#111000 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:24 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---- <. . .> RK: > you explained that conventional truths are only shadows of the ultimate realties. This is true, but it also means that these shadows completely conform to the realties which cast the shadows. ---- In what way is that human a shadow? In what way does it, or any sentient being (any concept)conform or function in any ultimately real way? It seems to me almost as if you were treating a human as a reality of kind some. When I think of a shadow in this way, I think of something very subjective - nothing definite. The same human being can seen as a shadow of many different realities, depending on which realities we might be talking about at the time. -------------------- RK: >A human is human becuase the patisandhi citta was conditioned by kusal kamma done in the past: that type of rebirth consciousness couldn't give birth as a human. -------------------- I understand the term "shadow" to apply where a meaning is being imposed on something in order to create a metaphor or a simile. In that way, a human is a metaphor for a particular set of five khandhas. Ultimately it is only the five khnadhas (not the human) that were conditioned by patisandhi to arise the way they have. --------------------------- RK: > Similarly our view of life is conditioned by either samma ditthi or miccha ditthi. --------------------------- Is it? Strictly speaking view (ditthi) takes either an ultimate reality or a concept of an ultimate reality as its object, doesn't it? So I assume we are talking about thoughts - not views - of conventional life. Would you say those thoughts were always conditioned by ditthi in some way? ------------------------------------ RK: > Thus these views expressed below are the shadow of the ditthi (ultimate reality) of the writers: Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) ----------------------------------- Excellent! I couldn't agree more. In a case where, for example, a small child has been cruelly abused I would not for one moment think he/she deserved it. Vipakka - no matter how pleasant or unpleasant - is the experience of a fleeting, disinterested, conditioned nama. It is most certainly not the experience of a sentient being. --------------------------------------------- > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) ------------------------------------------------- This is all good science - provided we remember it is the science of concepts, not of paramattha dhammas. This scientist is relying on the evidence available to him. If there was such a thing as a person, then a person who knew the Dhamma would live in a split universe: one moment knowing ultimate realities, the next thinking about concepts. When thinking about concepts he would (in my opinion) be on the side of the evolutionists. --------------------------------------------------- > Futuyma : "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). ---------------------------------------------------- Fair enough too! This is the science of concepts. Concepts are concepts, realities are realities, and never the twain shall meet. --------------------- RK: > Likewise Christians who speak about God making the universe are expressing the ditthi (ultimate reality) underlying and motivating that speech. --------------------- Christians are talking about concepts, not about dhammas. Basically, they are clinging to an archaic science of concepts. That makes them look silly (in that respect). --------------------------------- RK: > What I am curious about is why you seem to disdain conventional expressions yet you apparently value the scientific worldview a great deal? --------------------------------- I tried to explain this earlier. I said conventional life could be seen as a shadow of ultimate reality. Therefore, a Buddhist in conventional life would be someone who behaved sensibly and rationally. He would subscribe to the best possible conventional sciences available to him. In that way, his conventional life would be a shadow (or metaphor) of his ultimate reality - citta with panna. Thanks for coming back to these points, Robert, I am enjoying our discussion. Ken H #111001 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:39 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > > > > ------------------------- > > dear Robert > > Sangitti sutta > > > > The vimuttayatanam > > > > The 5 bases of deliverance: > > XXV. "Five bases of deliverance; here > > the teacher or a respected fellow disciple teaches a monk Dhamma. > > And as he receives the teaching, he gains a grasp of both the spirit > > and the letter of the teaching. At this, joy arises in him, and from > > this joy, delight; and by this delight his senses are calmed, he > > feels happiness as a result, and with this happiness his mind is > > established [he attains nibbana];" > > Robert > > That is also a very neat quote - that must be quite a sharp monk, don't you think? > > Best, > Robert E. Hello RobertE, all, An interesting note about that quote: "At this, joy arises in him, and from this joy, delight; and by this delight his ***senses are calmed***, he feels happiness as a result," That can happen in jhana, or lead to jhana, or at the very least is some form of access concentration. With metta, Alex #111002 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:32 pm Subject: Re: present moment/ phil/depression epsteinrob Hi Ari. