing that will lead to your stream entry? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110688 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi again Let me clarify >We all get it from somewhere. Where do you get it from? If you get it from your understanding of nama and rupa at this moment, you are using that understanding in a ritualistic way, in my opinion. If you get it from surfing, and other sensual pleasures, that's your business. But we have to get it from somewhere. Of course I also get it from sensual pleasures, that's the whole point of the thrust of my recent posts about being into my health and energy and sexual attractiveness etc. But it's the Buddhist rituals that are so helpful in almost taking me by the hand and pulling me away from that foolishness. I don't know where I would be now without the five daily recollections on ageing, illness, death, separation from the beloved and ownership of kamma. In recent months there has been laziness about it, allowing recollection of it to arise if and when it arises...but that was a *big* mistake. Hopefully from now on, and hopefully for the rest of my life as long as I am able to do so, there will be intentional recollection of the above truths, in the way urged by the Buddha. Well, we'll see. One great thing about DSG is that anytime I read someone dissing intentional recollections, it is a prod for me to get back to them! So thank you! ;) Metta, Phil p.s James in the past scolded me for labelling surfers as sensualists, but I haven't met a surfer who wasn't, so I am prejudiced. I can just imagine Sarah and Jon skimming across the waves as their eyes glint with hungry-ghostian desire for the next surge of pleasure..oh, how sad that they were seduced on to the Devil's Board!!!! Who did it? Was it *you*, Ken H? #110689 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi all, The next installment: 5. Mudita vs. merriment - I was wondering what exactly is meant by Visuddhimagga statement that the near enemy of mudita is merriment. As I understood Sarah, mudita is rejoicing for someone else's sake, while merriment is being happy for my sake (with lobha). An example would be something like - if my friend gets a promotion, then I could rejoice in her good fortune (mudita), but, I could also end up rejoicing for my own sake - now that she has more money, she can buy me something - so lobha basically. 6. Thinking vs processing - during discussion with Herman, it turned out that using the term "thinking" to describe the function of the citta (or for the mind-door processes) might be confusing because usually "thinking" is used to refer to strictly verbal form of thinking, while "processing" might be more suitable for the sorts of thinking that happen during sense-cognition, so before any verbal thinking even starts. 7. What's kusala about breath meditation or any other kasina meditation? - this relates to the whole issue of samatha meditation, calm, attachment to pleasant feeling, etc. I was basically describing how I tend to differentiate between kusala and akusala in samatha meditation - basically there seemingly being more awareness and calm during what I'd call a kusala moment in meditation. But Sarah pointed out that this is most likely just more attachment to pleasant feeling that arises in relation to concentration. And Jon then asked (again) what's so kusala about breath as object in the first place, to which (again) I had no answer. As I understood Jon, sense-suppression cannot be the reason why meditation on breath as object is kusala, because sense-supression is an outcome of kusala samatha, not the cause of it. I would assume the same applies to absence of hindrances - which again should be an outcome of kusala, not the cause of kusala. So what is it that makes meditation on breath (or any other kasina) as object actually kusala? For example, meditation on the object of the Buddha, Dhamma or Sangha could be kusala when there's appreciation of good qualities of the Buddha at that moment for example? But what appreciation is there for breath as object or any other kasina? Anyone? Sarah mentioned something to the effect that it could be the appreciation that breath is basically what keeps us alive and gives us the chance to develop the path. But I don't think that's what the majority of meditators have in mind when meditating on breath. My current take on Jon's question is that what's appreciated during kusala moments of samatha on breath (and other kasinas) is the appreciation of kusala calm itself. (Which is why one can be a jhana master but not necessarily a noble one. I.e. his samatha panna knows the benefit of kusala calm, but that's not necessarily enough panna for awakening, i.e. for developing the path.) So, it's kind of similar to when one knows the benefit of kusala of metta, then metta is developed. But, I guess this still doesn't quite explain why breath (or another kasina) as object of samatha exactly. I can't think of anything else other than because breath and kasinas are essentially mind-produced concepts, so they are more conducive for the mind to settle on them and experience the calm (as in kusala calm because it knows the value of it, though not necessarily with panna of the satipatthana level), unlike when compared to sense-consciousness. I mean, using a candle-light (or staring at the sea for example that Sarah mentioned) as the object would mean that there's reliance on rupa, and thus sense-consciosuness has to arise, so there's no possibility of absorption ever happening. Though, I guess both can be used initially as the preparation for a particular fire or water kasina... Hm, I don't think I'm getting any closer to the answer... Best wishes pt #110690 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:29 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Alex, ----------- <. . .> A: > There is no meditation in Science. ----------- Thank heavens for that! Imagine if you were flying at 30,000 feet and the pilot announced you were in a newly-designed aircraft: "the manufactures didn't know if it would stay in the air for very long, but they meditated on it and got a positive vibe." ----------------- A: > Their knowledge is purely theoretical. They do not put in practice what they know. ----------------- I think scientists do put into practice what they know. They know that matter is guided by the laws of nature, not by a god or a controlling self. Creationists disagree with science, but they still fly to their conferences in scientifically designed aeroplanes. That's what I was thinking about when I started this conversation: Dhamma students don't need to be science deniers. In fact, they need to be even more hard-headed and matter-of-fact than scientists. ----------------------- A: > Just like reading the menu will not satisfy your hunger, same with theoretical knowledge. IMHO. ----------------------- If you think 'sitting cross-legged and focusing the mind' amounts to putting the Dhamma into practice then you are studying a different Dhamma to mine. The one I'm studying is all about understanding the present reality. Ken H #110691 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:25 pm Subject: Starving the Hindrances! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is Starving of the Mental Hindrances? At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha once explained: What, friends, is the starvation, that prevents the arising of Sense-Desire, and which also blocks any growth of already arisen Sense-Desire? It is frequent and careful attention to the Disgusting Features of things! This starvation prevents sensual lust from arising & reduces present greed And what, friends, is the starvation that prevents the arising of Ill-Will & which also hinders any aggravation and inflation of already arisen Ill-Will? It is frequent, careful and rational attention to Universal Friendliness! This starvation prevents aversion from arising & inhibits present anger And what is the starvation, that prevents arising of Lethargy-&-Laziness, and which also eliminates any already present Lethargy-&-Laziness? It is attention to these 3 elements of: Initiative, Launching and Endurance! This starvation prevents absent sloth from arising & stops present laziness. And what is the starving that prevents arising of Restlessness-&-Regret, and which also slow down any escalation of present Restlessness-&-Regret? It is frequent attention to this sweet, calm & peaceful Tranquillity of Mind! This starvation prevents upsetting of the mind & reduces anxiety & worry What is the starvation that prevents the arising of Doubt-&-Uncertainty, and which also stops any proliferation of present Doubt-&-Uncertainty? It is frequent, careful, rational attention & evaluation of these 4 Dualities: There are advantageous & disadvantageous states! There are blameable & blameless states! There are ordinary & exalted states! There are bright & dark mental states! This starvation prevents any confusion of the mind & which also dampen escalation of already present perplexity Comments: Memorize and use as suitable substitution, whenever a hindrance is noted! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:105-6] section 46: The Links. 51: The Nutriments... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110692 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- KH: >> the theory, that subatomic particles are the all, is just a concept. >> H: > But the theory that namas and rupas are the all is not? ---- In the final analysis it is right view, which is a conditioned dhamma and an absolute reality. -------------------- H: > It is a theory, Ken. You believe that theory. Do you also believe that believing that will lead to your stream entry? -------------------- Right view will lead to stream entry. Ken H #110693 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:40 pm Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > 7. What's kusala about breath meditation or any other kasina meditation? - this relates to the whole issue of samatha meditation, calm, attachment to pleasant feeling, etc. I was basically describing how I tend to differentiate between kusala and akusala in samatha meditation - basically there seemingly being more awareness and calm during what I'd call a kusala moment in meditation. But Sarah pointed out that this is most likely just more attachment to pleasant feeling that arises in relation to concentration. And Jon then asked (again) what's so kusala about breath as object in the first place, to which (again) I had no answer. My answer would be that Buddha said that breath is the supreme object of meditation, [and this is verified by Bikkhu Bodhi in his lectures on the satipatthana sutta.] Buddha said that if disciples were asked how he spent his time, they should say that he "lives by Dhamma and by breathing meditation." He spoke of the breathing meditation practice that he did prior to his enlightenment, and he practiced anapanasati to reach nibbana when he sat under the Bodhi tree. Did Buddha write suttas extolling the virtue of candle meditation or focusing on Atman in the heart center? Those were popular in his day too. Instead he repeatedly extolled the virtue of breathing meditation in any number of suttas. There are specific objects that he repeatedly mentioned for their value, and they are few in number. Breath was the leading object, and still is. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110694 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:41 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Phil, ---------------- <. . .> Ph: > Personally, I embrace rituals! ------------------ Belief in the efficacy of rituals is one of the ten fetters. ---------------------------------- Ph: > The path is long and difficult, we need empowerment and support on the way. ---------------------------------- I think you know what K Sujin would say, don't you? You are seeking permission to keep going round and round in samsara. ---------------------------------- Ph: > I would rather get it from Buddhist related rituals (such as reciting as I did this morning the five daily recollections) than from other non-Dhamma related sources of empowerment and encouragement. ----------------------------------- Nothing could be less Dhamma-related than belief in rituals. --------------------------------------------- Ph: >We all get it from somewhere. Where do you get it from? If you get it from your understanding of nama and rupa at this moment, you are using that understanding in a ritualistic way, in my opinion. If you get it from surfing, and other sensual pleasures, that's your business. But we have to get it from somewhere. --------------------------------------------- I am not sure what you are getting at, but I notice you have written a follow-up post: ------------------- Ph: > Let me clarify <. . .> Of course I also get it from sensual pleasures, that's the whole point of the thrust of my recent posts about being into my health and energy and sexual attractiveness etc. But it's the Buddhist rituals that are so helpful in almost taking me by the hand and pulling me away from that foolishness. I don't know where I would be now without the five daily recollections on ageing, illness, death, separation from the beloved and ownership of kamma. ------------------- You have done well in that regard, but that is not what the Dhamma is for. ----------------------------- Ph: > In recent months there has been laziness about it, allowing recollection of it to arise if and when it arises...but that was a *big* mistake. Hopefully from now on, and hopefully for the rest of my life as long as I am able to do so, there will be intentional recollection of the above truths, in the way urged by the Buddha. Well, we'll see. One great thing about DSG is that anytime I read someone dissing intentional recollections, it is a prod for me to get back to them! So thank you! ;) ---------------------------------- No one is dissing conventional activities. But they are not the Dhamma. If you ever want to discuss the Dhamma, DSG is here for you. Ken H #110695 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > But, I guess this still doesn't quite explain why breath (or another kasina) as object of samatha exactly. Breath has psychophysical properties that cause it to be a good object for both mindfulness and samatha. Slowing down the breath causes calm. Breath is a feedback system for the state of the nerves and mind. When the mind is excited, the breath gets jagged, short and shallow. When the mind relaxes, the breath relaxes and lengthens, and this in turn relaxes the nerves, body and mind. It is easy to see how continued attentiveness to the state of the breath will allow one to become conscious of tension, distractedness and scattered thoughts. Returning the mind to the breath, and techniques like counting the breaths, builds concentration. Calming the breath increases peacefulness. It's a good combination, and that is why the Buddha mentions some of these properties in a potentially natural order in the anapanasati sutta. The breath is also a dynamic object, like a candle-flame, but more intimate. To follow the movement of the breath and the multiple phases it goes through demands increasingly refined concentration. Following the sensations of the breath increases mindfulness of sensation and vedana. As the breath becomes softer and more subtle with increased samatha, the mind that follows it becomes softer and more subtle and tends towards deeper samatha and jhana. Following the movements and variations in the breath builds mindfulness. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110696 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:35 am Subject: Latent Tendencies, part 3. nilovg Dear Han and friends, Chapter 3. Introduction In the previous sections it has been explained that the latent tendencies that lie dormant in the citta condition the arising of akusala citta. When it is said that they arise it means that they do not arise themselves but that they cause the arising of the medium defilements, the paryutthaana kilesas. Although they lie dormant in each citta they do not cause the arising of akusala at the moment of vipaakacitta and kusala citta. ---------- Third Issue: The latent tendencies lie dormant in the citta. Do they also lie dormant in kusala citta and avykata citta [1]? Conclusion of this Issue: The latent tendencies lie dormant also in kusala citta and avykata citta. The sources which give the reason for this conclusion: In the commentary to the Anusaya Yamaka, in the section on the Spheres of Existence (dhtu vra) we read: As to the words, how many latent tendencies lie dormant, this means how many latent tendencies having persisted in the succession of cittas lie dormant. As to the words, how many latent tendencies do not lie dormant, this means, how many latent tendencies do not persist in the succession of cittas and do not lie dormant? One should distinguish between how many latent tendencies lie dormant and how many latent tendencies do not lie dormant. It has been said with regard to the ordinary people (putthujjana, non ariyan) that seven latent tendencies are lying dormant. As to the words, for whom there are five latent tendencies, this has been said with regard to the streamwinner and the once-returner who have eradicated the latent tendencies of wrong view and doubt. Therefore, for them there are only five latent tendencies. The meaning of the subject matter of the latent tendencies that lie dormant and arise in the section on the latent tendencies should, in the section on the elements (dhaatuvaara), not be taken in the same way. Question: Why? Answer: Because at that moment they do not arise [2]. When a person enters the sensuous plane of existence vipkacitta and the rpas originated by kamma arise, but akusala does not arise at that moment. The latent tendencies arise at the moment of akusala citta but not at the moment of vipaakacitta. Therefore the subject matter of the latent tendencies is different in the section on the dhaatus [3]. Because there is no opportunity for their arising at that moment. Question: How should one understand that? Answer: One should understand the subject matter in that way. Question: What is the meaning of it? Answer: The latent tendencies lie dormant because the defilements have not been eradicated. A person endowed with kusala citta or avykata citta is called a person with attachment, aversion and ignorance, so long as these have not been eradicated by the maggacitta. The latentent tendencies lie dormant in the case of that person, also at the moment of paisandhicitta , because they have not been eradicated by the magga-citta. The Buddha did not merely say that the latent tendencies lie dormant, but it should also be understood that they lie dormant because they cannot yet been eradicated. ------- footnotes: 1. Avykata citta includes vipkacitta and kiriyacitta. 2. The section on the Elements in the commentary to the latent tendencies deals with the Spheres of Existence (dhtu) where one can be born: the kma dhtu, the senseuous sphere of existence, the rpa- dhtu, the rpa-brahma planes, and the arpa-dhaatu, the arpa- brahmaplanes. At the moment of the rebirth-consciousness which is vipkacitta, there is no opportunity for the arising of akusala citta, which is conditioned at that moment by the latent tendencies. 3. However, the latent tendencies lie dormant also in the rebirth- consciousness so long as they have not been eradicated by the magga- citta, path-consciousness of the ariyans. ------------- Pali: dhaatuvissajjanaavaarava.n.nanaa 341-349. niddesavaare panassa kassaci satta anusayaa anusentiiti puthujjanavasena vutta.m. kassaci pa~ncaati sotaapannasakadaagaamivasena vutta.m. tesa~nhi di.t.thaanusayo ca vicikicchaanusayo ca pahiinaati pa~nceva anusenti. tattha yathaa anusayavaare ``anusentii''ti padassa uppajjantiiti attho gahito, evamidha na gahetabbo. kasmaa? tasmi.m kha.ne anuppajjanato. kaamadhaatu.m upapajjantassa hi vipaakacitta~nceva kammasamu.t.thaanaruupa~nca uppajjati, akusalacitta.m natthi. anusayaa ca akusalacittakkha.ne uppajjanti, na vipaakacittakkha.neti tasmi.m kha.ne anuppajjanato tathaa attho na gahetabbo. katha.m pana gahetabboti? yathaa labbhati tathaa gahetabbo. katha~nca labbhati? appahiina.t.thena. yathaa hi raagadosamohaana.m appahiinattaa. kusalaabyaakatacittasama"ngii puggalo ``saraago sadoso samoho''ti vuccati, eva.m maggabhaavanaaya appahiinattaa pa.tisandhikkha.nepi tassa tassa puggalassa te te anusayaa anusentiiti vuccanti. na kevala~nca vuccanti, appahiinattaa pana te anusentiyeva naamaati veditabbaa. ******** Nina. #110697 From: Carlos Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:22 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma dhammasaro FWIW... Way back in the 60's I saw a DC-10 land fully under computer control... the pilots aboard for the USA FAA acceptance tests were ready to take control if they suspect any error... I saw the so-called inside video as an active member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Now, some 50 plus years later, what are the improvements??? And, where are the unions??? Heh??? To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: kenhowardau@... Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:29:29 +0000 Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma Hi Alex,nd, where are ----------- <. . .> A: > There is no meditation in Science. ----------- Thank heavens for that! Imagine if you were flying at 30,000 feet and the pilot announced you were in a newly-designed aircraft: "the manufactures didn't know if it would stay in the air for very long, but they meditated on it and got a positive vibe." <...> #110698 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:46 am Subject: Khun Bong's Diary, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, Khun Bong wrote about her appointment with the doctor. She would take a chemo treatment and she knew that this would cause nausea, headache and loss of hair. But, she said that that was no problem since she had a wig. It was not sure whether she would recover or that the cancer would spread. She knew that this depended on conditions. She thought of someone speaking about being certain to die or hoping to recover: If someone knows that he has cancer and will die after seven months, he can give his last instructions to others and he feels at ease. He just awaits his time. But if he thinks that he will escape death, he keeps on being worried. Khun Bong thought: Why should one oppose death, there is nothing to be gained. This is true and it has been proved, but I do not believe it yet. Ignorance will be accumulated, we do not know for how many more lives. She wrote: One is glad to be born and sad to die. But actually, one should be sad to be born. What is most valuable is to die and not to be reborn. I am awaiting that day. It is not far away if one develops right understanding of realities time and again. She realised the importance of patience, also in her way of speech to others. She had a cough and had aversion towards food, but she still tried to eat. She thought that it was fortunate for her to be in such a condition where she could consider what one usually is forgetful of, namely, that death is sure to come. She wrote: The Buddha said to nanda to be mindful of death at each moment of breathing. But we are not so advanced yet, we think more often of being in comfort. She found that her moods and ways of thinking were changing all the time. Sometimes she thought that she was ready to die, that it would be better to die now instead of having to become older, having to be tormented by more pain. Seeing and hearing would arise again and be followed by akusala citta. Sometimes she would think that it would be better to recover. But when she realised that life is dukkha she would not be happy. She knew that she was thinking all the time. She wrote: When pa~n~naa arises we understand that separation is natural. She thought secretely to herself that she would like to stay alive but she knew that there was little chance of this when thinking in percentages of those who could recover. She wrote: Sati should be developed so that it becomes firm and then the wrong view of self can be eradicated. Each moment is truly dhamma and it has its own characteristic. Att-sa makes us believe that there is I. As soon as a dhamma arises we remember wrongly that it is self and this is wrong view, wrong thinking of there being I. In reality there are only cold, heat, etc. These are known through the bodysense, they are rpas, not us. They are impermanent, their nature is being subject to change and why should we take them for self? This regards even painful feeling. ****** Nina. #110699 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:37 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi RobE, Thanks for your replies. > RobE: My answer would be that Buddha said that breath is the supreme object of meditation, [and this is verified by Bikkhu Bodhi in his lectures on the satipatthana sutta.] ... pt: I think Jon's question refers to something a bit different. I mean, there's no dispute that breath was praised by the Buddha, etc. The question I think is rather - how do I know whether particular focusing on the breath at the moment is kusala or akusala, since arguably both can happen, so the issue is how to differentiate the two. Similarly: > RobE: Breath has psychophysical properties that cause it to be a good object for both mindfulness and samatha. Slowing down the breath causes calm. Breath is a feedback system for the state of the nerves and mind. When the mind is excited, the breath gets jagged, short and shallow. When the mind relaxes, the breath relaxes and lengthens, and this in turn relaxes the nerves, body and mind. ... pt: Again I think Jon's question is a bit different. I mean, sure what you say is true, but it's a post-fact observation. I think Jon's question has more to do with right now - if the object of the mind is breath right now, how do I know that it is also kusala and not akusala focus on the breath. Arguably, concentration and associated joy and relaxation can be both a/kusala, so how do I (or rather panna) get to differentiate them in the present moment? E.g. if the object is Buddha or Sangha, there can be at this moment appreciation, respect, etc, of their qualities, which would mean there's kusala right now. But what about breath or another kasina? What is it there at that moment that makes it kusala as different from akusala focusing on the breath (like when there's wanting now to get more relaxation, stillness, powers, etc)? Best wishes pt #110700 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/14/2010 12:59:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ---- KH: >> the theory, that subatomic particles are the all, is just a concept. >> H: > But the theory that namas and rupas are the all is not? ---- In the final analysis it is right view, which is a conditioned dhamma and an absolute reality. -------------------- H: > It is a theory, Ken. You believe that theory. Do you also believe that believing that will lead to your stream entry? -------------------- Right view will lead to stream entry. ----------------------------------------------- Hallelujah! ;-) --------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard Confidence Born of Knowing, Not Faith /'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.'