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, whinney@... wrote: > What is generally done next is that you get an MRI, and then when they > find the tumor which is 99% benign, they remove it surgically. While > I'm not happy about this latter fact, I am ebullient in that now I > finally have an answer that makes sense for the problems I've been > experiencing for years. I can finally tell people something "real" and > that they can understand - a tumor! > > This is really going to help my meditation and my meditation is really > going to help this! > > I can't remember who on the list, I"m sorry, but said something about > not trying to outsmart a biochemical part of depression but the > biochemicals that lead to depression are rather vague, and often not > taken seriously, or as something "real" by others. I think that was me who said that it is not a failure to deal with the chemical aspect of depression chemically. It is a medical condition, and is now regarded as a chemical imbalance by most of the psychiatric community - who are all doctors. The fact that the chemical treatment worked for you is a pretty clear demonstration that the depression is chemically-based. So I think you can be clear with yourself and anyone else that this is an actual medical condition and that it has concrete, treatable components. > What I have been > doing, most likely for the past 5 years or so, is try to outsmart > depression, and I have never succeeded for long. How could I, with no > thyroid in my body. I sense that you have the feeling that you are somehow guilty of creating the depression and that somehow you should be able to get rid of it by brute force of will. Both the medical and the Buddhist perspective should relieve you of this responsibility. From a Buddhist perspective, conditions cause everything, so "you" are not responsible for creating anything. You can just observe what comes up, add as little drama to it as possible - but not blame yourself for that either - and take the appropriate actions: meditate if it helps and not worry about whether you are doing it "well" or not; observe the symptoms with as much detachment as you can, which I think helps to soften them a bit; and take your medicine! If it's a tumor, get it removed. When you look at it that way, it's much more simple. There's a zen story. The monk asks the Master: "What is the essence of enlightenment" and the Master answers "Eat when hungry, sleep when tired" or something like that. In other words, you do what's appropriate at the moment, without adding a story or explanation or drama. It's just what it is. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111003 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:54 pm Subject: Healthy Human Harmony! bhikkhu5 Friends: Leaving all Quarrels enables Social Harmony! The Blessed Buddha once said: When this subtle Dhamma has been taught by me, in many various ways, using different methods of explanation, then it is only to be expected that those, who cannot agree, accept, allow, & approve of what really is well stated and well spoken by others, that they will become angry, quarrelsome and start disputes, where they will stab each other with verbal daggers! Yet too, when this sublime Dhamma has been taught by me, in many variable ways, using diverse methods of explanation, it is also only to be expected, that those, who can agree, accept, allow, and approve of what really is well formulated and well spoken of by others, that they will live in harmony, in calm, friendly and mutual appreciation, without arguments, blending like milk and water, regarding each other with kind eyes. In this very way can they come to sleep with open doors and dance with their children in their arms ... So we can sleep with open doors & dance with the children in our arms! More on High Harmony: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/United_in_Harmony.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Unique_Unity.htm Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [225] Section 36: On Feeling. The Carpenter. Pancakanga: 19. 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 Healthy Human Harmony! #111004 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:37 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Howard and Robert K, > > Thank you, Howard, for acknowledging my arguments - even if it was to disagree with them. I was disappointed that Robert chose to ignore the bulk of the points I made. > > --------------- I did? I'm not aware of this. Did I miss a whole post, or did I just talk about something else? Seriously, if you would be kind enough to give me a short "bullet" list of points I ignored, I will be happy to acknowledge them and give you a response of some kind. I don't mean to ignore any points you make. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111005 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:46 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Oh Hi Ken H.! Sorry I didn't realize you were talking about Rob K, not me. I forgot about the "two Roberts" phenomena, a little-known theoretical structure discussed only in the back pages of the Patthana. :-) At least in this case, I was not the one who ignored your points! Best, Robert E. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Howard and Robert K, > > Thank you, Howard, for acknowledging my arguments - even if it was to disagree with them. I was disappointed that Robert chose to ignore the bulk of the points I made. ... = = = = = = = = = #111006 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:32 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Herman), I'm the one who should apologise - for not adding the extra initial. Ken O and I occasionally get confused when people do that, so I should know better. BTW, I think the conversation between you, me and Herman might be drawing to a close, don't you? If I may have the last word by way of summary: you and Herman say (wrongly) that anatta is just a concept or logical conclusion, whereas I say (rightly) that it is an inherent characteristic, which, as such, forms part of the substance of a paramattha dhamma. I hope that's cleared things up. :-) Ken H > > Oh Hi Ken H.! > Sorry I didn't realize you were talking about Rob K, not me. I forgot about the "two Roberts" phenomena, a little-known theoretical structure discussed only in the back pages of the Patthana. :-) > > At least in this case, I was not the one who ignored your points! > > #111007 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert and Herman): In a message dated 10/23/2010 9:32:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Robert E (and Herman), I'm the one who should apologise - for not adding the extra initial. Ken O and I occasionally get confused when people do that, so I should know better. BTW, I think the conversation between you, me and Herman might be drawing to a close, don't you? If I may have the last word by way of summary: you and Herman say (wrongly) that anatta is just a concept or logical conclusion, whereas I say (rightly) -------------------------------------------- LOLOL! ----------------------------------------------- that it is an inherent characteristic, which, as such, forms part of the substance of a paramattha dhamma. I hope that's cleared things up. :-) Ken H ======================================= This is excellent, Ken! I have now learned some NEW Abhidhamma, namely that there are 4 sorts of realities: 1) rupas, 2) conditioned namas, 2) nibbana, and 4) characteristics. Oh, and I have also learned that paramattha dhammas have SUBSTANCE, and inherent characteristics are part of that substance. What's the rest of that substance, BTW? Oh, and I guess the substance is yet a 5th reality. What shall we call this new Abhidhamma? Maybe "Substancianavada"? ;-)) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111008 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:43 am Subject: Search problems ptaus1 Hi all, A message from Yahoo regarding recent problems with the search function: "Some of you may have experienced intermittent message search issues over the last few days and continuing today. Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Fortunately, our technical team has been able to identify the problem and is already taking the necessary steps to fix the issue as soon as possible. We will be sure to update you as soon as the issue has been resolved. Thank you for your patience" Best wishes pt #111009 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: Robert: ...consciousness is not > > free-ranging, but constrained by how it is filtered. That makes one more > > aware of consciousness itself, by counterposing it against its given limits > > and filters, and distinguishing its basic capacity from the equipment it's > > operating through. > > > > > > Cultures all over the world 2500 years ago equally shared in the belief that > the heart was the seat of "the mind". Buddhism certainly promoted that idea > as well. I doubt therefore that vipassana or awakening could require any > theory of how perception works, even a half-baked one :-) What I am hinting at above is not a theory, but a perceptual exploration. It's towards developing an "on-the-ground" understanding, not a theoretical one. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111010 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:22 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Now scientists are sometimes idealized as detached and rational beings who accept no theory without overwhelming proof. Followers of religion on the other hand are supposed to accept their doctrines solely on blind faith. The true picture may be rather different... Scientists do have a limiting world-view, mostly determined by the scientific paradigm of their time, so it should be understood that their understandings occur within that paradigm. However, within that identifiable paradigm they deal with facts and do expand and change their understanding as new facts are discovered. Religious paradigms have no facts, and no proofs, for anything. There is no objective corroboration for anything in spiritual philosophy, so it's not at all an objective area. I just don't think the two areas should be compared at all. Spiritual philosophy is tested out by its effect on individual lives, according to subjective judgments of those individuals. Science is built on a consensus of recorded facts. The two do not mix at all. Best, Robert E. ============================ #111011 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:33 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Robert > Well I think worldview is devolped from mnay sources , if one spends years of ones life in a school culture where the scientific worldview is acclaimed and rarely questioned it would have some bearing on ones views I would have thought. Sure it does, but I think the important thing is to let your kids know that science is "the way" for finding out things about physical reality; and also that it has nothing to say about metaphysical matters. I don't think most kids will have a problem distinguishing the two if their parents have a spiritual life and expose them to it at home. I don't want my daughter getting spiritual teachings from her school teachers. I am glad they just leave the subject out of their agenda. But I do want my daughter to understand the scientific method, and that this is the way one ascertains *facts* in the physical universe. My daughter got scared at night for a short period of time. She'd start thinking about all kinds of possible bad things that could happen. I told her to stick with what is factual and not to take her imagination too seriously. Has a monster ever climbed up the wall and broken in through the window? Well, it's possible, but highly improbable, and I said to go with what is probable, not with what is possible. The ideas of facts and probability come from science, and it is a good way to judge what may or may not happen, and what is really present or absent. I think that rampant speculation about all kinds of unprovable nonsense is much more harmful than scientific materialism. When it comes to God, Buddhism, other dimensions, etc., I tell my daughter that there is a spiritual dimension and we each discover the terms with which we want to deal with it. I don't draw conclusions about things I haven't experienced, and I don't try to transmit my beliefs to her, but I expose her to different ideas when they come up and when they're appropriate, and I let her know honestly what I think or suspect about reality. The idea of kamma and rebirth frightened her, so I dropped it. Yet she has developed a healthy spiritual life, which expresses in different ways. I like keeping common-sense materialism for the everyday world, and to promote mindfulness, openness, equanimity and spiritual awareness as values to apply to the inner life. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111012 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Ph: OK, "the possibily of akusala is not completely eradicated", fine. But the idea that behaviour isn't modified by exposure to, reflection on, and increased understanding of the Dhamma is peculiar to me. The cockroaches that I haven't killed are still parading through the world as evidence to that! *All* Buddhists surely move in the direction of keeping the precepts, and that is of course modification of behaviour. pt: I think so too, but this is unfortunately only a part of the picture because we didn't yet take into account transmigration. I.e. there's no knowing what we'll get up to in the next life if anusayas haven't been eradicated. E.g. Angulimala. As I understand, to be reborn in the time of a Buddha, have the opportunity to meet him, to learn from him, and then become arahat - all that would require some serious good kamma and highly developed accumulations. And yet, despite all that, he got into all sorts of trouble before meeting the Buddha. Because of anusayas. So, I guess that's why the point is made that there's no permanent modification of behavior until anusayas are eradicated. Does that diminish sila and samatha and understnading we develop in this life? Certainly not. (Of course, that's assuming these are real sila and samatha - so real suppression of akusala by kusala, so not just repression, which is in essence supression of akusala with more akusala, which only results later on in binging and stronger outbursts of akusala). But, afaik, the main trait that distinguishes Buddhism is the priority it puts on understanding over sila and samatha, which are thought in pretty much all religions. I'm guessing this is because understanding is the only thing that can permanently eradicate anusayas, and eliminate the danger of transmigration in the process. Again, does that mean sila and samathat should be discouraged? Certainly not. Rather, understanding should be encouraged, and the other two will follow I think. Anyway, we're now entering some highly speculative waters, but, those were the reasons why I think that modification of behavior in this life thanks to exposure to Dhamma can only be called "temporary" at best if anusayas haven't been eradicated, because there's no knowing what anusayas will condition in the next life. Hence why I think it's correct to say that in this life, "temporary" modification of behavior towards kusala only supresses akusala (every time kusala arises), but it does not diminish akusala accumulations, nor eradicate them permanently - in the long run - i.e. from the perspective of countless lives. Thankfully, every time kusala arises, it conditions more kusala in the future, which at some point should condition understnading of sufficient strength to cut off anusayas once and for all, regardless of how strong akusala accumulations might be. Best wishes pt #111013 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:40 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > I would not rule out Intelligent Design of some kind, but someone will have to give a much better proof before I will rule it in. > > > > ---------- > Well I rule it out as a type of wrong view based on my Buddhist understanding. I don't feel that I have an exclusive understand that accounts for all possible elements in the universe. But then again I am not 100% pure in my thoughts and beliefs about such things. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111014 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:47 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: ...whereas I say (rightly) that it is an inherent characteristic, which, as such, forms part of the substance of a paramattha dhamma. > > I hope that's cleared things up. :-) Yes, it's wonderful! But I am waiting for you to give a better description of what this positive characteristic is like, that has nothing in it but an absence. So far you can only say what it might be like to experience it -- like looking into the abyss, which I like quite a lot -- but unable to say what it itself *is.* Since we all understand anatta to be the absence of self or relation to self, how does that actually appear as a characteristic? I can tell you what it is like to be angry or greedy, but I cannot tell you what it is like to be no-self-ish. I can express anger, I can feel hardness, I can sense motion, but I can't feel, touch or see "no-self-ness." So please illuminate how you know and understand this to be a positive experienceable characteristic, other than saying "I read it in a book." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111015 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:11 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert K, > > ---- > <. . .