/ (From the Kalama Sutta) #110701 From: "a_true_lotus" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:57 am Subject: How to contact moderators privately? a_true_lotus Dear Moderators, How may I contact you privately? Best, Ari #110702 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:42 am Subject: Re: Latent Tendencies, part 3. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your series. Your presentation is more clear than the Burmese books that I have. So your series are more useful for me. Only one thing. From where do you get the Pali text. In my book in Pali text, paragraph 341 alone is more lengthy than paras 341-349 that you quoted? For example, in my book, under Dhaatuvisajjanaavaara, para 341 started with: [kaamadhaatuyaa sutassa kaamadhaatu.m upapajjantassa kassaci satta anusayaa anusenti, kassaci pa~nca anusayaa anusenti, anusayaa bha"ngaa natthi.] and so on. It is different from your quote. The Burmese translation says that [anusayaa bha"ngaa natthi] means it should not be said which anusayas lie dormant or which anusayas do not lie dormant in puthujjana. The same applies to sotaapanna and sakadaagaami. Respectfully, Han #110703 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:42 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > Thanks for your replies. > > > > RobE: My answer would be that Buddha said that breath is the supreme object of meditation, [and this is verified by Bikkhu Bodhi in his lectures on the satipatthana sutta.] > ... > > pt: I think Jon's question refers to something a bit different. I mean, there's no dispute that breath was praised by the Buddha, etc. The question I think is rather - how do I know whether particular focusing on the breath at the moment is kusala or akusala, since arguably both can happen, so the issue is how to differentiate the two. Similarly: > > > RobE: Breath has psychophysical properties that cause it to be a good object for both mindfulness and samatha. Slowing down the breath causes calm. Breath is a feedback system for the state of the nerves and mind. When the mind is excited, the breath gets jagged, short and shallow. When the mind relaxes, the breath relaxes and lengthens, and this in turn relaxes the nerves, body and mind. > ... > > pt: Again I think Jon's question is a bit different. I mean, sure what you say is true, but it's a post-fact observation. I think Jon's question has more to do with right now - if the object of the mind is breath right now, how do I know that it is also kusala and not akusala focus on the breath. Arguably, concentration and associated joy and relaxation can be both a/kusala, so how do I (or rather panna) get to differentiate them in the present moment? E.g. if the object is Buddha or Sangha, there can be at this moment appreciation, respect, etc, of their qualities, which would mean there's kusala right now. But what about breath or another kasina? What is it there at that moment that makes it kusala as different from akusala focusing on the breath (like when there's wanting now to get more relaxation, stillness, powers, etc)? I think a lot of the confusion in this issue is the idea that kusala is some kind of mystical quality that no one can easily know and that it can easily be mistaken for its opposite. It is part of the investigation that mindfulness engages in to see if something has hidden motives, discomforts, aversions, whatever, in the moment, and that is what leads to vipassana and panna. The idea that these things are all conditioned by past accumulations that can pop up at any moment, rather than being conditioned by a combination of past and present tendencies and intentions that are operating *now*, I think is problematic. That means one can really never know anything, unless and until the magical mystical panna is given by the gods. And then how does one know that it is really panna, and not a cheap substitute? This entire way of looking at things is disempowering and leads to helplessness. Who is going to tell us when panna finally descends? Perhaps our assumed-to-be semi-enlightened teacher if we happen to have one that we hold in high esteem, or perhaps we think that certainty will accompany the arrival of sufficient panna, and so we will then know it for sure. But what if we're deluded about that too? What if we are deluded about our teacher too? How can we ever know? I think the truth is that Buddha said "see for yourself," not wait for teacher or certainty to strike you on the head. I think that when we examine the dhamma of the moment with sati and a sincere intention that sati becomes more present and akusala becomes gradually more obvious. When the breath is object, the kusala effects are not only known "after the fact," they are known at the time. I think there is always some kusala and some akusala and one can learn to discern them and move towards the kusala with sati and wise investigation into the moments as they arise. I think that meditation does position one - no pun intended - to do this more clearly, and that the sitting itself does create conditions for this to take place. I realize that many here do not believe in psychophysical anything, but in truth and in experience, sitting upright and relaxed and focusing on breath creates kusala conditions. And I believe Buddha said this as well. Yes, you can mess it up. And hindrances will arise. How you look at those and how you deal with those as they arise determines what happens next, and it is a skill that increases with practice. One can actually, in the moment, look with mindfulness, relax and increase samatha, discern and release resistance, aversion, attachment, whatever arises in the moment, and this increases with practice. Over time kusala is increased. Kusala is not "magical mystical unknown quality." It is *wholesomeness.* It is not a thing, it is a discernible quality. Wholesomeness has a sense of goodness to it. If it is polluted by attachment or fear or greed, sati can pick this up because those akusala qualities feel off, or bad, or wrong. One can learn to pick this up. There may be no meditator, but there is Right Mindfulness, and it is not a gift from the Sky-Gods. It is developed through open and attentive practice. I also think that praising and appreciating the Buddha and Dhamma may also *not* be kusala, but may be expressions of delusion and attachment. Do we know what our real intention is? Do we know what "Buddha" is when we praise him? Are we praising and attaching to our own false concept? The idea that these objects have certain kusala while breath, which the Buddha commended, is a trap for akusala disguised as kusala, is absurd. More abstract objects than the breath are *more* likely, not less, to bring out undisclosed akusala. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110704 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 13 October 2010 03:38, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > I do not understand the Buddha to be saying that concepts in general > cause > > suffering, only the illusory concept of self, with its illusory kamma. > > It sounds like you are saying that only anatta is at issue for the Buddha, > but it is craving and clinging for that which is anatta, anicca and dukkha > that causes suffering and negative kamma. Is it only personal self-concept > that causes such attachment, or is it attachment to the objects, memories, > identities in our life that we attach treasured meanings to? Those > extensions of self-concept in the world, in our minds and in our lives, need > to be detached from as well. If one could blow personal self-concept out of > the water, perhaps all these other attachments would go as well, but it > seems to me that the concept of self is intertwined with all the attachments > we have in the world and in our lives, and that they all need to be unwound > together. > > In the world of atta, what that we enjoy and cling to is not a part of > atta? > > I understand what you are saying. But I don't think that the Buddha teaches that it is any and all concepts that are at the root of craving and clinging. There is of course the craving for being (self), which is a concept, but sensual craving is not a craving for concepts, IMO. Cheers Herman #110705 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 13 October 2010 13:37, Robert E wrote: > > > It is clear to me that in the case of kamma and anatta, we cannot have > both. > > It is also clear to me that there is no autonomous self that directs or > > controls the flow of experience. It has to follow that to the extent that > we > > hold "persons" responsible for their "deeds", as though there are persons > > that are doers of their deeds, we are deluded. In other words, I'd sooner > > reject kamma than anatta. > > Well, I don't see why we have to have a "self" to have kamma. Kamma implies > that a pattern of cause and effect is set in motion, and that those > consequences are experienced as vipaka, but it doesn't need a self to make > that happen. Why is that a conflict? > > There would only be a conflict if "doing" was considered to be something fundamentally different than "happening". Doing is only different in that it involves intention, but intention also only "happens", there is no-one intending. I think from what you wrote that we agree on that. > > > > The fact that I move a table and chairs around does not imply that I > think > > > the table has a "self," yet when I move my body around it seems to > imply > > > that I am saying that body contains or is contained by a self. However, > why > > > can't I move that body around, respond to my name etc. while > understanding > > > it is like moving the table around, nothing more? If that is not > acceptable > > > then isn't one still attached to the concept and sentiment of one's > self > > > being actual? > > > > > > > > I think it is a matter of understanding the difference between "this is > > happening" and "I am doing this". > > Can't the same be said for kamma? > > If you mean that when it is said "I am intending this" all that is really meant is that "this intention is happening", then, yes, for sure. > ... > > > > > The body bleeds to death, and where is Bahiya in all that? What is he? > And > > > what is the experience of the body bleeding to death? What does that > mean > > > for Bahiya? > > > > > > > > Well, Bahiya will experience what he will. And to the extent that that > > includes prospective, future-oriented thinking as in "I will do this" or > "I > > won't do that" then there is no awareness of what is already happening > (NB: > > happening - as opposed to being done) presently. And the same goes for > > retrospective, past-oriented thinking as in "I did this" or "I didn't do > > that". > > Not to rub it in too much, but wouldn't that apply just as well to the > distinction between "kamma happens" and "my kamma?" > > If the understanding is that intention is as impersonal as, say, raining, then, yes. Cheers Herman #110706 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 13 October 2010 14:32, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > ----- > <. . .> > H: > "The Abhidhamma clearly says that namas are experienced separately > from their arammana." > > > I think you are saying that namas can be experienced after they have fallen > away. > ----- > > That is not what I was trying to say in that sentence, but yes, namas can > be experienced after they have fallen away. So can rupas (whenever they are > experienced at the mind door). > > Namas are realities that experience an object. Can you think of any way > they could, in turn, become objects of experience - other than after they > had fallen away? > > If namas could somehow be experienced before they had fallen away, there > would be consciousness experiencing itself experiencing itself experiencing > . . . The feedback would be horrendous! :-) > > I understand what you are saying. We would probably agree that it is not necessary to have a theory of experience / perception in order to experience / perceive. And while there is nothing wrong with having some kind of understanding of how things work, I do see a pitfall if one starts to believe that they are actually experiencing the theory. I simply cannot say that there is an experience of mind or body doors, or namas knowing an object. As far as I can tell, they are explanations, not experiences. All I can say is that whatever is experienced, I am never it. (and that is from experience :-)) > ----------------------------- > H: > This also makes me wonder what the value of "present" in "present > > moment" is. It seems that the theory of perception as outlined in > Abhidhamma commentary includes the immediate past in the present. > ---------------------------- > > In a manner of speaking, maybe, but, as I was saying, how else could namas > be experienced? > > Well, the theory you espouse imposes a number of limits on itself, for reasons that are not self-evident. If one starts of insisting that only one discreet object is ever knowable at once, then you are hamstrung from the beginning, and will need to contort what is meant by the present to account for the reality of what is experienced. > ----------------------------- > H: > I wonder how this can be experienced to be the case. > ----------------------------- > > I am not sure what you are asking, but satipatthana is the answer. :-) > > I'll give you 10 out of 10 once you have it to be so :-) > --------------------------------------- > H: > I prefer the much more straightforward and verifiable sutta approach. > --------------------------------------- > > Hmm, this will be good! :-) > > -------------------------- > H: > Whatever is experienced, besides whatever positive, knowable > characteristic it has eg blue, loud, pleasant, also has the negative > characteristic of "I am not it". > ------------------------- > > That sounds right to me. How does it differ from the Tipitaka-as-a-whole > approach? > > ---------------------------- > H: > In terms of the senses, that translates into seeing, hearing etc > > having only the negative quality of not being their object. Namas are not > positive, they are purely negative. Namas are not known as presence, they > are known as absence. > ----------------------------- > > Hold on! Why have you discarded your sutta approach? You said "Whatever is > experienced, besides whatever positive, knowable characteristic it has eg > blue, loud, pleasant, also has the negative characteristic of "I am not > it"." > > Namas have positive characteristics that can be known. > > [After a quick look at Nina's book, "Cetasikas"] I can tell you that > phassa, for example, has the characteristic of touching. > > So there goes your theory! > > Hang on a minute :-). Is Nina's book "Cetasikas" based on the suttas? And have you ever experienced "touching", "seeing", "hearing", "feeling" that was not dependent on an object? Did you ever touch touching, or see seeing, or hear hearing or feel feeling? Unless you are radically different to everyone else, then, no, you didn't. All you can say about touching, seeing, hearing, feeling etc is that it is characterised by it's object, not by itself. ----------------------------------------- > H: > Now, these considerations are not just matters of theory or > intellectual understanding; they have serious implications for how the > dhamma is lived. As the Buddha makes clear in his teachings on sunnata / > emptiness eg MN121, the world is empty of whatever is not there, only what > is there is present. The pursuit of knowledge of namas as separate present > entities is guaranteed to fail, because emptiness isn't present. > ------------------------------------------- > > That doesn't add up. You are making things harder than they need to be. > > Every paramattha dhamma has the characteristic of anatta (sunnata). When a > dahamma is present so too is sunnata. > > What's so hard about that? > > Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? Cheers Herman #110707 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:54 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, > ----------- > <. . .> > A: > There is no meditation in Science. > ----------- > >KH: Thank heavens for that! Imagine if you were flying at 30,000 >feet and the pilot announced you were in a newly-designed aircraft: >"the manufactures didn't know if it would stay in the air for very >long, >but they meditated on it and got a positive vibe." Your reply doesn't make sense. Recall that our discussion was about practical uses (not misuses) of the knowledge. Some scientists/philosophers do preach that objects do not really exist. Some deny even existence of The Self. Are they awakened? If not, why not? Maybe theory itself is not enough. > I think scientists do put into practice what they know. They know >that matter is guided by the laws of nature, not by a god or a >controlling self. And does their behaviour show their understanding of no-Self? Do they have possessiveness or conceit? What about other fetters? > If you think 'sitting cross-legged and focusing the mind' amounts >to putting the Dhamma into practice then you are studying a >different Dhamma to mine. The one I'm studying is all about >understanding the present reality. Meditation is all about understanding what is happening now, and removing greed/anger/delusion through understanding. Please don't build up strawman to demolish it in order to justify your POV. With metta, Alex #110708 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:30 pm Subject: Gone Out! bhikkhu5 Friends: Ceasing the 5 Clusters Ceases Suffering! At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus, there are these five clusters of clinging! What five? The cluster of clinging to form... The cluster of clinging to feeling... The cluster of clinging to perception... The cluster of clinging to construction... The cluster of clinging to consciousness... When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple understands as they really are: The arising, the ceasing, the satisfaction, the danger, and the escape from these five clusters of clinging, then he is called a Noble Disciple, who is a Stream-Enterer , no longer bound to the painful lower worlds, fixed in destiny, with Enlightenment as his assured destination! Explanation: Being is Burning on Craving and Clinging: The body arises from food and ceases in absence of food. Feeling, perception & mental construction arises from contact and ceases in absence of sense contact. Consciousness arises from name-&-form and ceases in absence of this body-&-mind: mentality-&-materiality. These are the clusters proximate causes... Their remote causes is past ignorance, lust for them and intentional action (= Kamma) resulting in them! The satisfaction of these five clusters of clinging is the pleasure and joy they temporarily induce... The danger of these five clusters of clinging is their impermanence & inevitable fading away! The escape is the Noble Way of ceasing all craving for these 5 clusters of clinging! That ends suffering! <...> Entering the Stream means having max. 7 lives before Enlightenment! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:109 III 161 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 _/\_ * <...> #110709 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 14 October 2010 09:01, Ken H wrote: > > > Certainly the Dhamma says there are only dhammas, and all conditioned > dhammas behave in accordance with to the laws of conditionality. I think > science says something similar. It says there are only the basic building > blocks of matter (subatomic particles) and they behave in accordance with > the laws of the universe. > > When a scientist contemplates fleeting particles (each one lasting about a > trillionth of a second) he knows "This is all there is. People, planets and > galaxies are just subjective creations based on countless trillions of > these." > > So it seems to me that science sees a fundamental distinction between > concepts and realities just as much as the Dhamma does. > > I agree wholeheartedly with you Ken H. Good science and good dhamma are not really different. I came across this recently, from the pen of the Nobel-winning Edelman: "I have called another conscious illusion the Heraclitean illusion because it reflects our way of thinking about time and change. Most people sense the passage of time as the movement of a point or a scene from the past to the present to the future. But in a strict physical sense, only the present exists." > If so, why doesn't science lead to nibbana? Why doesn't the understanding > "there are only subatomic particles - no self" lead to perfect detachment > and the end of suffering? > > Probably for the same reason that good dhamma doesn't lead to nibbana either. It is not a self that craves, it is not a self that wonders on through time. Rather, it is craving that leads to the idea of a self wandering through time. > One possible answer is that perfect understanding cannot be reached until > the mind is purified. And science doesn't know how to purify the mind. > > Another possible answer is that there is no such thing as perfect understanding or a purified mind, and that the quest for it is just another manifestation of craving. Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." > I don't know; I am only speculating. > > Me too, it can be fun :-) Cheers Herman > Ken H > > > #110710 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/14/2010 6:01:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Rob E, On 13 October 2010 13:37, Robert E wrote: > > > It is clear to me that in the case of kamma and anatta, we cannot have > both. > > It is also clear to me that there is no autonomous self that directs or > > controls the flow of experience. It has to follow that to the extent that > we > > hold "persons" responsible for their "deeds", as though there are persons > > that are doers of their deeds, we are deluded. In other words, I'd sooner > > reject kamma than anatta. > > Well, I don't see why we have to have a "self" to have kamma. Kamma implies > that a pattern of cause and effect is set in motion, and that those > consequences are experienced as vipaka, but it doesn't need a self to make > that happen. Why is that a conflict? > > There would only be a conflict if "doing" was considered to be something fundamentally different than "happening". Doing is only different in that it involves intention, but intention also only "happens", there is no-one intending. I think from what you wrote that we agree on that. -------------------------------------------- Just for the record, I also agree. Moreover, I think this is a very important point - one possibly not fully realized by everyone on DSG. It seems to me that some folks here tend to want to throw out the baby (intention) with the bath water (intender). =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110711 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Thanks Howard, On 15 October 2010 10:27, wrote: > > There would only be a conflict if "doing" was considered to be something > fundamentally different than "happening". Doing is only different in that > it > involves intention, but intention also only "happens", there is no-one > intending. I think from what you wrote that we agree on that. > -------------------------------------------- > Just for the record, I also agree. Moreover, I think this is a very > important point - one possibly not fully realized by everyone on DSG. It > seems to me that some folks here tend to want to throw out the baby > (intention) > with the bath water (intender). > > Well, just let them try :-) Cheers Herman #110712 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Ken > Belief in the efficacy of rituals is one of the ten fetters. I think what our disagreements come down to is that you are more advanced in your understanding of Dhamma than me, and that's great. I don't think about ten fetters, I think about ten akusala kamma patha and keeping the precepts. If that means, as you say, that I am going to be longer in samsara because of that...well, I don't know what to say. So be it, I guess! Also, re rituals, according to a talk I heard (which may have been incorrect) silibabawhateveritis has to be understood in the context of the day, when people for example did fire worship. I think it is a Sujinism to apply that to meditation, but when I hear any other teacher - any one, single on, any other teacher - doing so, I will pay more attention. Still waiting.... Anyways, we are both keen on Dhamma, that is good. Metta, Phil #110713 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:41 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Phil, ----------- <. . .