> > RK: > you explained that conventional truths are only shadows of the ultimate realties. This is true, but it also means that these shadows completely conform to the realties which cast the shadows. > ---- > > In what way is that human a shadow? In what way does it, or any sentient being (any concept)conform or function in any ultimately real way? It seems to me almost as if you were treating a human as a reality of kind some. > > When I think of a shadow in this way, I think of something very subjective - nothing definite. The same human being can seen as a shadow of many different realities, depending on which realities we might be talking about at the time. > > -------------------- > RK: >A human is human becuase the patisandhi citta was conditioned by kusal kamma done in the past: that type of rebirth consciousness couldn't give birth as a human. > -------------------- > > I understand the term "shadow" to apply where a meaning is being imposed on something in order to create a metaphor or a simile. In that way, a human is a metaphor for a particular set of five khandhas. Ultimately it is only the five khnadhas (not the human) that were conditioned by patisandhi to arise the way they have. > > --------------------------- Robert: Note the typo i made in the text above RK: >A that type of rebirth consciousness couldn't give birth as a ANIMAL. ___________________ Dear Kenh And where do I or have I ever suggested that a human is a reality? Am I not explaining that a human is the shadow of the ultimate realities as is said in the Abhidhammatha sangaha "All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things." You see the reason one can know 'that is my mother, this is my father" and doesn't mistake one's wife for one's father is because the ultimate realities of each stream of arising and ceasing nama and rupa are unique - thus they exbhiit different charactaristics, different colors, sounds, and so on. > RK: > Similarly our view of life is conditioned by either samma ditthi or miccha ditthi. > --------------------------- > > Is it? Strictly speaking view (ditthi) takes either an ultimate reality or a concept of an ultimate reality as its object, doesn't it? So I assume we are talking about thoughts - not views - of conventional life. > > Would you say those thoughts were always conditioned by ditthi in some way? > > ------------------------------------ Robert: you disagree on such a basic point of Dhamma, that is rather worrying. What do you mean when you say that """view (ditthi) takes either an ultimate reality or a concept of an ultimate reality as its object, doesn't it""?? All thoughts - when we refer to words not yet spoken, or as words spoken or written- are rooted in lobha without ditthi, or lobha with ditthi, or dosa, or panna (nana- sampayuttam), or simply ignorance, moha. When the thought one is expressing are about worldview they must be rooted in either nana- sampayuttam or ditthi -sampayuttam. __________________________________++++ > RK: > Thus these views expressed below are the shadow of the ditthi (ultimate reality) of the writers: > > Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) > ----------------------------------- > > Excellent! I couldn't agree more. In a case where, for example, a small child has been cruelly abused I would not for one moment think he/she deserved it. Vipakka - no matter how pleasant or unpleasant - is the experience of a fleeting, disinterested, conditioned nama. It is most certainly not the experience of a sentient being. > > --------------------------------------------- Robert: So this view of Dawkins you evaluate as being rooted in nana-sampayuttam. In fact your enthusiasm for this wrong view is itself an expression of ditth-sampayuttam as it is impossible that someone with right view could agree with it. > > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > Futuyma : "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the > blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). > ---------------------------------------------------- > >KEN: Fair enough too! This is the science of concepts. Concepts are concepts, realities are realities, and never the twain shall meet. > > --------------------- Robert: Yet the Dhamma is explained by means of concepts. ________________ KEN: > Therefore, a Buddhist in conventional life would be someone who behaved sensibly and rationally. He would subscribe to the best possible conventional sciences available to him. In that way, his conventional life would be a shadow (or metaphor) of his ultimate reality - citta with panna. > ________ Why would a Buddhist need to subscribe to science, especially the science displayed in the quotes above that you say heartily endorse? Robert #111016 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:30 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > RK: > Thus these views expressed below are the shadow of the ditthi (ultimate reality) of the writers: > > Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) > ----------------------------------- > > Excellent! I couldn't agree more. In a case where, for example, a small child has been cruelly abused I would not for one moment think he/she deserved it. Vipakka - no matter how pleasant or unpleasant - is the experience of a fleeting, disinterested, conditioned nama. It is most certainly not the experience of a sentient being. > >__________ Dear Ken\ Yes we all know that each moment there are only elements arising and passing. Why do you think the Buddha told about kamma and viapka also using conventional langauge: http://www.vipassana.info/f.htm#culekasataka ""While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (127) of this book, with reference to questions raised by three groups of bhikkhus concerning three extraordinary incidents. The first group: A group of bhikkhus were on their way to pay homage to the Buddha and they stopped at a village on the way. Some people were cooking alms-food for those bhikkhus when one of the houses caught fire and a ring of fire flew up into the air. At that moment, a crow came flying, got caught in the ring of fire and dropped dead in the central part of the village. The bhikkhus seeing the dead crow observed that only the Buddha would be able to explain for what evil deed this crow had to die in this manner. After taking alms-food they continued on their journey to pay homage to the Buddha, and also to