> Ph: > If that means, as you say, that I am going to be longer in samsara because of that...well, I don't know what to say. So be it, I guess! ----------- I believe "So be it!" is a good philosophy. "So what?" is another good one. Whenever I think of what might happen to me as a result of my past actions - good or bad - I think, so what? There is no permanent self; there are only disinterested namas and rupas. --------------------- Ph: > Also, re rituals, according to a talk I heard (which may have been incorrect) -------------------- I wonder why anyone would give a talk designed to limit the definition of rituals. Do you have any thoughts on that? --------------------------- Ph: > silibabawhateveritis has to be understood in the context of the day, when people for example did fire worship. --------------------------- There is not much fire worship these days, but what about the proverbial Sunday Christians? - people who behave badly all week and then go to church on Sundays. If they believe that will get them to heaven, don't they have silabbataparamasa? Or does there need to be fire? :-) Or what if someone begrudgingly donates to charity (or begrudgingly spares the life of a pest) simply in the belief it will count as kusala kamma? --------------------------------- Ph: > I think it is a Sujinism to apply that to meditation, --------------------------------- Just as true dana and sila are not mere rituals so too is true bhavana not a mere ritual. True bhavana is a conditioned reality that arises when the conditions for its arising are in place. Fake bhavana is something else. And the belief that fake bhavana can develop samatha/vipassana is silabbataparamasa - wrong view. ----------------------------------- Ph: > but when I hear any other teacher - any one, single on, any other teacher - doing so, I will pay more attention. Still waiting.... ----------------------------------- Do the Theras who wrote the ancient commentaries count as teachers? They make it clear that the definition of silabbataparamasa extends to belief in the efficacy of *all* concepts, not just the obviously silly ones. You might remember a commentary quote that Robert K often provides when this subject comes up. (I haven't saved it, unfortunately.) ----------- <. . .> Ph: > Anyways, we are both keen on Dhamma, that is good. ----------- Exactly! Ken H #110714 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:22 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Ken > Ph: > If that means, as you say, that I am going to be longer in samsara because of that...well, I don't know what to say. So be it, I guess! > ----------- > > I believe "So be it!" is a good philosophy. "So what?" is another good one. > > Whenever I think of what might happen to me as a result of my past actions - good or bad - I think, so what? There is no permanent self; there are only disinterested namas and rupas. Ph:Just for the record, I don't actually feel "so be it!" about how long I stay in samsara, nor especially about probabilities of future destinations, and the Buddha again and again encourages householders to be concerned about destinations in future lives. I am a householder with little understanding and powerful defilements, so, I follow the Dhamma int he way the Buddha taught to people like me. I believe "so be it" about what you believe about my Dhamma practice. You are a nice person, but you have no real understanding of nama and rupas (neither do I) so going around announcing again and again "there are only disinterested namas and rupas" is a kind of...I still can't find the word...a pantomime, or a make believe game that is intellectually stimulating and comforting by giving a sense of access to deep understanding by the magic of repeating words. (Oh, a ritual!) I have the image of a quiet place with people meditating to develop tranquility and/or deeper understanding of the mind's working, and Ken H riding around on a bicycle outside shouting "there are only namas and rupas." Of course you will like this image, so it is yours, I give it to you! Metta, Phil #110715 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I understand what you are saying. But I don't think that the Buddha teaches > that it is any and all concepts that are at the root of craving and > clinging. There is of course the craving for being (self), which is a > concept, but sensual craving is not a craving for concepts, IMO. I think that seeing concepts as concepts is part of the development of mindfulness, but it is not necessary to "get rid of" concepts, just understand that a menu is different from a meal and an idea doesn't necessarily reflect reality. When Buddha said "In the seen there will be only the seen," I think he also said, "In thinking there will only be thinking," or something to that effect. So it's just to see what is what, I think. As for clinging, craving and aversion, which I think are the main problems that cause suffering, I don't think those are mainly conceptual, but they are products of delusion about the objects that are clung to, mistakenly thinking they can give satisfaction or end suffering, when in fact clinging to them makes suffering worse. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110716 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Well, I don't see why we have to have a "self" to have kamma. Kamma implies > > that a pattern of cause and effect is set in motion, and that those > > consequences are experienced as vipaka, but it doesn't need a self to make > > that happen. Why is that a conflict? > > > > > There would only be a conflict if "doing" was considered to be something > fundamentally different than "happening". Doing is only different in that it > involves intention, but intention also only "happens", there is no-one > intending. I think from what you wrote that we agree on that. Yes, we agree. Best, Robert E. = = = = = #110717 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: Ken H. wrote: > > Every paramattha dhamma has the characteristic of anatta (sunnata). When a > > dahamma is present so too is sunnata. > > > > What's so hard about that? > > > > > Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? Conspicuous in its absence...? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110718 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:36 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----- <. . .> H: > We would probably agree that it is not necessary to have a theory of experience / perception in order to experience / perceive. ----- Yes, of course. ------------ H: > And while there is nothing wrong with having some kind of understanding of how things work, I do see a pitfall if one starts to believe that they are actually experiencing the theory. I simply cannot say that there is an experience of mind or body doors, or namas knowing an object. As far as I can tell, they are explanations, not experiences. ------------ Explanations of how things work help us to understand what those things are. We understand nama, for example, as a reality that experiences something. I don't know how we would achieve that understanding if we hadn't heard explanations of what namas experience and how. ------------------ H: > All I can say is that whatever is experienced, I am never it. (and that is from experience :-)) ------------------- Is it from experience, or is it from hearing explanations and considering them? -------------------------- H: > Well, the theory you espouse imposes a number of limits on itself, for reasons that are not self-evident. If one starts of insisting that only one discreet object is ever knowable at once, then you are hamstrung from the beginning, and will need to contort what is meant by the present to account for the reality of what is experienced. --------------------------- OK, but we aren't we studying the Buddha's teaching? That's how he explained it That is what we are trying to understand. The 'one object at a time' explanation is very persuasive if you think about it. Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience two objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither one thing not the other. Impossible! --------------------------------- H: > And have you ever experienced "touching", "seeing", "hearing", "feeling" that was not dependent on an object? Did you ever touch touching, or see seeing, or hear hearing or feel feeling? Unless you are radically different to everyone else, then, no, you didn't. All you can say about touching, seeing, hearing, feeling etc is that it is characterised by it's object, not by itself. ---------------------------------- When namas appear at the mind door they are experienced by mentally cognizing consciousness, not by seeing consciousness, or hearing or touching (etc)consciousness. You can mentally cognize consciousness, can't you? ----------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? ----------------------------------------- I am saying it *is* a characteristic, and it can be experienced by mind consciousness. Ken H #110719 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:54 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------ <. . .> A: > Your reply doesn't make sense. Recall that our discussion was about practical uses (not misuses) of the knowledge. Some scientists/philosophers do preach that objects do not really exist. Some deny even existence of The Self. Are they awakened? If not, why not? ------- As I said before, I think it is because only panna - right understanding of nama and rupa - leads to enlightenment. ------------------- A: > Maybe theory itself is not enough. ------------------- The theory that only subatomic particles exist is not even a starting point. Anatta has to be known as a characteristic of namas and rupas. Knowing it as a logical deduction - "since there are only particles, there is no self" - might lead to detachment, but it won't lead to nibbana. Ken H #110720 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:37 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Phil, ---- <. . .> Ph:Just for the record, I don't actually feel "so be it!" about how long I stay in samsara, nor especially about probabilities of future destinations, and the Buddha again and again encourages householders to be concerned about destinations in future lives. ---- By 'concerned' do you mean 'worried' 'anxious' 'distressed'? ------------------ Ph: > I am a householder with little understanding and powerful defilements, so, I follow the Dhamma in the way the Buddha taught to people like me. ------------------ "Right understanding of the way things are." That's all the Buddha ever taught. -------------------------- Ph: > I believe "so be it" about what you believe about my Dhamma practice. -------------------------- Sorry, I thought you meant if I was right about your Dhamma practice then, "so be it." ---------------- Ph: > You are a nice person, but you have no real understanding of nama and rupas (neither do I) so going around announcing again and again "there are only disinterested namas and rupas" is a kind of...I still can't find the word...a pantomime, or a make believe game that is intellectually stimulating and comforting by giving a sense of access to deep understanding by the magic of repeating words. (Oh, a ritual!) ----------------- I am sorry you see it that way, and I am glad I don't see it that way. To my mind, I am just applying my limited understanding to whatever is being discussed at the time. To my mind, you are the one engaging in a pantomime: the idea of formal vipassana meditation is contradiction in terms, and the act of sitting, trying to make conditioned dhammas do what you want them to do, is a pantomime. (Thanks for the good word. In the old days I would have called it an appalling travesty.) Ken H #110721 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:14 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? jonoabb Hi Robert E I have a number of messages from you to reply to (you set a cracking pace!), so will limit my comments to selected points only. Pls feel free to mention if there are any points I've omitted that you'd like me to address. (110497) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > If I say "If you want to reach enlightenment you should practice anapanasati with breath as the object" it is not any less an instruction or any more a description than if I say "If you want to get milk you should go to the store." Sure, I'm not saying you have to get milk, or that you must go to the store, but I am saying that if you want the milk, you *should* in fact go to the store. It's an instruction no matter how you slice it. > =============== J: I see nothing prescriptive in the statement "If you want to get milk you should go to the store." On the question of whether the text is intended to be a self-help guide to attaining the jhanas, I do not see how it can be, given the importance of the role of the teacher, and the lack of much information that would be necessary if the target reader was an aspiring jhana attainer. (There are also the context/provenance matters I've mentioned already). Jon #110722 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:31 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, part 3. nilovg Dear Han, Op 14-okt-2010, om 16:42 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Only one thing. From where do you get the Pali text. In my book in > Pali text, paragraph 341 alone is more lengthy than paras 341-349 > that you quoted? > > For example, in my book, under Dhaatuvisajjanaavaara, para 341 > started with: [kaamadhaatuyaa sutassa kaamadhaatu.m upapajjantassa > kassaci satta anusayaa anusenti, kassaci pa~nca anusayaa anusenti, > anusayaa bha"ngaa natthi.] and so on. It is different from your quote. > > The Burmese translation says that [anusayaa bha"ngaa natthi] means > it should not be said which anusayas lie dormant or which anusayas > do not lie dormant in puthujjana. The same applies to sotaapanna > and sakadaagaami. ------ N: I think we just have the same Pali text. I am following the Thai study with explanations and this quotes one part at a time and then adds an explanation. The Pali text continues as you quote, but I have not reached that yet. In fact I will have to go back a few pages of the commentary to the part on the mahaavara later on. In those different parts different aspects have been explained. In the Dhaatuvaara it is the rebirth-consciousness as an example. At that moment the anusayas are still dormant but they do not have an opportunity to condition the arising of akusala, since that moment is vipaakacitta. They 'do not arise' is in a sense different from not arising of wrong view and doubt for the sotaapanna, since these have been eradicated. They never arise again. Also at the moment of rebirth-consciousness in the case of the putthujjana they do not arise, but they have not been eradicated. They still lie dormant. It is this point of 'they do not arise' that has been explained. I am now adding a point on conditions that I recently heard from Kh Sujin: The study of some details on conditions all this helps with the understanding of anattaa. It is a real support. Pa~n~naa may not be sufficient yet to eradicate the belief in a self, even if there is sati now and then. Listening and study of details of the Dhamma accumulates as sa"nkhaarakkhandha (the khandha of formations) so that pa~n~naa can grow. We may use the expression: it is conditioned, but the understanding of it can grow deeper. Never too late! **** Nina. #110723 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:43 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110498) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > He said different things in different suttas. In some he said that Dhamma study and wise association were the essential ingredients, in other suttas he said that anapanasati or satipatthana practice were essential and could bring one all the way to enlightenment, step by step. So I take both of those as being important and necessary, personally speaking. > =============== J: I don't think the Buddha said that either "study" or "practice" were essential. I think what he said was that (in addition to association with the good friend) hearing the true Dhamma and reflecting on what had been heard and understood were essential conditions. > =============== > It is my firm opinion that if someone says "the person who wants to develop greater samatha and sati leading to the development of the enlightenement factors does x and y" that this is saying clearly that one who wants to develop these qualities *should* do x and y. To say it is only a description based on it saying "the case where a monk does x" seems nonsensically hair-splitting to me. It is clearly an instruction manual with an ordered set of details. Likewise for the satipatthana sutta. > =============== J: On that reading, it would be unnecessary ever to go beyond the section of the Satipatthana Sutta dealing with the monk who is developing anapanasati! ;-)) Jon #110724 From: han tun Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:45 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, part 3. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. It is all very clear. I will follow your further posts on this subject. Respectfully, Han --- On Fri, 10/15/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I think we just have the same Pali text. I am following the Thai study with explanations and this quotes one part at a time and then adds an explanation. The Pali text continues as you quote, but I have not reached that yet. In fact I will have to go back a few pages of the commentary to the part on the mahaavara later on. #110725 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:49 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110590) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, and Alex. > ... > Since we agree that Buddha is describing the conditions under which anapanasati can be done and the results that will follow, it is clear that these are the conditions. If you want to guess that a bunch of other conditions are equally good for developing mindfulness of breathing, then why heed the sutta at all? > =============== J: I do not read the Anapanasati Sutta as a teaching on how to develop anapanasati from scratch. It is directed to the person of already well-developed samatha, and it shows how there may be the attainment of enlightenment with jhana as basis. > =============== > How about counting? Is that also something that just develops by itself when one has sufficient mindfulness, or is it a specific practice, Jon? Have you ever discovered a moment of "counting" suddenly descending on your consciousness when the conditions were right? > =============== J: My point is that what is being described is kusala of different kinds and levels. The text is not suggesting that a 'practice' of counting breaths will bring kusala. > =============== > How about "looking back at these?" Is that an intentional practice, or something that happens by itself? > =============== J: I would say that everyone looks back (compares now with before) from time to time, so there's no need to think it's something to be undertaken as a practice. In fact, according to the Vism text (par. 222 to 224), items (5) to (8) in the set of 8 are referring to the development of insight as described later in the text. > =============== > The second question, you raise here, is whether the requirements stated must be completed before embarking on anapanasati. > =============== J: For reasons previously explained, I see this text as being of relevance to the case of a person of already well-developed samatha. So I was not raising a question of things to be done/completed before embarking on anapanasati. > =============== That is a legitimate issue, but a different one from whether practices must be "done" or whether they arise by themselves at the appropriate time. Even if one must meet the criteria, that does not affect the fact that something like "counting" involves an activity, and that this is required for practice. Third of all, if the requirements are considered necessary before engaging the full practice, the question arises as to the legitimate means for developing those required conditions. Can one sever the lesser impediments, live under appropriate conditions, purify one's virtue, etc., without engaging in intentional activities, such as finding a teacher, finding an appropriate dwelling place, constraining activities so as not to engage in unvirtuous activity, etc.? > =============== J: Things like finding a teacher are not a matter of engaging in a (or several) specific intentional activity/ies. Otherwise one could simply Google for a name ;-)) Jon #110726 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting nilovg Dear pt, Op 14-okt-2010, om 5:44 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > 5. Mudita vs. merriment - I was wondering what exactly is meant by > Visuddhimagga statement that the near enemy of mudita is merriment. > As I understood Sarah, mudita is rejoicing for someone else's sake, > while merriment is being happy for my sake (with lobha). An example > would be something like - if my friend gets a promotion, then I > could rejoice in her good fortune (mudita), but, I could also end > up rejoicing for my own sake - now that she has more money, she can > buy me something - so lobha basically. ------ N Yes, that is right. The Atthasaalinii translates the near enemy as derision (fun) and the Visuddhimagga has merriment. The meaning is joy that accompanies attachment. ---- pt:7. What's kusala about breath meditation or any other kasina meditation? - this relates to the whole issue of samatha meditation, calm, attachment to pleasant feeling, etc.... So what is it that makes meditation on breath (or any other kasina) as object actually kusala? For example, meditation on the object of the Buddha, Dhamma or Sangha could be kusala when there's appreciation of good qualities of the Buddha at that moment for example? But what appreciation is there for breath as object or any other kasina? -------- N: I remember what Kh Sujin said about the earth kasina. Kasina means: all encompassing. We find possessions very important, people fight for them, cling to them. But actually they are just earth. When there is sufficient understanding of this subject and also of the purpose of contemplating it, it can lead to detachment. This is the aim of all those contemplations. Breath is very complex and subtle. The Visuddhimagga describes the way to develop it by way of all these tetrads, and actually it is by way of samatha and also by way of vipassanaa. As I remember a description by Kh Sujin: our life depends on breath, we find breath so important. However, it appears as the tiniest ruupa of hardness, softness, etc. at the nose tip or upperlip. It is so slight, a mere nothing so to say. And it becomes more and more subtle as one progresses. It is an indispensable condition for life to go on. When it is time for the dying-consciousness, there is no more breathing. But nobody can control it or prevent its stopping. When contemplated in the right way it can support detachment. With all these meditation subjects it can be said that what is helpful for one person may not be helpful for another person. A corpse may be frightening for some people and then it is not a suitable meditation subject for them. Thus, we have to consider: which subject is a means for kusala citta with detachment for such or such a person. It is important to know when there is akusala citta that enjoys calm and when kusala citta with detachment. Nina. #110727 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:42 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110591) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: If as you say it describes the development of sati, then sati of what (i.e., of what object) is being described? > > The breath. If we are talking about being mindful of long and short breaths, then obviously the object is the long or short breath. Object = the breath. It seems fairly obvious to me as well that exercises such as counting breaths which is one of the earlier techniques in the list of the Vism, and tracking long-ness or short-ness of breath, which is towards the beginning of the anapanasati sutta, are "grosser" exercise in following breath, not needing as high a degree of mindfulness as "being mindful of the body as a whole while following the breath," or "calming fabrications," which are obviously more advanced results of more advanced levels of mindfulness, samatha and concentration. > =============== J: To my understanding, it is dhammas (i.e., any of the 5 khandhas/18 elements/6 ayatanas etc.) that are the object of awareness/insight. So if a text is describing focussing on long and short breaths is likely to be talking about samatha rather than awareness/insight (since there is no dhamma that is 'breath' -- just as there is no dhamma that is 'body'). > =============== > > J: What about the words "Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out"? Is