ask about the unfortunate crow. The second group: Another group of bhikkhus wore travelling in a boat; they too wore on their way to pay homage to the Buddha. When they were in the middle of the ocean the boat could not be moved. So, lots were drawn to find out who the unlucky one was; three times the lot fell on the wife of the skipper. Then the skipper said sorrowfully, "Many people should not die on account of this unlucky woman; tie a pot of sand to her neck and threw her into the water so that I would not see her." The woman was thrown into the sea as instructed by the skipper and the ship could move on. On arrival at their destination. the bhikkhus disembarked and continued on their way to the Buddha. They also intended to ask the Buddha due to what evil kamma the unfortunate woman was thrown overboard. The Buddha answer to the first group: "Bhikkhus, once there was a farmer who had an ox. The ox was very lazy and also very stubborn. It could not be coaxed to do any work; it would lie down chewing the cud or else go to sleep. The farmer lost his temper many times on account of this lazy, stubborn animal; so in anger he tied a straw rope round the neck of the ox and set fire to it, and the ox died. On account of this evil deed the, farmer had suffered for a long time in niraya. and in serving out the remaining part of his punishment, he had been burnt to death in the last seven existences." The Buddha's answer to the second group: "Bhikkhus, once there was a woman who had a pet dog. She used to take the dog along with her wherever she went and young boys of the city poked fun at her. She was very angry and felt so ashamed that she planned to kill the dog. She filled a pot with sand, tied it round the neck of the dog and threw it into the water; and the dog was drowned. On account of this evil deed that woman had suffered for a long time in niraya and in serving the remaining part of her punishment, she had been thrown into the water to drown in the last one hundred existences." Do these stories from the Buddha help you to understand the results of akusala , are they not exceedlingly beautiful demonstrations of kamma and vipaka? Robert #111017 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. egberdina Hi pt and all, On 24 October 2010 15:36, ptaus1 wrote: > > pt: I think so too, but this is unfortunately only a part of the picture > because we didn't yet take into account transmigration. I.e. there's no > knowing what we'll get up to in the next life if anusayas haven't been > eradicated. > <..> > > Anyway, we're now entering some highly speculative waters, but, > If you, or anyone else who assumes transmigration (of presumably anusayas) as fact, are inclined, could they say whether they believe that view to be similar or different to Lamarckian evolution, and how? Please do not feel any obligation if you are not inclined to reply. Cheers Herman #111018 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:05 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi Phil (and All) (All Writing from Hong Kong. I somehow managed to leave my list of unanswered posts (and part-written replies) behind in Sydney, so I've had to go back and find all the posts sent to me over the past 2 weeks or so. Hoping I'm not leaving anybody out!) (110605) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > 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. > =============== J: OK, so you think the Buddha taught formal meditation, but you're inclined to agree that the way meditation is taught today is not according to the texts. Then what is your understanding of meditation as taught by the Buddha? > =============== 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. > =============== J: I wouldn't for a moment deny that a 'meditation practice' could result in changed (improved) behaviour, and if that's the case for you then I'm very happy for you ;-)) But I think our main concern here should be a better understanding of the path taught by the Buddha, as a basis for the development of the path. And I know you'd agree with this (with reservations, of course ;-)) > =============== 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. > =============== J: The problem with a purely behaviour-oriented approach is that its effects are only temporary, in that the latent tendencies that conditioned the grosser behaviour we'd like to put behind us remain as strong as ever. The progress gained by the development of awareness/insight, on the other hand, is of a lasting nature, and it can also bring with it positive changes in behaviour (more on this when I get to replying to Herman's message on this point). > =============== 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. > =============== J: Worth a lot, given your extensive familiarity with the texts, Phil. Jon #111019 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:07 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi Phil (110608) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > 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. > =============== J: Thanks for taking the trouble to come back and mention this specifically. (Would be interested to know what prompted the change in your view on this!) > =============== 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. > =============== J: How could meditation not be about bhavana? Doesn't the improved behaviour reflect a better mental space? (As I've said before, nobody who uses the term 'meditation' here has ever bothered to explain what they mean by it. Perhaps you'd like to be the first? ;-)) Jon #111020 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:14 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110739) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > 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. > =============== J: For the person of sufficiently developed samatha, counting can be done with kusala. Whereas if you or I focussed on the breath and started counting, there'd just be the usual akusala ;-)) > =============== Practice, practice, practice, is what I'm trying to say! :-) > =============== J: If the practice is mostly akusala, there'll be no development of kusala. > =============== > > 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. > =============== J: Whatever the "looking back" is, it's a looking back with kusala. It's not a kind of practice to be done in order to make/help kusala to arise. > =============== > > 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! > =============== J: (Again, we are talking here about samatha bhavana only.) Yes of course it's possible to seek out a teacher who has a good reputation. But finding one, and the right one, is another matter. Jon #111021 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Sukin (110742) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > 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? > =============== J: I'm sure there are degrees of wrong view, but I don't know of any way of ranking them ;-)). > =============== > ... 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. > =============== J: You're saying that the Buddhist person is exposed to more right view that the theist, and I suppose that's true. But there could still be a lifetime of development of wrong view ;-)) > =============== > 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". > ... > What do you think Jon? > =============== J: I can only repeat that the conditions for the development of the path do not include the undertaking of specific intentional activities. What more is there to say? ;-)) Jon #111022 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:11 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? jonoabb Hi Robert E [First of quite a number ;-))] (110736) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > 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. > =============== J: Well that's the question we're discussing: Is it advice to the student, or is it a general summary of how samatha is taught and developed? > =============== That is quite another direction from saying "do whatever, and attend to arising dhammas now, and don't bother to meditate." > =============== J: You seem to be drawing a distinction here between attending to arising dhammas and meditating. Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean by '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. > =============== J: First a clarification. The discussion about finding a teacher, being under a teacher's guidance, etc., concerns the section of the Vism dealing with samatha bhavana, while the discussion about attending to dhammas in daily life occurs in the context of satipatthana/vipassana. Regarding the references to a teacher in the Vism passage, it's my understanding that the passage assumes a certain level of samatha development already, and is not about samatha at a more basic level. > =============== 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. > =============== J: For reasons given in previous posts, I see the Vism passage as descriptive of the development of samatha at advanced levels. Jon #111023 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:30 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110744) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > 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. > =============== J: OK, the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta is covered by the link I gave last time (see above). The commentary to the Anapanasati Sutta has been dealt with here in a series of Nina's posts see posts under the heading of 'Anapanasati2 - Nina's Visuddhimagga Series, other Vism quotes' in the UP file in the Files section. Happy to delve into these if you're interested some time. > =============== 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. > =============== J: As someone who suffers from the same problem, especially when there are multiple meaty threads running at the same time (as of late, thanks to you, Herman, KenH and Sukin, to name but a few ;-)), I'm only too happy to oblige. Pls see below. Jon From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/110592?threaded=1&l=1 ********************************* > > > [J:] Consider the significance of the words `having established mindfulness in front of him' -- see Vism Ch. VIII, par. 142 and the commentary on those words at par. 161, 162. > > > > [R:] Bikkhu Bodhi expressed a view on some of these similar statements, particularly one that suggests that he has put aside the 5 hindrances before sitting down to practice in the Satipatthana Sutta, that this is an intention that one begins with, and then one continues to encounter the hindrances arising and deals with them each time they do. That would be similar to "having established mindfulness in front of him." For almost anyone, they would begin with concentration and mindful awareness, but it would have to be reestablished several times throughout the period of sitting. It is the practice that develops mindfulness fully. Therefore it would not be fully established before the practice takes place. ********************************* #111024 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:23 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110743) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > 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. > =============== J: If what is being referred to is the understanding of the dhamma that is hardness or softness, being the hardness or softness that is (erroneously) taken for breath, then what is the value/significance of knowing, for example, long breaths from short breaths? On the other hand, for the person developing samatha with breath (a concept) as object, following long and short breaths makes sense. > =============== > 