this not well-established mindfulness? > > "Ever mindful" is an instruction and it is how one is to practice. It is not a statement of prior accomplishment. > =============== J: So now you're saying that everything in the suttas should be read as a "should"? ;-)) > =============== > In the Vism, Buddhaghosa goes into more detail, breaking down the breathing exercises that might be practiced by monks of various levels. Counting breaths, for instance, is a traditional beginning practice, which allows the breath as a whole to be tracked and is a measure of continuity and concentration, whereas more subtle approaches to the breath are taken up later on. > =============== J: If concentration on the breath is the aim, where does the kusala come in? Jon #110728 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:44 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110592) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: I think if we were to consult the commentaries we'd find they don't support such an interpretation. > > Are they available? Let's take a look together if you have any of them handy. B. Bodhi does refer to the commentaries on the sati. sutta and anapana. sutta so I know he is conversant with them, and has done some translation of both suttas and at least some of the commentaries on his own from the Pali. > =============== J: A translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and its commentary by Soma Thera ('The Way of Mindfulness') can be found at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html There are some omissions and other shortcomings in this translation; these have been discussed here in an earlier series (I think they can be found through the UP index). Happy to discuss any part of the sutta or commentary. Jon #110729 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:52 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110595) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I think I have gotten this pretty much confirmed by Nina and a few others, that there is no "body," there is no "table," there is no "other person," but that these are concepts created by extrapolating from perceived qualities like "hardness," or "color," or "motion." > =============== J: That is correct, as a description of the present moment experience. Different experiences through different doorways, rapidly alternating, with a lot of 'thinking' (or 'processing') in between each sense-door experience. > =============== In that idea of how the universe is constructed, it is actually a sort of flat space-less universe where consciousness and object arise together momentarily, then fall away, and there is no physical world or physical movement through space at all, as there are no bodies or objects, just citta-experiences of physical qualities and then proliferations about them that create further concepts of "a world." No driving in a car in reality, no having a conversation in reality, no reading sutta in reality, but simply "motion," "hearing," "seeing" in various moments. > =============== J: We need to distinguish between 'ideas of how the universe is constructed' and descriptions of the world as experienced. The teachings are concerned with the latter. > =============== > So my question is not just is there rupa if no one is there to experience it - I assume that there is not, since rupa and nama arise together and are mutually dependent. > =============== J: The statement 'rupa and nama arise together and are mutually dependent' needs some qualification. For instance: - Although nama cannot arise without rupa, some rupas can arise without nama. In particular, the rupas that are the non-sentient 'outside world' are not dependent on nama for their arising. - Where the object of consciousness is a rupa (as through the 5 sense-doors), the rupa arises *before*, not together with, the nama. - Not all namas take a rupa as their object (or example, thinking of a word or idea). Nonetheless, all namas are dependent on rupa, in that they arise at a "physical" base that is a rupa. > =============== My question is whether there is a physical universe or not, which we perceive as individual rupas, but which exists apart from nama and rupa, or not. > =============== J: The rupas that we take for the inanimate 'outside world' have, like all dhammas, their conditions for arising. Unless these conditions include being the object of experience, or nama in some respect or other, then presumably those rupas would arise anyway. (But does it matter anyway?) Jon #110730 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:53 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110596) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > > > J: By this stage the bhikkhu is already highly skilled in the development of samatha with breath as object, to the extent that his mindfulness is continuous and uninterrupted (see the words "the bhikkhu does not abandon that mindfulness he is a mindful worker, is what is meant". So he has reached a certain (high) stage of development of both samatha and vipassana, is what is being said. > > > > This could not be a matter of following an instruction; otherwise, we could all experience such attainment ;-)) > > I think it is equally possible that we have not experienced such attainments because we have *not* followed these instructions, not because they "are not instructions" or because we "should not follow them." > =============== J: How could genuine mindfulness be 'not abandoned' (i.e., become continuous) by virtue of following an instruction? ;-)) Jon #110731 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:57 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Alex (110597) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > ... > > J: Well this is the nub of the matter. Do the suttas and >commentaries actually say "Do this, do that"? > > Well when they use imperative verbs, and say "do this, do that" - I believe that that is what they've meant, unless one finds a clear explanation where the Buddha has said that "whenever I have said do this or that, I haven't really meant that". > =============== J: I was questioning whether the suttas do in fact say "do this, do that". Do you have any particular passage in mind? > =============== > >Or do they rather set out the conditions that if properly developed >will result in the development of samatha and vipassana? > > Doing those actions will set up conditions for appropriate results./ > =============== J: Where the condition is a kusala factor, this cannot be made to arise by doing a specific action. > =============== > > J: Yes, the term "practice" is used in the texts, but it's a >question what it means as used. > > Unless the suttas or VsM doesn't define practice as "not doing anything", I believe that the word says what it says. > =============== J: To my understanding, references to the 'practise of the Dhamma' are to the actual arising of mundane path consciousness (vipassana bhavana), not to actions or activates undertaken with a view to having awareness arise. Jon #110732 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken and Phil - In a message dated 10/14/2010 10:41:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Phil, ----------- <. . .> Ph: > If that means, as you say, that I am going to be longer in samsara because of that...well, I don't know what to say. So be it, I guess! ----------- I believe "So be it!" is a good philosophy. "So what?" is another good one. Whenever I think of what might happen to me as a result of my past actions - good or bad - I think, so what? There is no permanent self; there are only disinterested namas and rupas. --------------------------------------------- It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke often of urgency and of time being short. You might consider the following two suttas: 1) This sutta is a call to action: Snp 2.10 PTS: _Sn 331-334_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/Sn_utf8.html#v.331) Utthana Sutta: Initiative translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu _© 2000–2010_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.10.than.html#F_termsOfUse) Alternate translation: _Ireland_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.10.irel.html) ________________________________ Get up! Sit up! What's your need for sleep? And what sleep is there for the afflicted, pierced by the arrow, oppressed? Get up! Sit up! Train firmly for the sake of peace, Don't let the king of death, — seeing you heedless — deceive you, bring you under his sway. Cross over the attachment to which human & heavenly beings, remain desiring tied. Don't let the moment pass by. Those for whom the moment is past grieve, consigned to hell. Heedless is dust, dust comes from heedlessness has heedlessness on its heels. Through heedfulness & clear knowing you'd remove your own sorrow. *********************************************** 2) In this next sutta, it is pointed out that one cannot just say or wish that one's mind be released, for that occurs only when conditions have ripened, but it is also pointed out that specific intentions and actions are among the essential conditions: AN 3.91 PTS: _A i 239_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/AN_I_utf8.html#pts.239) Thai III.93 Accayika Sutta: Urgent translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu _© 1997–2010_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.091.than.html#F_termsOfUse\ ) ___________________________ "There are these three urgent duties of a farming householder. Which three? "There is the case where a farming householder quickly gets his field well-plowed & well-harrowed. Having quickly gotten his field well-plowed & well-harrowed, he quickly plants the seed. Having quickly planted the seed, he quickly lets in the water & then lets it out. "These are the three urgent duties of a farming householder. Now, that farming householder does not have the power or might [to say:] 'May my crops spring up today, may the grains appear tomorrow, and may they ripen the next day.' But when the time has come, the farming householder's crops spring up, the grains appear, and they ripen. "In the same way, there are these three urgent duties of a monk. Which three? The undertaking of heightened virtue, the undertaking of heightened mind, the undertaking of heightened discernment. These are the three urgent duties of a monk. Now, that monk does not have the power or might [to say:] 'May my mind be released from fermentations through lack of clinging/sustenance today or tomorrow or the next day.' But when the time has come, his mind is released from fermentations through lack of clinging/sustenance. "Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'Strong will be our desire for the undertaking of heightened virtue. Strong will be our desire for the undertaking of heightened mind. Strong will be our desire for the undertaking of heightened discernment.' That's how you should train yourselves." ================================ With metta, Howard The Fleetingness of Life & the Urgency of Practice /Just as a dewdrop on the tip of a blade of grass quickly vanishes with the rising of the sun and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a dewdrop — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death. Just as when the rain-devas send rain in fat drops, and a bubble on the water quickly vanishes and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a water bubble — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death. Just as a line drawn in the water with a stick quickly vanishes and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a line drawn in the water with a stick — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death. Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death./ (From the Arakenanusasani Sutta) #110733 From: "a_true_lotus" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:47 am Subject: Present Moment a_true_lotus Dear list, I wanted to share my current, maybe little inner battle regarding living in the present moment. Maybe other can relate. As I have stated in the past, I have been listening to a CD set called Mindful Way Through Depression. Their claim is that depression, as a mood, can be caused by negative thinking and I find that to be true. Their answer is to live fully in the present. So, what I've done of late, has been that if I start to feel depressed (ruminating on negative thoughts), I ask myself "what is here, right now?". Most of the time, it's something pretty pleasant, like maybe my cats sleeping with me in the morning, and purring or maybe just a refreshing breeze, or the sunshine. Then I go about enjoying my present moment and all the richness there is in the moment. Sometimes, however, I will think "foooey on this present moment stuff. I'm depressed!" Then I will slip into that form of negative thinking instead of the feelings that give me freedom from unhappiness. I consider this little battle to be self vs. non-self. Then the other troubling thing, is that, when I live in the present, say, I am enjoying the company of my purring cats (where we are all pretty much one big cat amalgum in the morning), I find myself attached to good things that are in the present moment, and still pushing away "bad" things. So, while I think living in the moment is a big step up from depression, there is more work to be done, in not getting attached to the "good" or averse to the "bad". Perhaps the next step is to be mindful of what I consider pleasant, and see at what point in the thoughtstream that I start to attach either the concept of pleasant or not pleasant. According to the CD set, eventually, you should be able to find that point where you attach "pleasant" and "unpleasant" and they have several exercises, like mindful yoga (instead of mindful walking), that might create a space where you realize that you are attaching "pleasant" or "unpleasant" to something. So far, in my meditation and daily life, I have not been able to find that point. I think no matter where we are in the spiritual path, there's no end point and you just keep on plugging away at what you think is the right thing to do, leaving behind mistakes of the past, and the past entirely, and also, not thinking a lot about the future. Best, Ari #110734 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:14 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > H: > Well, the theory you espouse imposes a number of limits on itself, for reasons that are not self-evident. If one starts of insisting that only one discreet object is ever knowable at once, then you are hamstrung from the beginning, and will need to contort what is meant by the present to account for the reality of what is experienced. > --------------------------- > > OK, but we aren't we studying the Buddha's teaching? That's how he explained it That is what we are trying to understand. > > The 'one object at a time' explanation is very persuasive if you think about it. Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience two objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither one thing not the other. Impossible! The idea that only one thing is experienced at a time, and if that were not the case, experience would be extremely confusing, does not do justice to our sense of reality. We experience things as happening around us in a multiplicity of objects and sensory experiences, yet it is not inherently confusing because our attention functions to select foreground and background objects with great facility and keeps our experience from jumping on us in a mush. On the everyday level science is clear that there is a multiplicity of experience bombarding us at all times, but the mind is able to selectively choose what is important and sideline unnecessary input. So it is in fact not necessary to claim that only one discrete momentary experience can arise at a time for a discrete momentary consciousness in order to keep experience from being chaotic. That is just not the case, as there are many other possible mechanisms for sorting experience out. This theory is like saying that we can only receive one letter from the postman at a time, or we would be overwhelmed with multiple letters. In fact, we can thumb through the envelopes, select a letter to read, open it and read it while the other envelopes are put aside for the moment. Even in the single citta theory, there is a convoluted mass of mechanisms added back into the citta, such as cetasikas, phases of rupa, bhavanga citta, nimita, etc., in order to do justice to the fact that multiple pieces of information, experience, qualities and accumulations *do* get collected and passed on. It is merely turning the film into a series of stills to insist that each citta has an independent reality that is not related except by all these convoluted devices to the next citta which adds all the complexity right back in again, after it has been denied, but tries to backload it onto the poor individual citta, which is forced to carry the entire weight of all the multiple factors that actually need to be accounted for. To say that only a moment of sound or a moment of sight are possible at a time and that there are no combination [synaesthetic] experiences, so that if one is listening to music and watching a light show there can be no experience per se of music + light show but that they must be confined to separate worlds and only coordinated by concept, is among the most convoluted consequences of this theory. And there is no need for it. Why do the senses have to be separated into separately operating, non-interacting worlds? There is no reason as far as I know, but I would love to hear the explanation of why this explains experience better than the harmonies and dissonances that occur between multiple sensory experiences and form the fabric of experience. What does make sense, and upon which we would all agree, is the idea that only one experience can be *highlighted* and paid central attention at a time. To say that attention is selective and goes from one discrete object to another at a time makes sense. But it is not sensible to say that there is no peripheral experience going on in the background but only the highlighted experience, followed by another and that there is no background at all, no layers and no textures. Once again, any qualities that we need to include have to be back-loaded onto the breaking theoretical back of the poor individual citta again, through accumulations and nimitas observed after the fact and then patched together by cetasikas that are working overtime without due compensation. Did the Buddha teach this theory? I think he would agree that there was one central object of the mind at a time, but not that citta was a discrete event that arose and fell like an object with a beginnning and an end. The object of consciousness rises and falls for sure, and consciousness rises and falls to attend the object, but consciousness is not itself an object that has life as a unit and a discrete length and objective existence like a thing. it is functional, not objective. And I don't think Buddha said otherwise, but I will be happy to be directed to a quote that says this directly on his behalf. Is this theory espoused directly in the Abhidhamma, or only in commentary? There is also some ongoing dispute as to who wrote the Abhidhamma, but first I'd like to know whether the Abhidhamma states the single citta theory at all, and if there is a translated quote in this regard. ... > ----------------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? > ----------------------------------------- > > I am saying it *is* a characteristic, and it can be experienced by mind consciousness. Can you describe the characteristic of sunnata? Would you define it as something like "dhamma has the characteristic of sunnata in that it is empty of any self or relation to self?" Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110735 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:18 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > To my mind, you are the one engaging in a pantomime: the idea of formal vipassana meditation is contradiction in terms, and the act of sitting, trying to make conditioned dhammas do what you want them to do, is a pantomime. If you want to fight against meditation, please do it honestly. There is no one meditating who does it to "make conditioned dhammas do what they want them to do," and I think you know that, so please dispense with the straw man. The point of meditation is discernment of arising dhammas, understanding and release, not control of dhammas. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110736 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:23 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > On the question of whether the text is intended to be a self-help guide to attaining the jhanas, I do not see how it can be, given the importance of the role of the teacher, and the lack of much information that would be necessary if the target reader was an aspiring jhana attainer. Whether we agree on this point or not, the fact remains that the student is being advised to *do something,* to a/ find a teacher and then b/ *do* what the teacher instructs him to do. That is quite another direction from saying "do whatever, and attend to arising dhammas now, and don't bother to meditate." In fact, being told to go to a teacher, get background knowledge and wise instruction, and then go off and meditate as he instructs you, is in the exact opposite direction from merely attending dhammas in everyday life. So the idea that the Vism is descriptive only and not prescriptive is just not correct on its face, and the question is whether you respect the instructions of the Vism or prefer to go your own way. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #110737 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:26 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, part 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I am now adding a point on conditions that I recently heard from Kh > Sujin: The study of some details on conditions all this helps with > the understanding of anattaa. It is a real support. Pa~n~naa may not > be sufficient yet to eradicate the belief in a self, even if there is > sati now and then. Listening and study of details of the Dhamma > accumulates as sa"nkhaarakkhandha (the khandha of formations) so that > pa~n~naa can grow. Although I have been arguing against some of the understandings of this group lately - or perhaps forever - I wanted to say that the above explanation gives a good reason for studying Abhidhamma and related texts, and why it is important. Understanding conditionality in detail can convince the mind that the process is thoroughly anatta and I think this is a very good explanation of why we want to have those details. Thanks for that. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110738 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:28 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > > It is my firm opinion that if someone says "the person who wants to develop greater samatha and sati leading to the development of the enlightenement factors does x and y" that this is saying clearly that one who wants to develop these qualities *should* do x and y. To say it is only a description based on it saying "the case where a monk does x" seems nonsensically hair-splitting to me. It is clearly an instruction manual with an ordered set of details. Likewise for the satipatthana sutta. > > =============== > > J: On that reading, it would be unnecessary ever to go beyond the section of the Satipatthana Sutta dealing with the monk who is developing anapanasati! ;-)) I don't understand that. All the phases of practice are important and work as integral parts of the path, including understanding Dhamma and all the stuff you like! ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110739 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:34 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > > How about counting? Is that also something that just develops by itself when one has sufficient mindfulness, or is it a specific practice, Jon? Have you ever discovered a moment of "counting" suddenly descending on your consciousness when the conditions were right? > > =============== > > J: My point is that what is being described is kusala of different kinds and levels. The text is not suggesting that a 'practice' of counting breaths will bring kusala. Then why do it at all? It is clearly a preparation for further practice, and a practice in its own right. Practice, practice, practice, is what I'm trying to say! :-) > > =============== > > How about "looking back at these?" Is that an intentional practice, or something that happens by itself? > > =============== > > J: I would say that everyone looks back (compares now with before) from time to time, so there's no need to think it's something to be undertaken as a practice. Oh c'mon! It's clearly a "looking back" at the specific process in question as a step in practice. Is it really necessary to abstract statements out of any meaning they have at all in order to make your point? It's not talking about looking back at your cousin after you've said "see ya later." > In fact, according to the Vism text (par. 222 to 224), items (5) to (8) in the set of 8 are referring to the development of insight as described later in the text. I'd have to look that up to see what I think about it. Maybe I'll get back to you on that point later. > > =============== > > The second question, you raise here, is whether the requirements stated must be completed before embarking on anapanasati. > > =============== > > J: For reasons previously explained, I see this text as being of relevance to the case of a person of already well-developed samatha. So I was not raising a question of things to be done/completed before embarking on anapanasati. > > > =============== > That is a legitimate issue, but a different one from whether practices must be "done" or whether they arise by themselves at the appropriate time. Even if one must meet the criteria, that does not affect the fact that something like "counting" involves an activity, and that this is required for practice. Third of all, if the requirements are considered necessary before engaging the full practice, the question arises as to the legitimate means for developing those required conditions. Can one sever the lesser impediments, live under appropriate conditions, purify one's virtue, etc., without engaging in intentional activities, such as finding a teacher, finding an appropriate dwelling place, constraining activities so as not to engage in unvirtuous activity, etc.? > > =============== > > J: Things like finding a teacher are not a matter of engaging in a (or several) specific intentional activity/ies. Otherwise one could simply Google for a name ;-)) So you think the teacher magically appears when you're in the supermarket? It is actually possible to seek out a Theravadin sangha or a teacher who has a good reputation, and I'll bet a number of people here became interested in the teachings of K. Sujin because they were recommended to them, or because they did do a Google search and found this group! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110740 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Solid Siam! bhikkhu5 Friends: Thai Hard Core Oak: Venerable Luang Pu! The Mind sent Outside is the Cause of Suffering. The Effect of the Mind sent Outside is Suffering. The Mind seeing the Mind is the Path: The Noble Way! The Effect of Mind seeing Mind, is the End of Suffering. No matter how much one thinks, one will not know directly! Only when one stops thinking, will one know directly... Yet, one still depends on thinking, so as to know...!!! When mind is all quiet, one will come to know directly. Whatever one really knows, it is from watching one's own mind! Knowing is the ground state of the empty mind, which is bright, pure, quiet, calm, not fabricating, not searching, not urging, and neither possessed, nor attracted by anything at all... _________________ He does, yet he doesn't: Do you still have anger? Yes, but I don't pick it up! _________________ The Less the better: Stop Thinking, and Stop Urging! The Poorer one is, the more Happiness one enjoys... Thai King Bhumibol presents a gift to Venerable Dun Atulo Thera. <...> Source: Gifts He Left Behind: The Dhamma Legacy of Ajaan Dune Atulo: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/dune/giftsheleft.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110741 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Phil), ----------- <. . .> H: > It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke often of urgency and of time being short. ------------ For his part, Phil has subsequently corrected that impression (much to my disappointment). I, on the other hand, am prepared to risk being called complacent. If that is what it takes to express a middle-way understanding of the suttas, then so be it. :-) ----------------- H: > You might consider the following two suttas: 1) This sutta is a call to action: <. . .> -------------- Right understanding is always accompanied by pleasant or neutral feeling, and it is free of both desire and aversion. Therefore, the suttas' "call to action" would need to be understood in that way. ------------------- 2) In this next sutta, it is pointed out that one cannot just say or wish that one's mind be released, for that occurs only when conditions have ripened, but it is also pointed out that specific intentions and actions are among the essential conditions: -------------------- Right understanding of nama and rupa conditions the co-arising of right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration etc. These are the only actions that the suttas call for. Ken H #110742 From: Sukinderpal Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! sukinderpal Hi Jon, I read this post earlier this week but couldn't find time to respond to it. ------- > > > 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. > This one is more interesting and I wonder what you and others think. Wrong view is wrong but are there degrees one worse than the other? As I wrote in my last post to Sarah, I used to consider it the same everyone no matter what religion they claim to follow, the wrong views being followed when the Middle Way not known. But after some discussions with people who believe in God, I came to change my mind somewhat. This is because I see that their particular wrong view, which is that God is the 'controller' must necessarily apply to every concept they conceive of. On the other hand the Buddhist because of the teaching about the Tilakkhana, must find himself at least at some point, not insisting upon certain ideas such as control, happiness, lastingness, beauty and so on. So it would seem that the Buddhist is in a better position. But again now I am not sure. Since it is clear that the Buddhist has one particular problem which a non-Buddhists doesn't have, and that is that the Noble Eightfold Path is wrongly interpreted. And doesn't this kind of affects other aspects of the Teachings not too different from how the idea of God effects all the concepts held by the theist. For example as is often seen expressed, the idea that Jhana is a part of the Path or that that the path starts with developing sila, through the practice of concentration and then only is Right Understanding possible. While those outside of the Buddha's Dhamma are able to develop samatha to the level of Jhana attainments, Buddhists today are not only mistaken about the 8FP but also what samatha is and how it is developed. Besides it seems to be somewhat a rule that one wrong view encourages another, like a man groping in the dark one moment moving in this direction and another a different one. Now as to the question directly: "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 question I think is, at the moment when one thinks "to do" here, this must be motivated by self view, and could this be right? It would seem that this is not only not knowing the Path but mistaking what is wrong practice for right. This must then necessarily be followed by 'illusions of result' which then becomes an object of clinging and more wrong understanding with regard to what is and what is not the correct Path. Any good it would seem, must depend entirely on some Right View accumulated in previous lives to condition a moment of understanding "now" manifested then as being in spite of the wrong view held so far. And when this happens would one then still insist on the kind of intentional practice? What do you think Jon? Metta, Sukinder #110743 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:24 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: If as you say it describes the development of sati, then sati of what (i.e., of what object) is being described? > > > > The breath. If we are talking about being mindful of long and short breaths, then obviously the object is the long or short breath. Object = the breath. It seems fairly obvious to me as well that exercises such as counting breaths which is one of the earlier techniques in the list of the Vism, and tracking long-ness or short-ness of breath, which is towards the beginning of the anapanasati sutta, are "grosser" exercise in following breath, not needing as high a degree of mindfulness as "being mindful of the body as a whole while following the breath," or "calming fabrications," which are obviously more advanced results of more advanced levels of mindfulness, samatha and concentration. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, it is dhammas (i.e., any of the 5 khandhas/18 elements/6 ayatanas etc.) that are the object of awareness/insight. So if a text is describing focussing on long and short breaths is likely to be talking about samatha rather than awareness/insight (since there is no dhamma that is 'breath' -- just as there is no dhamma that is 'body'). Well, the dhammas of breath and body are physical sensations. Both breath and body do break down to individual moments of movement, hardness, softness, and it is those sensations that are meant to be tracked. In one of my translations of the satipatthana sutta, there is a repeating phrase that is very reminiscent of discussions here, which surprised me. Here is a quote: "...He remains established in the observation of the process of coming-to-be in the body or the process of dissolution in the body or both the process of coming-to-be and the process of dissolution. Or he is mindful of the fact, 'There is a body here' until understanding and full awareness come about." In other words, one is observing the characteristic of anicca in the body, which means that processes are being observed in some detail. But it adds that the practitioner may just be mindful of the idea that the body is present, and that is a kind of gross sati of the conceptual understanding "this is a body" until such time as understanding and awareness become capable of seeing the processes of coming-to-be and dissolution that compose the body in reality That is Thich Nat Hanh's translation, and I thought that was pretty neat. > > =============== > > > J: What about the words "Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out"? Is this not well-established mindfulness? > > > > "Ever mindful" is an instruction and it is how one is to practice. It is not a statement of prior accomplishment. > > =============== > > J: So now you're saying that everything in the suttas should be read as a "should"? ;-)) I just don't think that every indication that is given is meant to be a complete accomplishment before beginning practice, but is stated as the desired state. I find it hard to imagine that if "ever mindful" was a prior accomplishment that any practice, study or contemplation would any longer be necessary. I don't consider that continuous full sati without a break in focus would be possible prior to stream entry at minimum, so I find it hard to see it as a fully realized prerequisite. But it does work as an action to be taken to the best of one's ability, or a goal or intention or instruction. > > =============== > > In the Vism, Buddhaghosa goes into more detail, breaking down the breathing exercises that might be practiced by monks of various levels. Counting breaths, for instance, is a traditional beginning practice, which allows the breath as a whole to be tracked and is a measure of continuity and concentration, whereas more subtle approaches to the breath are taken up later on. > > =============== > > J: If concentration on the breath is the aim, where does the kusala come in? Concentration is one of the qualities that lead to mindfulness and samatha. Without focus and concentration, it's hard to develop any kind of mental quality. There are some mindfulness approaches that are directed towards complete spontaneity in being aware of whatever arises with no other intention or quality being sought at all; but it seems that the Buddha preferred to develop mindfulness, concentration, samatha, etc. in tandem to create conditions for vipassana and development of fuller understanding. I guess he knew what he was doing. I wonder if we do? Kusala comes in when any activity is approached with openness, faith, joy and detachment - the way I usually approach posting to this group! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110744 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:27 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110592) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: I think if we were to consult the commentaries we'd find they don't support such an interpretation. > > > > Are they available? Let's take a look together if you have any of them handy. B. Bodhi does refer to the commentaries on the sati. sutta and anapana. sutta so I know he is conversant with them, and has done some translation of both suttas and at least some of the commentaries on his own from the Pali. > > =============== > > J: A translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and its commentary by Soma Thera ('The Way of Mindfulness') can be found at: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html > > There are some omissions and other shortcomings in this translation; these have been discussed here in an earlier series (I think they can be found through the UP index). > > Happy to discuss any part of the sutta or commentary. Thanks, Jon. I'd love to see that commentary, notwithstanding any flaws. I've been hoping to see the commentaries for satipatthana sutta and anapanasati. That's great. Can you remind me what interpretation you were saying would not be supported by the commentary? My mental ability to remember prior threads is challenged by the number of them flying around, and that part of the thread is snipped in this post. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110745 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:32 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. Thanks for the explanations here, which I partially understand. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > My question is whether there is a physical universe or not, which we perceive as individual rupas, but which exists apart from nama and rupa, or not. > > =============== > > J: The rupas that we take for the inanimate 'outside world' have, like all dhammas, their conditions for arising. Unless these conditions include being the object of experience, or nama in some respect or other, then presumably those rupas would arise anyway. (But does it matter anyway?) Well, it sounds like you are saying that inanimate rupas arise independent of being objects of experience, but that Abhidhamma is only concerned with those rupas which are experiential objects. That sounds like the the physical universe does exist, but that we are not especially interested in it in its own right, as far as Dhamma is concerned, which makes sense. It does matter to me whether the philosophy has a background reality that is objective and physical or not. A philosophy of experience that believes that the universe itself is thoroughly experiential is a lot more far-out than the other alternative. I like to know what sort of ball park I'm playing in. And I'm still not saying which one I think myself, as I am somewhat agnostic about things that I don't actually know. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110746 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > I think it is equally possible that we have not experienced such attainments because we have *not* followed these instructions, not because they "are not instructions" or because we "should not follow them." > > =============== > > J: How could genuine mindfulness be 'not abandoned' (i.e., become continuous) by virtue of following an instruction? ;-)) Well, I think it's a question of treating the subject with a degree of common sense, rather than looking at it as a completely mystical object of supernatural processes. If we were talking about any other subject, you would agree that what you said above was nonsense. If I want to learn to play a Chopin waltz I play scales, practice the finger actions and then gradually practice the music until I can play it to speed, like any skill. "Genuine mindfulness" is not some weird and arbitrary attainment given by an unknown set of dark conditions, but a mental capability that can be practiced and developed. A surgeon learns to concentrate by focusing and taking fine minute actions until he becomes more skilled at it. A meditator focuses on arising realities and trains the mind to return to focus on the present moment until it becomes an established skill. Buddha instructed this way, and the idea that we should just hang out eating hot dogs and wait for mindfulness to descend like manna from Heaven is useless and absurd. Of course we are subject to conditions that allow for interest, understanding, development, intention and skillful practice, but we still have to practice or the skill will never be developed. What we are developing through constant reading and discussion in this group, for instance, is a degree of intellectual clarity about the elements of the path, but without concrete practice they will remain intellectual attainments only. Direct experiential panna is not going to pop up like a jack-in-the-box from intellectual clarity. Practice is the bridge between pariyatti and actual experience, not waiting and being as passive as possible in order to imitate the idea of anatta and turn it into an ideology. To think that conditions happen all by themselves without our participation as part of the conditions is as absurd as sitting around watching a violin and waiting for it to begin playing itself. It will be quite a number of lifetimes before that happens. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110747 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:45 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: To my understanding, references to the 'practise of the Dhamma' are to the actual arising of mundane path consciousness (vipassana bhavana), not to actions or activates undertaken with a view to having awareness arise. Then why is it called "practice?" The word, or any of its translated equivalents, simply doesn't have anything like the meaning you are giving it. Practice does *not* mean something arising by itself. Practice is clearly doing something. And you are twisting the word to make it mean what you want it to mean. There is no universe in which "practice" has the specialized meaning "not to practice," anymore than the word "walk" means "don't walk." You cannot make the clear meanings of words a prisoner of your philosophy. You should rather be adjusting your philosophy to match and reflect the Buddha's obvious and actual words and meanings. It is not understanding Dhamma to take the Buddha's own words and give them the opposite meaning of what they say. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110748 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:26 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 Hallo Rob, a little late in answering this - have had the painter, the plumber, the electrician, the security screen person, all come to do work at my place. This household life......... is quite dusty when the workers have gone...:( > ...happiness itself, with detachment and freedom, I think is good to cultivate, and is, as you originally said, more likely to be kusala. > > > > azita: the point I was making was not to cultivate happiness but in relation to another being it was more likely to be kusala by making them happy than by making them sad bec that would surely be akusala. However I think that in both situations it would be akusala. Again, only Panna can know for sure...... > > So the best we can hope for is either very akusala or a little less akusala? That is sad... :-) > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping or wishing will get us more kusala. I think we have to be really truthful, not necessarily to anyone else but to ourselves, as to when k/ak arises. I personally think its very difficult to discern the momentary difference bet ak/k. We can be reasonably sure that giving a suitable gift to someone would be generosity adn therefore k, however lets not pretend to ourselves that we really know the difference. I also suspect that jst having dhamma discussions as we do here on dsg, can be kusala, jst as long as we are respecting ea other and not giving ea other a hard time; but it is such a momentary happening according to Abhidhamma, cittas arising and falling, who can really know - Panna when and if it arises. patience, courage andgood cheer azita #110749 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Howard (and Ken and all( Thank you so much, Howard. I think you have provided here an exceptional example of what Dhamma friends should do for each other! > It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an > unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to > ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke > often of urgency and of time being short. > You might consider the following two suttas: I would also add a quick nod to the SN sutta that says that one should, as though with one's turban on fire strive to abandon two things. One is lust, which is not surprising, but the other is something that makes me give a nod in the direction of DSG and the students of A.S, it says that one should strive to abandon self-view with that same urgency. That's important for me to consider, because the insistence students of A.S make on this point has made me resistant to to the idea of abandoning self-view, because I feel the immediacy they place on it is misguided...but this sutta shows me that I should consider what they say with a little more respect... Anyways, thanks, I'm going to print out your post right away and post it where I have posted a couple of suttas I want to see often... Metta, Phil #110750 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:37 am Subject: Re: Present Moment philofillet Hi Ari > According to the CD set, eventually, you should be able to find that point where you attach "pleasant" and "unpleasant" and they have several exercises, like mindful yoga (instead of mindful walking), that might create a space where you realize that you are attaching "pleasant" or "unpleasant" to something. So far, in my meditation and daily life, I have not been able to find that point. Many respected Dhamma teachers, many books on meditation, suggest that we should "cut off at feeling", that is where the chain reaction that leads to clinging starts. This seems reasonable to me. Friends like Sarah and Jon and others will say no to this, because there is a feeling element to every citta, every mind moment, whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, so the idea of cutting off at feeling is impossible. But I think it makes sense. But it sounds to me that you are on the right track, you have an understanding of how the pleasant moments of clinging to the purriness of life condition aversion when we don't have them. I think you are on the right track for sure! Hang in there! In Japanese there is a very good expression, O-en shite-imasu, which means I am rooting for you! So I would like to say O-en shite imasu! There are so many people suffering from depression who don't have sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching, you have kamma in your past which gives you that gift, very fortunate! Metta, Phil #110751 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert and Jon - In a message dated 10/16/2010 2:45:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: To my understanding, references to the 'practise of the Dhamma' are to the actual arising of mundane path consciousness (vipassana bhavana), not to actions or activates undertaken with a view to having awareness arise. Then why is it called "practice?" The word, or any of its translated equivalents, simply doesn't have anything like the meaning you are giving it. Practice does *not* mean something arising by itself. Practice is clearly doing something. And you are twisting the word to make it mean what you want it to mean. There is no universe in which "practice" has the specialized meaning "not to practice," anymore than the word "walk" means "don't walk." You cannot make the clear meanings of words a prisoner of your philosophy. You should rather be adjusting your philosophy to match and reflect the Buddha's obvious and actual words and meanings. It is not understanding Dhamma to take the Buddha's own words and give them the opposite meaning of what they say. Best, Robert E. =================================== Were you to use to use 'development' instead of 'practice', Jon, as translation of 'bhavana', that might clarify these discussions a bit, I think. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110752 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:45 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> KH: > > Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience two objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither one thing not the other. Impossible! >> RE: > The idea that only one thing is experienced at a time, and if that were not the case, experience would be extremely confusing, does not do justice to our sense of reality. We experience things as happening around us in a multiplicity of objects and sensory experiences, yet it is not inherently confusing ---- According to the Dhamma we worldlings are terribly confused. Some suttas say we are insane, No offence is intended, of course, they are only trying to help. :-) It seems to me as if we are in a coma. Good friends visiting us in hospital gently urge us to wake up to the real world, but we don't see the need. We think this is the real world. Ken H #110753 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:12 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Ken H. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > To my mind, you are the one engaging in a pantomime: the idea of formal vipassana meditation is contradiction in terms, and the act of sitting, trying to make conditioned dhammas do what you want them to do, is a pantomime. > > If you want to fight against meditation, please do it honestly. There is no one meditating who does it to "make conditioned dhammas do what they want them to do," and I think you know that, so please dispense with the straw man. The point of meditation is discernment of arising dhammas, understanding and release, not control of dhammas. > ----------------- In ultimate reality dhammas roll on without any control being exercised over them. In conceptual reality, however, there *is* control. We deliberately decide which letter to type and we deliberately press the required key. Or, as Alex reminds us, we choose to drive our cars around trees rather than into them. A modern-day vipassana meditator directs his consciousness. He chooses to "discern" dhammas and to bring about understanding and release. So he is confusing the real world (of no control) with the conceptual one (of control). Pantomime vipassana might be fun, but it is the opposite of what the Buddha taught. Ken H #110754 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:30 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment epsteinrob Hi Ari. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "a_true_lotus" wrote: > > Dear list, > > I wanted to share my current, maybe little inner battle regarding living in the present moment. Maybe other can relate. > > As I have stated in the past, I have been listening to a CD set called Mindful Way Through Depression. Their claim is that depression, as a mood, can be caused by negative thinking and I find that to be true. Their answer is to live fully in the present. > > So, what I've done of late, has been that if I start to feel depressed (ruminating on negative thoughts), I ask myself "what is here, right now?". > > Most of the time, it's something pretty pleasant, like maybe my cats sleeping with me in the morning, and purring or maybe just a refreshing breeze, or the sunshine. Then I go about enjoying my present moment and all the richness there is in the moment. > > Sometimes, however, I will think "foooey on this present moment stuff. I'm depressed!" Then I will slip into that form of negative thinking instead of the feelings that give me freedom from unhappiness. > > I consider this little battle to be self vs. non-self. > > Then the other troubling thing, is that, when I live in the present, say, I am enjoying the company of my purring cats (where we are all pretty much one big cat amalgum in the morning), I find myself attached to good things that are in the present moment, and still pushing away "bad" things. > > So, while I think living in the moment is a big step up from depression, there is more work to be done, in not getting attached to the "good" or averse to the "bad". > > Perhaps the next step is to be mindful of what I consider pleasant, and see at what point in the thoughtstream that I start to attach either the concept of pleasant or not pleasant. > > According to the CD set, eventually, you should be able to find that point where you attach "pleasant" and "unpleasant" and they have several exercises, like mindful yoga (instead of mindful walking), that might create a space where you realize that you are attaching "pleasant" or "unpleasant" to something. So far, in my meditation and daily life, I have not been able to find that point. > > I think no matter where we are in the spiritual path, there's no end point and you just keep on plugging away at what you think is the right thing to do, leaving behind mistakes of the past, and the past entirely, and also, not thinking a lot about the future. Thanks for sharing your personal struggle with negative thinking, and the path you are exploring to work with it. It sounds like a positive, thoughtful way of looking at emotion and suffering. It is hard to get away from the attachment of pleasant and unpleasant labels to experiences. Buddhism teaches that the association of experiences with positive and negative happens instantaneously at every moment. In the Buddhist cosmology, right after making "contact" with an experiential object, positive or negative [or neutral] vedana [feeling-reaction] comes up immediately. What usually happens after that is that the mind runs with the positive or negative reaction and creates clinging or aversion and more complex thoughts and emotions that eventually cause more disappointment and pain. If we become aware of those "positive" and "negative" initial reactions, we may be able to detach from them before they get more complicated and cause more suffering. Anyway, just a thought, and thanks again for sharing your story. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110755 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - Ken, you wrote: trying to make conditioned dhammas do what you want them to do, is a pantomime. and you wrote: In ultimate reality dhammas roll on without any control being exercised over them. but the Buddha taught the following in AN 2.19: "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" It seems to me that you want to rule intention out of existence. But that is kamma, and it is as real as anything else. With metta, Howard Right Effort "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." — _SN 45.8_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html) #110756 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Howard (and Phil), > > ----------- > <. . .> > H: > It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke often of urgency and of time being short. > ------------ > > For his part, Phil has subsequently corrected that impression (much to my disappointment). I, on the other hand, am prepared to risk being called complacent. If that is what it takes to express a middle-way understanding of the suttas, then so be it. :-) > > ----------------- > H: > You might consider the following two suttas: > > 1) This sutta is a call to action: > <. . .> > -------------- > > Right understanding is always accompanied by pleasant or neutral feeling, and it is free of both desire and aversion. Therefore, the suttas' "call to action" would need to be understood in that way. > > ------------------- > 2) In this next sutta, it is pointed out that one cannot just say or wish that one's mind be released, for that occurs only when conditions have ripened, but it is also pointed out that specific intentions and actions are among the essential conditions: > -------------------- > > Right understanding of nama and rupa conditions the co-arising of right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration etc. These are the only actions that the suttas call for. What about what the suttas actually say? Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110757 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Herman), ---- <. . .> H: >>> Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? >>> KH: >> I am saying it *is* a characteristic, and it can be experienced by mind consciousness. >> RE: > Can you describe the characteristic of sunnata? ---- I think it is described as the void. There can never be a self because every dhamma contains the void. ---------------- RE: > Would you define it as something like "dhamma has the characteristic of sunnata in that it is empty of any self or relation to self?" ---------------- I would define it as something like "all dhammas have the characteristic of anatta. There cannot be a dhamma without anatta, and there cannot be anatta without a dhamma; they are inseparable." Ken H #110758 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: ...For example as > is often seen expressed, the idea that Jhana is a part of the Path Yes, Buddha expressed this a number of times. or > that that the path starts with developing sila, through the practice of > concentration and then only is Right Understanding possible. > > While those outside of the Buddha's Dhamma are able to develop samatha > to the level of Jhana attainments, Buddhists today are not only mistaken > about the 8FP but also what samatha is and how it is developed. How do you know they are wrong? Is it a matter of faith on your part? > Now as to the question directly: > "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 question I think is, at the moment when one thinks "to do" here, > this must be motivated by self view, Why? Why does "doing" have to motivated by self view? Have you ever thought this through, or is it just a token of your chosen philosophy? and could this be right? It would > seem that this is not only not knowing the Path but mistaking what is > wrong practice for right. This must then necessarily be followed by > 'illusions of result' which then becomes an object of clinging and more > wrong understanding with regard to what is and what is not the correct > Path. What if you have an illusion of result based on your own chosen idea of "right understanding" of Dhamma as you define it? What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is correct? What if your view of right understanding is itself "wrong understanding?" How would you eve find out? Wouldn't you be trapped in a downward spiral of one akusala thought generating another, even though you are convinced you are right? Couldn't you be trapped in false concepts? > Any good it would seem, must depend entirely on some Right View > accumulated in previous lives to condition a moment of understanding > "now" manifested then as being in spite of the wrong view held so far. > And when this happens would one then still insist on the kind of > intentional practice? Well, I think we have to pray that our view of Right View is correct. Because if it is wrong and we keep clinging to it, and using it to measure our own and others practice, we may wind up in a much worse place next lifetime. What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong view, and doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as Dhamma and as Right View? It must not be pretty. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110759 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:50 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Hallo Rob, > > a little late in answering this - have had the painter, the plumber, the electrician, the security screen person, all come to do work at my place. This household life......... is quite dusty when the workers have gone...:( > > > > ...happiness itself, with detachment and freedom, I think is good to cultivate, and is, as you originally said, more likely to be kusala. > > > > > > azita: the point I was making was not to cultivate happiness but in relation to another being it was more likely to be kusala by making them happy than by making them sad bec that would surely be akusala. However I think that in both situations it would be akusala. Again, only Panna can know for sure...... > > > > So the best we can hope for is either very akusala or a little less akusala? That is sad... :-) > > > > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping or wishing will get us more kusala. > > I think we have to be really truthful, not necessarily to anyone else but to ourselves, as to when k/ak arises. I personally think its very difficult to discern the momentary difference bet ak/k. We can be reasonably sure that giving a suitable gift to someone would be generosity adn therefore k, however lets not pretend to ourselves that we really know the difference. > > I also suspect that jst having dhamma discussions as we do here on dsg, can be kusala, jst as long as we are respecting ea other and not giving ea other a hard time; but it is such a momentary happening according to Abhidhamma, cittas arising and falling, who can really know - Panna when and if it arises. Yes, the truth is that wwe ar not going to see an individual moment of kusala or akusala or anything else as long as we are human beings struggling to get a bit of clarity, or even trying not to struggle at all. If kusala and akusala arise for an instantaneous moment we are not even going to be aware that it occurred. What we may possibly notice is a longer spate of moments during which kusala or akusala predominate, and that is worth noting in its own right until our superhuman skills develop to see individual moments - may be a while. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110760 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Howard (and Ken and all( > > Thank you so much, Howard. I think you have provided here an exceptional example of what Dhamma friends should do for each other! > > > It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an > > unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to > > ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke > > often of urgency and of time being short. > > You might consider the following two suttas: > > I would also add a quick nod to the SN sutta that says that one should, as though with one's turban on fire strive to abandon two things. One is lust, which is not surprising, but the other is something that makes me give a nod in the direction of DSG and the students of A.S, it says that one should strive to abandon self-view with that same urgency. That's important for me to consider, because the insistence students of A.S make on this point has made me resistant to to the idea of abandoning self-view, because I feel the immediacy they place on it is misguided...but this sutta shows me that I should consider what they say with a little more respect... The problem is that they would say that you can't even do that. Rather than "abandon self-view" which would itself be an action involving self-view, one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110761 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:58 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ---- > <. . .> > KH: > > Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience two objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither one thing not the other. Impossible! > >> > > RE: > The idea that only one thing is experienced at a time, and if that were not the case, experience would be extremely confusing, does not do justice to our sense of reality. We experience things as happening around us in a multiplicity of objects and sensory experiences, yet it is not inherently confusing > ---- > > According to the Dhamma we worldlings are terribly confused. Some suttas say we are insane, No offence is intended, of course, they are only trying to help. :-) > > It seems to me as if we are in a coma. Good friends visiting us in hospital gently urge us to wake up to the real world, but we don't see the need. We think this is the real world. Well, from one comatose patient to another, I think we can take some cues from the nature of our experience as it is and move in the direction of clarity without inventing more convoluted stories about the construction of reality than we already have in our delusory state. Perhaps it is simply looking more closely and carefully and seeing what is really happening that is necessary to wake up, rather than making up an even more complex explanation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110762 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:01 pm Subject: conditions for wisdom truth_aerator Hello KenH, ALL, >As I said before, I think it is because only panna - right >understanding of nama and rupa - leads to enlightenment. And what are the causes for it to be developed? What things are helpful for it? Will it develop all by itself, even if one doesn't do much (watch TV, party, have a good time with friends, etc). I would love it to be the case. But the Buddha has talked about serious effort too many times and so did the VsM. ""And who is the individual who goes against the flow? 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 ================================================================== If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die during the day, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. 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 With Metta, Alex #110763 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting egberdina Hi Rob E, On 15 October 2010 02:42, Robert E wrote: > > I think a lot of the confusion in this issue is the idea that kusala is > some kind of mystical quality that no one can easily know and that it can > easily be mistaken for its opposite. > Just for the record, I agree with you. And I would add that pontificating over whether some deed or thought was kusala or not is part and parcel of suffering, not liberation from it. Cheers Herman #110764 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:03 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > A modern-day vipassana meditator directs his consciousness. He chooses to "discern" dhammas and to bring about understanding and release. That is not directing and controlling dhammas. It is simply taking a look at what is there, which is what you advocate anyway, just in a different setting. So he is confusing the real world (of no control) with the conceptual one (of control). Seeing and discerning arising dhammas is not exercising control. You just have a proprietary view of your chosen method of understanding. > Pantomime vipassana might be fun, but it is the opposite of what the Buddha taught. Your view of this is the opposite of what the Buddha actually said, notwithstanding your negative characterization of meditation. How about "pantomime right understanding" on your part? Just as likely. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110765 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:06 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi Jon, KenH, all, >J: Where the condition is a kusala factor, this cannot be made to >arise by doing a specific action. So reading a Dhamma book, or paying attention to a tough DSG Abhidhamma lecture by lets say KS does not make kusala arise? And conversely does, lets say, killing parents, killing an Arahat, creating schism in the Sangha, etc, doesn't make akusala results arise? Does reading and considering Dhamma help to make more kusala states such as wisdom to arise? If nothing can be done and nothing should be done, then I guess some Xtians, atheists, Muslims, hindus are as much on the path as devoit DSG Abhidhammikas. Somehow I don't buy this. With metta, Alex #110766 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:06 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E (and Herman), > > ---- > <. . .> > H: >>> Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? > >>> > > KH: >> I am saying it *is* a characteristic, and it can be experienced by mind consciousness. > >> > > RE: > Can you describe the characteristic of sunnata? > ---- > > I think it is described as the void. There can never be a self because every dhamma contains the void. How does a dhamma "contain" the void? What does that mean? Is it void through and through? Is some aspect of it void? The way you put it sounds like a metaphor. > ---------------- > RE: > Would you define it as something like "dhamma has the characteristic of sunnata in that it is empty of any self or relation to self?" > ---------------- > > I would define it as something like "all dhammas have the characteristic of anatta. There cannot be a dhamma without anatta, and there cannot be anatta without a dhamma; they are inseparable." That is fine, but is general. How does the dhamma contain or express or display anatta or sunnata? How is it known when it is discerned? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110767 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) egberdina Hi Azita, On 16 October 2010 18:26, gazita2002 wrote: > > > > > > > azita: the point I was making was not to cultivate happiness but in > relation to another being it was more likely to be kusala by making them > happy than by making them sad bec that would surely be akusala. However I > think that in both situations it would be akusala. Again, only Panna can > know for sure...... > > > > So the best we can hope for is either very akusala or a little less > akusala? That is sad... :-) > > > > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of > kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping or > wishing will get us more kusala. > I think it would help if we keep in mind that kusala is a concept, in that it does not refer to just one specific state. Many different states can be kusala. But let's be more specific and restrict ourselves to detachment. Would you say that wishing, hoping, intending to have detachment prevents detachment from arising? Cheers Herman #110768 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:10 pm Subject: typo: should be "devoted" not "devoit" truth_aerator > If nothing can be done and nothing should be done, then I guess some >Xtians, atheists, Muslims, hindus are as much on the path as devoit >DSG Abhidhammikas. Somehow I don't buy this. should be: If nothing can be done and nothing should be done, then I guess some Xtians, atheists, Muslims, hindus are as much on the path as devoted (or serious or learned) DSG Abhidhammikas. Somehow I don't buy this. I'd love that to be the case of "do nothing and wait when awakening will fall in your lap". Alex #110769 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma egberdina Hi Ken H, On 15 October 2010 18:54, Ken H wrote: > > > > ------------------- > A: > Maybe theory itself is not enough. > ------------------- > > The theory that only subatomic particles exist is not even a starting > point. Anatta has to be known as a characteristic of namas and rupas. > > Knowing it as a logical deduction - "since there are only particles, there > is no self" - might lead to detachment, but it won't lead to nibbana. > > Yeah, true enough, but then again, nothing leads to nibbana. You know the drill, nibbana is unbecome, uncreated, unmanifested, and it is unconditioned. Cheers Herman #110770 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? egberdina Hi Jon, On 15 October 2010 20:14, jonoabb wrote: > > > If I say "If you want to reach enlightenment you should practice > anapanasati with breath as the object" it is not any less an instruction or > any more a description than if I say "If you want to get milk you should go > to the store." Sure, I'm not saying you have to get milk, or that you must > go to the store, but I am saying that if you want the milk, you *should* in > fact go to the store. It's an instruction no matter how you slice it. > > =============== > > J: I see nothing prescriptive in the statement "If you want to get milk you > should go to the store." > > Well, Immanuel Kant disagrees with you as well :-) He would describe the above statement as a hypothetical imperative. It is a perfectly legitimate use of the word "should". In this usage, should is not a moral imperative, but a rational imperative. The Buddha isn't prescribing what people should intend, but he is prescribing that if they intend x, they have to do y or z if they really want to achieve it. It is not a moral prescription, but an understanding of conditionality, that is at play. Cheers Herman #110771 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Herman, I don't remember if I have replied to this post or not. :-) --------- <. . .> KH: > > So it seems to me that science sees a fundamental distinction between concepts and realities just as much as the Dhamma does. >> H: > I agree wholeheartedly with you Ken H. Good science and good dhamma are not really different. > I came across this recently, from the pen of the Nobel-winning Edelman: >"I have called another conscious illusion the Heraclitean illusion because it reflects our way of thinking about time and change. Most people sense the passage of time as the movement of a point or a scene from the past to the present to the future. But in a strict physical sense, only the present exists." > -------- The "strict physical sense" or the "strict real sense" is the *only* real sense, isn't it? So I wonder how Dr Edelman justifies moving on to any other sense. ------------- KH: > > If so, why doesn't science lead to nibbana? Why doesn't the understanding "there are only subatomic particles - no self" lead to perfect detachment and the end of suffering? > > H: > Probably for the same reason that good dhamma doesn't lead to nibbana either. It is not a self that craves, it is not a self that wonders on through time. Rather, it is craving that leads to the idea of a self wandering through time. -------------- Yes, I agree with the second part. I don't know what you meant by the first part, though. The Dhamma - the Ariyan Eightfold Path - is the way that leads to nibbana. -------------------- KH: > > One possible answer is that perfect understanding cannot be reached until the mind is purified. And science doesn't know how to purify the mind. > > H: > Another possible answer is that there is no such thing as perfect understanding or a purified mind, and that the quest for it is just another manifestation of craving. ----------------------- That would eliminate the third and fourth noble truths, wouldn't it? ---------------------- H: > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." --------------------------------- Yes, useful for science. The Dhamma, however, stays with the undeniable fact that there is only the present moment. That's why the Dhamma is so much more responsible and dependable than science. It is a much more reliable friend. ------------------------------- KH: >> I don't know; I am only speculating. >> H: > Me too, it can be fun :-) -------------------------------- We should be ashamed of ourselves. Wasting our time on idle speculation when we could be studying Dhamma. :-) Ken H #110772 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Jon, On 15 October 2010 21:52, jonoabb wrote: > > My question is whether there is a physical universe or not, which we > perceive as individual rupas, but which exists apart from nama and rupa, or > not. > > =============== > > J: The rupas that we take for the inanimate 'outside world' have, like all > dhammas, their conditions for arising. Unless these conditions include being > the object of experience, or nama in some respect or other, then presumably > those rupas would arise anyway. (But does it matter anyway?) > > Well, to the extent that we not only invariable expect the outside world to be there, but also constituted in particular ways, it matters a great deal. That a rupa is a rupa is a rupa is all good and well in theory, but to the likes of me, it makes an enormous practical difference whether a rupa is part of a building, or part of a pile of rubble. Cheers Herman #110773 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:45 pm Subject: Nirvana x 2! bhikkhu5 Friends: The 2 Dimensions of Nibbna: There is Nibbana here & now in this very life: We call it Sa-upadi-sesa-Nibbana i.e. Nibbana with traces of the substrates of becoming, still remaining! Then there is final Nibbana, with no substrates for being or fuels for becoming left remaining: This is called An-upadi-sesa-Nibbana. The Blessed Buddha explained it thus: The 2 aspects of Nibbana: Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element without any traces of substrate left. What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahat, one whose mental fermentations is silenced, who have fulfilled the Noble life, who has done all what was to be done, who has laid down the burden, attained the goal, who has destroyed the bondages of being, who is completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense abilities remain unimpaired. Through these he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable, and feels both pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, aversion, & confusion in him, that is called this Nibbana-element with residue left. Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue remaining? Here a bhikkhu is an arahat, one whose mental fermentations is silenced, who have fulfilled the Noble life, who has done all what was to be done, who has laid down the burden, attained the goal, who has destroyed the bondages of being, who is completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will grow cold right there and cease. That is called Nibbana-element with no residue left. These, bhikkhus, are the two Dimensions of Nibbana... These two Nibbana-elements were thus made known by the Seeing One, confident & detached: The first is the element with substrates of being remaining, realized here and now, but with re-becoming destroyed. The other, having no residue left for the future, is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease. Having understood this unconstructed state, released in mind, with the cord to becoming eliminated, they attain to the sublime essence of all states. Delighting in calming and ceasing of craving, those steady ones have left all being and becoming behind... Comments: Sa-upadi-sesa-Nibbana i.e. Nibbana with traces of becoming remaining is the state of the living arahat, who has still has body, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness as a remaining result of clinging in his past, the effects of which have not yet been fully exhausted... Final Nibbana with no substrates for being or fuels for becoming left remaining An-upadi-sesa-Nibbana is the state of the arahat after death, where body, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness have irreversibly ceased ever re-arising anywhere anymore! Source; Thus Was it Said: Itivuttaka II.17; Iti 38 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110774 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Rob E > The problem is that they would say that you can't even do that. Rather than "abandon self-view" which would itself be an action involving self-view, one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. I wonder if there are two Pali verbs that are translated as "abandon." It seems to me there are contexts that get at the true eradication of a defilement, and others that suggest a "just drop it" temporary, provision abandonment, such as the one that happens with akusala forms of thought in MN 19 (or 20, I will never remember) The context of the sutta I'm referring to suggests a momentary abandonment for the purpose of adding to conditions for a true eradication, but that's just my hunch. As for the second clause in your post, no doubt about that being true, that's something every one can agree on, I'm sure. Metta, Phil #110775 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:58 pm Subject: What does "self view" mean? philofillet Hi all > one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. I know from studying Dhamma that there is an eternal self that goes from body to body at rebirth, there is not a self like an atman. There are times that I wish there were, because it is an attractive concept. Are such moments self view if I only wish it were true? And what of the rest of the time? I constantly or almost constantly am aware of an idea of me, of Phil, doing this or that, there is almost never or never a moment of being aware of only dhammas at work, unless I think about it for mental pleasure - it is mentally pleasing to think about deep teachings and try to understand them. So are all those moments, almost all day, of being aware of Phil doing this or that "self view", or does "self view" involve a misguided, firmly-held belief, or a wish, that there was a permanent, lasting self, an atta, like in Hinduism? Metta, Phil #110776 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:02 pm Subject: Typo Re: What does "self view" mean? philofillet Hi all Typo. Talk about a big one. If quoting the below from the previous post, please make the necessary correction. >I know from studying Dhamma that there is an eternal self that goes from body to body at rebirth, should be > I know from mistakenly practicing formal meditaiton that there is an eternal self that goes from body to body at rebirth. It's a joke. But please correct the above to "there is not an eternal self. Metta, Phil #110777 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:33 pm Subject: mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. truth_aerator Hello Herman, Howard, KenH, all, > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: > > "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness > causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." There are two extreme ontological views. 1) View that all is due to matter 2) View that all is due to mind. There are also two extreme theories of knowledge a) True knowledge of the world is possible. b) True knowledge of the world is impossible, extreme Skepticism. A consummate materialist can say that all acts through body, speech and mind, that all consciousness, willing, learning and knowing is due to material processes that develop in such and such a way. Any objection to this can be countered with "this is all a material process". A consummate idealist can say that all acts through body, speech and mind, that all matter, consciousness, willing, learning and knowing is due to only mental processes that develop in such and such a way. Any objection to this can be countered with "this is all a mental process". And both kinds of philosophers can write big books, big arguments, So it seems to be a dead end. Each can remain holding one's own position. Also if one adopts extreme Skepticism of Knowledge if one is wrong, then one is at a disadvantage if there is true knowledge. If one believes and studies to gain more understanding, and understanding is possible, then one is at advantage. What practical use is it to question "are there really cars on that highway, or is it all an illusion? Is there more chance of being run over by a car when you jump in front of it or when lying in one's own bed?" These sort of questions can be asked by an extreme Sceptic. And you know, how does the above change the way one behaves in the real world? If all external world is an illusion, does it make sense to jump under the moving car? What does experience of others and common sense tell us? Or does it make sense to carefully avoid being run over by cars and trains? If one is hungry or thirsty, regardless of underlying reality, should one eat/drink water or die from lack of food or water? Alcoholic doesn't drink because he thinks that alcohol has an inherent existence, he drinks because he doesn't see any other possible way to stop thinking about some events that he interprets as causing him to emotionally suffer. He also thinks that benefits of taking alcohol now outweighs its drawbacks. IMHO, the ontological dilemma can be side-stepped by pragmatism. What practical use is of holding this vs that extreme view that depends on belief in certain axioms that cannot be proven or disproven? Whatever there is or isn't behind learning a skill, developing wholesome or unwholesome states of mind, developing peace or discontent, uprooting or not uprooting the fetters - what actions lead to what result? Experience (whatever is or isn't underlying it) does show us that learning occurs and changes one for the better or worse. Maybe same is with Dhamma? One practices and develops wholesome skills of mind that help one be at peace regardless of what happens? Nothing to say about blissing out in deep states of concentration. Some may say "what about taking strong tranquillizers, narcotics, LSD, etc" rather than developing the path? Well those things are crutches. Their "High" lasts only when the supplies and money lasts. They are illegal, expensive and bad to health and psychiatric issues. Nothing to mention about dangerous addiction, withdrawal effects, having to increase the dose for the same effect, etc. IMHO. With metta, Alex #110778 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Ken) - In a message dated 10/16/2010 8:33:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Herman, Howard, KenH, all, > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: > > "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness > causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." -------------------------------------------------------------------- An appropriate hoisting-on-one's-own-petard ;-)) response to this statement of Ken's is the following material from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma," discussing one of 4 means of generating material form: (2) Material phenomena arising from Mind (54) The seventy-five types of consciousness, excluding the Formless Resultants and the twice fivefold cognitives produce mind-born material phenomena, from the first moment of life-continuum just as it arises. Therein the ecstatic Javanas regulate the bodily postures. But the Determining Consciousness, Javanas of the Kama Sphere, and super-knowledge consciousness produce also (bodily and vocal) media of communication. Herein the thirteen pleasurable Javanas produce laughter too. ===================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110779 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On 15 October 2010 20:14, jonoabb wrote: > > > > > > If I say "If you want to reach enlightenment you should practice > > anapanasati with breath as the object" it is not any less an instruction or > > any more a description than if I say "If you want to get milk you should go > > to the store." Sure, I'm not saying you have to get milk, or that you must > > go to the store, but I am saying that if you want the milk, you *should* in > > fact go to the store. It's an instruction no matter how you slice it. > > > =============== > > > > J: I see nothing prescriptive in the statement "If you want to get milk you > > should go to the store." > > > > > Well, Immanuel Kant disagrees with you as well :-) He would describe the > above statement as a hypothetical imperative. It is a perfectly legitimate > use of the word "should". In this usage, should is not a moral imperative, > but a rational imperative. > > The Buddha isn't prescribing what people should intend, but he is > prescribing that if they intend x, they have to do y or z if they really > want to achieve it. It is not a moral prescription, but an understanding of > conditionality, that is at play. Thank you Herman. That is the best direct explanation of this issue I have heard in quite some time. It is of the form, "If x, then y" or something like that! :-) You don't have to accept the premise, but if you do accept premise x, then doing y will fulfill it. The idea that this is just a description is only true if what you mean is "a description of a hypothetical imperative" just as you put it. In other words, the imperative is active once one enters the hypothetical. Bless old Kant! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110780 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > As for the second clause in your post, no doubt about that being true, that's something every one can agree on, I'm sure. I think you're right. And there is no lack of self-view in my world. It seems to arise continuously. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110781 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:51 pm Subject: Re: What does "self view" mean? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi all > > > one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. > > I know from studying Dhamma that there is an eternal self that goes from body to body at rebirth, there is not a self like an atman. There are times that I wish there were, because it is an attractive concept. Are such moments self view if I only wish it were true? > > And what of the rest of the time? I constantly or almost constantly am aware of an idea of me, of Phil, doing this or that, there is almost never or never a moment of being aware of only dhammas at work, unless I think about it for mental pleasure - it is mentally pleasing to think about deep teachings and try to understand them. So are all those moments, almost all day, of being aware of Phil doing this or that "self view", or does "self view" involve a misguided, firmly-held belief, or a wish, that there was a permanent, lasting self, an atta, like in Hinduism? They're both self-view, but maybe one is a normal, everyday concept that arises with thoughts and activities, and the other is a more fixed spiritual concept that hovers over everything else. I think the latter - the actual belief in a permanent eternal self - is probably worse in some way. At least if you are starting from accepting anatta as a concept, you can regard the everyday self-view when it arises with some skepticism. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110782 From: "colette" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ksheri3 Hi everyone, et al, Interesting how this concept of "the self" possessing/being possessed by a VIEW of ITSELF. I have really been working on the techniques of MEDITATION in different MAHAYANA sects i.e. YOGACHARA, NYINGMA, ET AL, and I can say, WITH CERTAINTY, that abandoning the idea of SELF is the only way to dare to deal with the massive concept of SHUNYATA i.e.Madhyamika, ugh, gag. I noticed, a few days ago, that the WINDS & DROPS are actual EXISTANT "beings" and that they do pass through me i.e. "Being Right Here". This, then, facilitates the REALIZATION of the Chakra system pertaining to PRANA or Qi (Chinese spelling). Philip, I believe that your reluctance to abandoning "self view" is that you cling to the self as being the Wind, as being substantial IN ORDER TO substantiate your VIEW OF SELF. I, infact, raised this issue today: does the bija of a "self" begin OUTSIDE and then grow INSIDE the human organism OR does the bija of "self" begin INSIDE and then grow OUTSIDE i.e. MIRROR CONSCIOUSNESS, "Blue Pancake", etc. If you clingingness to this NON-EXISTANT "Self" is RESULTANT from it "being" OUTSIDE then planted (bija) INSIDE your body, then I'd have to say that you will always worship at the alter of SLAVERY since YOU CANNOT EXIST UNTIL EXISTANCE IS GIVEN TO YOU FROM OTHERS, A GANG, FRATERNITY/SORRORITY, UNION, MOB, GROUP, ETC. CLINGING to the delusion of a "self" imprisons you within Lord Yama's Wheel of Samsara since you can NEVER EVER ESCAPE THE CREATIONIST ILLUSION WHICH MANIFESTS THE DELUSION OF "SELF" WITHIN YOU. I'd like to go back and re-read Howard's post then Robert E.'s post see ya soon. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Howard (and Ken and all( > > Thank you so much, Howard. I think you have provided here an exceptional example of what Dhamma friends should do for each other! > > > It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an > > unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to > > ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke > > often of urgency and of time being short. > > You might consider the following two suttas: > > I would also add a quick nod to the SN sutta that says that one should, as though with one's turban on fire strive to abandon two things. One is lust, which is not surprising, but the other is something that makes me give a nod in the direction of DSG and the students of A.S, it says that one should strive to abandon self-view with that same urgency. That's important for me to consider, because the insistence students of A.S make on this point has made me resistant to to the idea of abandoning self-view, because I feel the immediacy they place on it is misguided...but this sutta shows me that I should consider what they say with a little more respect... > > Anyways, thanks, I'm going to print out your post right away and post it where I have posted a couple of suttas I want to see often... > > Metta, > > Phil > #110783 From: "colette" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:47 pm Subject: "Be Like Water" B.Lee ksheri3 Hi Ken H, YES SIR, that's the spirit: > For his part, Phil has subsequently corrected that impression (much to my disappointment). I, on the other hand, am prepared to risk being called complacent. If that is what it takes to express a middle-way understanding of the suttas, then so be it. :-) > colette: you got it baby: (paraphrasing) "Without a GOER there can be no GOING" The goer can only exist if it GOES. And where does an INVOLUNTARY MUSCLE get it's electrical impulses from? "I hear that beat. I jump out of my seat. But I can't compete. 'Cause I'm a DANCIN' FOOL" F.Zappa ;) with respect to the WINDS & DROPS and my SUBJECT LINE: 5 Elementals: Air, Water, Fire, Earth, MIND. Bruce Lee advises, for his Jeet Kund Do philosophy, to "be like water", true, but take the same conceptualization that Bruce Lee was applying and replace the word WATER with another ELEMENTAL. You will find his "conceptualization" to be accurate and applicable via the Shao Lin techniques he was originally taught. Ken H. you have a good grasp of the concept that, I feel, the Buddha was puting forward. --------------------------------------- > > Right understanding of nama and rupa conditions the co-arising of right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration etc. These are the only actions that the suttas call for. > colette: Is it possible that the conceptualization of "nama" and "rupa" are the starting point: Not that the word(s) nama or rupa point to something and then there you need to start defining but simply the concept of a "nama" and a "rupa" is more than enough evidence for the practioner to be wary of ILLUSION and therefore DISTRUST the "being" of a "nama" or/and a "rupa"? good talking with you. Ahhhhh, yes, now I get to DESERT. Too bad the restaraunts in SF aren't like a restaruant in Germany that is operated by the disabled, BLIND, so the diners themselves are blindfolded so as to heighten their sensory perception and cognition, while they eat. I'm just gonna go dig right in. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Howard (and Phil), > > ----------- > <. . .> > H: > It seem to me here that you are each, in your own way, exhibiting an unwarranted complacency. You might recall that the Buddha was devoted to ending suffering and considered it an urgent matter. You might recall he spoke often of urgency and of time being short. > ------------ > > For his part, Phil has subsequently corrected that impression (much to my disappointment). I, on the other hand, am prepared to risk being called complacent. If that is what it takes to express a middle-way understanding of the suttas, then so be it. :-) <...> #110784 From: "colette" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:03 pm Subject: The Shunyata of Shunyata, correct? ksheri3 Hi Robert, > What about what the suttas actually say? Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? > colette: That's a trick question? Isn't it? "What about what the suttas actually say?" Are the suttas speaking of the emptiness of things or are the suttas speaking of the delusions that the mind makes out of the hallucinations gained through the alaya-vijnana? The rest of your reply, although I have no problems with it, seems like fluff, icing on the cake. What is "intention"? What is "effort"? What is "action"? You got it baby! The suttas DO NOT CALL FOR ATTAINING SUCH HEIGHTS SPECIFICALLY THROUGH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING ONLY! Good to hear from you Robert. It is a joy to know that my VIPSISSANA and/or INSIGHT has been telling me the truth and guiding me very well through the hazardous BARDOS. It is almost an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE to think and to "practice" in life as I watch the manifestation of a mind-only THOUGHT. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: <...> > What about what the suttas actually say? Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? <...> #110785 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Present Moment egberdina Hi Ari, On 16 October 2010 01:47, a_true_lotus wrote: > > > Dear list, > > I wanted to share my current, maybe little inner battle regarding living in > the present moment. Maybe other can relate. > > As I have stated in the past, I have been listening to a CD set called > Mindful Way Through Depression. Their claim is that depression, as a mood, > can be caused by negative thinking and I find that to be true. Their answer > is to live fully in the present. > > So, what I've done of late, has been that if I start to feel depressed > (ruminating on negative thoughts), I ask myself "what is here, right now?". > > Thanks for sharing some of your life and times with us. In Australia, depression is referred to as "the black dog". It is a very real disease. It might sound like an unpleasant thing to say, but I am happy that you acknowledge your depression. It's half the battle, coming to recognise that the way you think doesn't have to be, that there are other ways of experiencing life. > Most of the time, it's something pretty pleasant, like maybe my cats > sleeping with me in the morning, and purring or maybe just a refreshing > breeze, or the sunshine. Then I go about enjoying my present moment and all > the richness there is in the moment. > > Sometimes, however, I will think "foooey on this present moment stuff. I'm > depressed!" Then I will slip into that form of negative thinking instead of > the feelings that give me freedom from unhappiness. > > I consider this little battle to be self vs. non-self. > > Then the other troubling thing, is that, when I live in the present, say, I > am enjoying the company of my purring cats (where we are all pretty much one > big cat amalgum in the morning), I find myself attached to good things that > are in the present moment, and still pushing away "bad" things. > > So, while I think living in the moment is a big step up from depression, > there is more work to be done, in not getting attached to the "good" or > averse to the "bad". > > Perhaps the next step is to be mindful of what I consider pleasant, and see > at what point in the thoughtstream that I start to attach either the concept > of pleasant or not pleasant. > > According to the CD set, eventually, you should be able to find that point > where you attach "pleasant" and "unpleasant" and they have several > exercises, like mindful yoga (instead of mindful walking), that might create > a space where you realize that you are attaching "pleasant" or "unpleasant" > to something. So far, in my meditation and daily life, I have not been able > to find that point. > > I think no matter where we are in the spiritual path, there's no end point > and you just keep on plugging away at what you think is the right thing to > do, leaving behind mistakes of the past, and the past entirely, and also, > not thinking a lot about the future. > > When a person is not well, a good doctor is as useful as a good dhamma teacher :-) The Buddha will give you the best cognitive therapy in the world, but if the chemistry of your body is out of kilter, I wouldn't recommend that you try and think your way out of depression. But by all means, share the Buddha's insights with your doctor. S/he needs them as much as anyone else. Cheers Herman > Best, > Ari > > > #110786 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Phil, Ken H and all, On 14 October 2010 13:11, philip wrote: > > > Personally, I embrace rituals! The path is long and difficult, we need > empowerment and support on the way. I would rather get it from Buddhist > related rituals (such as reciting as I did this morning the five daily > recollections) than from other non-Dhamma related sources of empowerment and > encouragement. > There are other possibilities. *Insight into how "sīlabbata-parāmāsa" pervades everything we do can be both liberating and threatening. “Travelers, there is no path, paths are made by walking” * *So, what are you doing right now? And what on earth for? Is it working?* * * *Cheers* * * * * *Herman* #110787 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:27 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) glenjohnann Hello Azita (and Rob) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping or wishing will get us more kusala. > > I think we have to be really truthful, not necessarily to anyone else but to ourselves, as to when k/ak arises. I personally think its very difficult to discern the momentary difference bet ak/k. We can be reasonably sure that giving a suitable gift to someone would be generosity adn therefore k, however lets not pretend to ourselves that we really know the difference. > > I also suspect that jst having dhamma discussions as we do here on dsg, can be kusala, jst as long as we are respecting ea other and not giving ea other a hard time; but it is such a momentary happening according to Abhidhamma, cittas arising and falling, who can really know - Panna when and if it arises. > Ann: so true and well said, Azita. I hope that the dust of the householder tasks settles soon - but as Sarah has said, it all comes down to loba and dosa - and the dust of ignorance over and over again. #110788 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:32 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------- <. . .> KH: >> Right understanding of nama and rupa conditions the co-arising of right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration etc. These are the only actions that the suttas call for. >> RE: > What about what the suttas actually say? --------- That *is* what the suttas actually say. ----------------- RE: > Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. ----------------- The suttas, and the Tipitaka as a whole, teach the eightfold path, which is a citta with eight supramundane cetasikas. There is no doubt about it, ask any serious student of the Dhamma. ------------------ RE: > The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, ------------------ Intention is not one of the eight path factors. But the important point is, the entire world must be understood as just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. The only "actions" that satipatthana calls for are momentary functions performed by the eight path factors. If you insist on interpreting the suttas otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice. ------------------------- RE: > and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? -------------------------- Yes, they do. Emphatically! Ken H #110789 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:14 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi RobE and Nina (and Jon), Thanks for your replies. > RobE: I think a lot of the confusion in this issue is the idea that kusala is some kind of mystical quality that no one can easily know and that it can easily be mistaken for its opposite... pt: Thanks for your thoughts. You may well be right, though I was kind of hoping for a practical description of how exactly does the kusala experience of the breath as object differs from the akusala one. > Nina: I remember what Kh Sujin said about the earth kasina. Kasina means: all encompassing. We find possessions very important, people fight for them, cling to them. But actually they are just earth. When there is sufficient understanding of this subject and also of the purpose of contemplating it, it can lead to detachment. This is the aim of all those contemplations. ... As I remember a description by Kh Sujin: our life depends on breath, we find breath so important. However, it appears as the tiniest ruupa of hardness, softness, etc. at the nose tip or upperlip. It is so slight, a mere nothing so to say. And it becomes more and more subtle as one progresses. It is an indispensable condition for life to go on. When it is time for the dying-consciousness, there is no more breathing. But nobody can control it or prevent its stopping. When contemplated in the right way it can support detachment. pt: Thanks very much for this explanation. I guess this is the sort of explanation that Jon was after (right Jon?). For me though, I can't quite understand how this sort of contemplation happens in samatha bhavana with breath as object. I mean, it seems more like an intellectual contemplation of sorts, while I always thought that in samatha bhavana there'd be only the concept of breath as object more or less continuously (of course, accompanied by panna of the samatha kind, and so a certain degree of detachment), but there would be no other concepts as such. So perhaps what K.S. says above relates more to the beginnings of developing samatha bhavana on a momentary basis, rather than the later stages when it's natural to sit down under the tree for longer periods of time and that sort of thing? Best wishes pt #110790 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 15 October 2010 18:36, Ken H wrote: > > > ------------ > H: > And while there is nothing wrong with having some kind of > understanding of how things work, I do see a pitfall if one starts to > believe that they are actually experiencing the theory. I simply cannot say > that there is an experience of mind or body doors, or namas knowing an > object. As far as I can tell, they are explanations, not experiences. > ------------ > > Explanations of how things work help us to understand what those things > are. We understand nama, for example, as a reality that experiences > something. I don't know how we would achieve that understanding if we hadn't > heard explanations of what namas experience and how. > > ------------------ > I hazard a thought here that it is this kind of understanding that is based on, and leads to more self-view. Nama is not something that exists in itself. If it did, then you could be nama, and if I had a dollar for every thought that consciousness is self then I would own a very large mansion just up the road from you :-). But experience is otherwise. Whatever is experienced, I am not it. That "not being" is the ongoing dynamic. If I was ever something, then I could stop craving for being. But I am never anything, and that is what is being experienced. This is not theory, this is what is happening. Abhidhamma commentary explanations of "what is" are all positive, and they therefore do not, and cannot account for the reality of anatta, which is "not being". The positive must include the negative. H: > All I can say is that whatever is > > experienced, I am never it. (and that is from experience :-)) > ------------------- > > Is it from experience, or is it from hearing explanations and considering > them? > > I appreciate the point you are making, but I really cannot distinguish what caused what without inventing a whole bunch of stories or indulging in silabbata-.............. > -------------------------- > H: > Well, the theory you espouse imposes a number of limits on itself, for > reasons that are not self-evident. If one starts of insisting that only one > discreet object is ever knowable at once, then you are hamstrung from the > beginning, and will need to contort what is meant by the present to account > for the reality of what is experienced. > --------------------------- > > OK, but we aren't we studying the Buddha's teaching? That's how he > explained it That is what we are trying to understand. > I believe I am trying to understand the same reality that the Buddha did, and I lean towards his interpretations and explanations partially because he reminds me at every turn that I have to discover the truth for myself. It makes sense doesn't it, to be free from suffering, rather than to tell myself that the theory says I can't possible be suffering, so therefore I am not. > > The 'one object at a time' explanation is very persuasive if you think > about it. Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience two > objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither one > thing not the other. Impossible! > > Standing on Jon and Sarah's balcony, it would mean nothing to point to the water and proclaim "there is one ocean", or up in the air and proclaim "there is one sky". The ocean or sky are not a unit, they are not single. Rather, they are complex, and variegated. Like the breath. So, I don't need to imagine what the experience of multiplicity is like, it is happening non-stop. The fact that attention singles stuff out is hardly relevant.The all is not limited by attention. And I am neither the all, nor attention. > --------------------------------- > H: > And have you ever experienced "touching", "seeing", "hearing", > "feeling" that was not dependent on an object? Did you ever touch touching, > or see seeing, or hear hearing or feel feeling? Unless you are radically > different to everyone else, then, no, you didn't. All you can say about > touching, seeing, hearing, feeling etc is that it is characterised by it's > object, not by itself. > ---------------------------------- > > When namas appear at the mind door they are experienced by mentally > cognizing consciousness, not by seeing consciousness, or hearing or touching > (etc)consciousness. > The above is not something I can relate to, Ken. > > You can mentally cognize consciousness, can't you? > > No, I can't, to be honest. To be conscious of red, straightforwardly described, is to know red, and know at once that the knowing of red and the being of red do not coincide. There is the experience of a distance, so to speak, between red and knowing it. I am not red. What you and Abhidhamma commentary are doing is to invent a distinct reality, a distinct being, to account for this experience of separation or distance. You call that experience nama. What I am saying is that the experience of nama is not an experience of a positive something, I am saying it is a negative, it is not-being the object. Nothing is itself, Ken, nothing, least of all consciousness. That is emptiness for you. > ----------------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > Are you saying that sunnata has a positive characteristic? > ----------------------------------------- > > I am saying it *is* a characteristic, and it can be experienced by mind > consciousness. > > You are courageous, to me it is a very difficult definition to adopt. Sunnata and anatta are, IMO, relationships between things, not things in themselves. One cannot see that a glass is empty, one has to think it. The glass in itself is only what it is, it's emptiness consists of the difference between what is thought, and what is. Globally, that translates into sunnata being the difference between what is sensed, and what is thought. I'm talking from my experience only, of course :-) Cheers Herman #110791 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 16-okt-2010, om 8:24 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > "...He remains established in the observation of the process of > coming-to-be in the body or the process of dissolution in the body > or both the process of coming-to-be and the process of dissolution. > Or he is mindful of the fact, 'There is a body here' until > understanding and full awareness come about." > > In other words, one is observing the characteristic of anicca in > the body, which means that processes are being observed in some > detail. But it adds that the practitioner may just be mindful of > the idea that the body is present, and that is a kind of gross sati > of the conceptual understanding "this is a body" until such time as > understanding and awareness become capable of seeing the processes > of coming-to-be and dissolution that compose the body in reality > > That is Thich Nat Hanh's translation, and I thought that was pretty > neat. -------- N: I do not think the sutta deals with gross sati of conceptual understanding. This may become clearer when reading the commentary. The commentary explains further (See the Way of Mindfulness, Ven. Soma) (worth while to consult this): ------ Nina. #110792 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting nilovg Dear pt, Op 17-okt-2010, om 9:14 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > So perhaps what K.S. says above relates more to the beginnings of > developing samatha bhavana on a momentary basis, rather than the > later stages when it's natural to sit down under the tree for > longer periods of time and that sort of thing? ----- N: I find it difficult to answer this. I think from the beginning there should be right understanding of this subject and its goal: detachment. No matter one is more advanced or not. The Co to the sutta (The Way of Mindfulness) explains very well, I think. But here it pertains to someone who develops samatha and vipassanaa. ----- Nina. #110793 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:06 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 hallo Rob, > > There is a sutta in MN138 which struck me as being very precise in its teaching: > > > > The Buddha is talking to some monks: 'Bhikkhus, ..........snnip.... suffering - of birth, aging or death in the future' > > Thanks for quoting this sutta. It's a wonderful sutta. I hunted around and found the translation you quoted: > > http://tinyurl.com/28gpxly > > I like it a lot better than Thanissaro's and the other translations I've seen online so far, which seem more convoluted while this translation is very clear. > > Here is Thanissaro's: > "The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated." azita: a friend gave me a book by Ven Thanissaro but I could not read it as it jst didnt make much dhamma sense to me - but that particular friend reads many of the Ven. books - so there you go! > > This is a little better -- don't know who it's translated by - I like "fixated" better than "positioned" which is vague: > "The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally fixated, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated." > > If you took your translation, and put "fixated" in instead of "stuck," that would not be bad, though "stuck" is probably to the point. azita: both words seem to be saying the same thing. Fixated on something, stuck on something, same to me. patience, courage and good cheer, azita #110794 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) gazita2002 hallo Herman, > > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of > > kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping or > > wishing will get us more kusala. > > > > I think it would help if we keep in mind that kusala is a concept, in that > it does not refer to just one specific state. azita: I dont think that kusala is a concept. What about kusala citta, its not a concept when it arises, and its a very specific state also. Many different states can be > kusala. But let's be more specific and restrict ourselves to detachment. azita: detachment is kusala is it not? > Would you say that wishing, hoping, intending to have detachment prevents > detachment from arising? azita: depends very much on conditions, however I lean more towards a yes, in answer to yr above question. patience, courage and good cheer azita #110795 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) egberdina Hi Azita, On 17 October 2010 21:17, gazita2002 wrote: > > > hallo Herman, > > > > > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of > > > kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping > or > > > wishing will get us more kusala. > > > > > > > I think it would help if we keep in mind that kusala is a concept, in > that > > it does not refer to just one specific state. > > azita: I dont think that kusala is a concept. What about kusala citta, its > not a concept when it arises, and its a very specific state also. > > Do you think colour is a concept or a reality? > > Many different states can be > > kusala. But let's be more specific and restrict ourselves to detachment. > > azita: detachment is kusala is it not? > > Detachment is detachment. And just like it is not a characteristic of pink that it is a colour, so it is not a characteristic of detachment that it is kusala. Kusala, like colour, is fodder for thinkers. > > > Would you say that wishing, hoping, intending to have detachment prevents > > detachment from arising? > > azita: depends very much on conditions, however I lean more towards a yes, > in answer to yr above question. > > I disagree, but only from experience :-) Putting aside grief and distress with reference to the world is something that you can do once it is intended and you know how to do it. Same with silencing discursive thinking. I would agree that you can't do it if you haven't learnt how to do it. But intending to do it is a necessary precursor to do it, not an impediment to it. Just as in the process of a child learning to toilet train, intending to not wet your pants is essential to that learning, not an impediment to it. My experience only, I haven't studied the theory :-) Herman > > patience, courage and good cheer > azita > > > #110796 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Azita & Herman - I believe you rwo are using language differently. In a message dated 10/17/2010 6:17:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: hallo Herman, > > Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with development of > > kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? No amount of hoping or > > wishing will get us more kusala. > > > > I think it would help if we keep in mind that kusala is a concept, in that > it does not refer to just one specific state. --------------------------------------------------- Here I understand you, Herman, when speaking of "kusala" to mean "wholesomeness," which is a category, and hence a concept. --------------------------------------------------- azita: I dont think that kusala is a concept. What about kusala citta, its not a concept when it arises, and its a very specific state also. ------------------------------------------------------ Here I understand you, Azita, to be speaking of specific mind states: those that, due their qualities, are considered wholesome. --------------------------------------------------- Many different states can be > kusala. But let's be more specific and restrict ourselves to detachment. azita: detachment is kusala is it not? ------------------------------------------------ Here, Azita, you are saying that any mind state that involves detachment is a wholesome state. ------------------------------------------------ > Would you say that wishing, hoping, intending to have detachment prevents > detachment from arising? azita: depends very much on conditions, however I lean more towards a yes, in answer to yr above question. patience, courage and good cheer azita ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110797 From: "a_true_lotus" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:16 am Subject: Re: Present Moment a_true_lotus [Robert E] > Thanks for sharing your personal struggle with negative thinking, and the path you are exploring to work with it. *No, thank you for not minding that I kind of post in a "every day" Buddhism manner. It sounds like a positive, thoughtful way of looking at emotion and suffering. It is hard to get away from the attachment of pleasant and unpleasant labels to experiences. Buddhism teaches that the association of experiences with positive and negative happens instantaneously at every moment. *Interesting because the CD claims that with practice, we can realize when we attach "pleasant and unpleasant". In the Buddhist cosmology, right after making "contact" with an experiential object, positive or negative [or neutral] vedana [feeling-reaction] comes up immediately. What usually happens after that is that the mind runs with the positive or negative reaction and creates clinging or aversion and more complex thoughts and emotions that eventually cause more disappointment and pain. *I see. If we become aware of those "positive" and "negative" initial reactions, we may be able to detach from them before they get more complicated and cause more suffering. Anyway, just a thought, and thanks again for sharing your story. *Yes, they are very complicated, aren't they? Some forms of thinking, I find, feel as if they are almost objects that you can reach out and touch, maybe like a cloud. They are made of so many thoughts, that it's really hard to understand all the thoughts in the cloud or maybe the complicated way we think about things - or at least the way I think about things. *One thing that drives me totally crazy is that it seems meditation just does not work as well as pills for me. I don't know if this means that I am not doing my meditation correctly. My doctor prescribed an anti-depressant and I am no longer depressed. All my meditation could not do that and it's discouraging. *So, I kind of meditate just to meditate, and I think it does help, and so I just keep plugging along not really knowing why I meditate. Best, Ari #110798 From: "a_true_lotus" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:25 am Subject: Re: Present Moment a_true_lotus [Phil] > > Many respected Dhamma teachers, many books on meditation, suggest that we should "cut off at feeling", that is where the chain reaction that leads to clinging starts. *This cutting off of a feeling, I would not know how to do, exactly. I do my meditation in 20 minute segments, and by the second segment, I kind of go to a place in my mind that seems above the chatter, and where I can get some peace of mind. I think it's called "Blissing out" and not desirable, but I'll keep it, as it is often the best part of my day. *Let me use a example that most people have had. Let's say you have had insomnia, or for whatever reason, you are sleep deprived. For me, there's a heavy feeling, inertia, and difficulty in concentrating. I'm not sure how you would cut that off? This seems reasonable to me. Friends like Sarah and Jon and others will say no to this, because there is a feeling element to every citta, every mind moment, whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, so the idea of cutting off at feeling is impossible. *It seems pretty impossible! But I think it makes sense. But it sounds to me that you are on the right track, you have an understanding of how the pleasant moments of clinging to the purriness of life condition aversion when we don't have them. I think you are on the right track for sure! Hang in there! In Japanese there is a very good expression, O-en shite-imasu, which means I am rooting for you! So I would like to say O-en shite imasu! There are so many people suffering from depression who don't have sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching, you have kamma in your past which gives you that gift, very fortunate! *Thank you for rooting for me. I did mention that my doctor started me on an anti-depressant and I am no longer depressed. I'm just a little peturbed, that all my meditation could not achieve what one pill has. Argh! Well, I guess I won't focus on it, and just enjoy my non-depression. *I will keep meditating for certain, but I'm not sure why I'm meditating. I was hoping for some peace of mind??? So, I just keep plugging along at it. Best, Ari #110799 From: whinney@... Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Present Moment a_true_lotus [Herman] > Thanks for sharing some of your life and times with us. In Australia, > depression is referred to as "the black dog". It is a very real > disease. It > might sound like an unpleasant thing to say, but I am happy that you > acknowledge your depression. It's half the battle, coming to recognise > that > the way you think doesn't have to be, that there are other ways of > experiencing life. *Of course. I have chronic depression, and this is nothing new just a particularly long patch which I believe started after a bad car accident I was in back in May. I think one potent antidote for mental health is exercise, and I was unable to exercise, until just recently after 4 months of physical therapy and massage. What's different, is that I'm just learning Buddhist concept of how to deal with it, with my CD set. Our house was destroyed by a tornado, and I don't know why that CD set was not destroyed, but I was depressed one day and thought I'd listen to it. It has been very helpful. >> I think no matter where we are in the spiritual path, there's no end >> point >> and you just keep on plugging away at what you think is the right >> thing to >> do, leaving behind mistakes of the past, and the past entirely, and >> also, >> not thinking a lot about the future. >> >> > When a person is not well, a good doctor is as useful as a good dhamma > teacher :-) The Buddha will give you the best cognitive therapy in the > world, but if the chemistry of your body is out of kilter, I wouldn't > recommend that you try and think your way out of depression. But by > all > means, share the Buddha's insights with your doctor. S/he needs them > as much > as anyone else. Well, my interest was peaked, because if you look at the literature (I used to be a scientist for a living), there are good clinical studies that indicate that cognitive behavioral therapy works as well as medication. And, in the case of the CD Mindful Way through depression, they do recommend meditation, being in the present moment, try to not think your way out of depression as you say, and then they have mindfulness yoga and a body scan which is a point by point progressive relaxation. I would say it's a good CD set, and very effective, I think mostly when I view my circumstance and try to be more into the moment, I just ask myself "what is here, now?" And most often, I will be miserable up in my head and thinking and the present moment, for now, anyway, is pretty pleasant. But I find it hard to maintain that for a full day. Best, Ari