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." > ... > That is Thich Nat Hanh's translation, and I thought that was pretty neat. > =============== J: Yes, but I think this part of the sutta may from a section that comes after the section on long and short breaths. > =============== > 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. > =============== J: When mindfulness has been developed to the stage that it becomes a faculty (indriya) or power (bala), then it may be sufficiently continuous that the person is properly described as being "ever mindful". I would see the reference to "ever mindful" as being a reference to prior accomplishment, rather than an aspirational thing. > =============== > > 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. > =============== J: I think we have to be more precise. For a start, (mere) concentration does not "lead to" samatha or mindfulness, it can only ever be a supporting factor. Secondly, only kusala concentration can support the development of kusala, and kusala concentration only ever arises with kusala citta. Kusala cannot be induced to arise by undertaking (akusala) concentration on a chosen object. So the question comes back to why concentration on the breath (as opposed to any other object) should necessarily be kusala. > =============== 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? > =============== J: I think here you are referring to the fact that the Buddha attained jhana before he attained enlightenment, rather than to any statement in the suttas to the effect that jhana is a prerequisite for the development of awareness/insight. Jon #111025 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. jonoabb Hi Howard (110741) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert and Jon - > > > 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?" ... > > =================================== > Were you to use to use 'development' instead of 'practice', Jon, as > translation of 'bhavana', that might clarify these discussions a bit, I think. > =============== J: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it's 'bhavana' that is being discussed here, but 'patipatti' or some other Pali term. I agree that 'development' is a good term to use for 'bhavana'. Jon #111026 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Alex (110765) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > 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? > =============== J: There's no part of the teachings that says that reading a Dhamma book (or listening to a discourse) is likely to condition panna to arise, ... > =============== > And conversely does, lets say, killing parents, killing an Arahat, creating schism in the Sangha, etc, doesn't make akusala results arise? > =============== J: ... and there's no part of the teachings that says that awareness cannot arise at the time of (or after) committing akusala kamma patha. Of course, the commission of any of the heinous kinds of akusala kamma patha you mention here acts as a barrier to enlightenment being achieved in the same or next lifetime, but that does not mean that the commission of akusala kamma patha of other kinds is an obstacle to the development of insight. > =============== > Does reading and considering Dhamma help to make more kusala states such as wisdom to arise? > =============== J: There's no 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question. But what we can say for sure is that there cannot be the development of wisdom without hearing and considering the true Dhamma. > =============== > 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. > =============== J: As just mentioned, the essential conditions are hearing and considering the true Dhamma. Without this, no possibility of being anywhere near on the path. Jon #111027 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? jonoabb Hi Hermann (110770) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > .. > > 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. > =============== J: Right. It's conditionality that's being taught, and that's the important thing to appreciate. To me, that means 'descriptive', but if others prefer the label 'prescriptive', that's fine. Jon #111028 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Hermann (110772) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > > 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. > =============== J: To my understanding of the teachings, in the absolute sense there are only namas and rupas, not namas and rupas 'as part of this or that'. It's all about the present moment, and in the present moment there can be no direct experience of any 'this or that', only of the objects experienced through the six doorways, and the experiencing itself. Now it is no doubt the case that to our way of seeing things, the world is a world of 'thises' and 'thats' (people and things), and so the reality of the present moment as seen by us is necessarily a slice of that same perception. But to my understanding the Buddha is saying that the reality is in fact something else altogether. Jon #111029 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. jonoabb Hi Phil and Herman (110847) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Herman and Jon and all > > > At Manly, there was a discussion about whether or not a developing insight / > > understanding of reality modifies behaviour. I hope I am not misrepresenting > > anyone, but I think Jon was a definite no, pt a maybe, and I a definite yes. > =============== J: I think Herman and I were discussing the question of whether, prior to actual enlightenment, accumulated kilesas were weakened/lessened by virtue of the development of insight (right, H?). I said that it was possible for there to still be gross kilesas in the final lifetime (I had in mind Angulimala), indicting that the accumulated kilesas were still there in strength. However, if we're talking about the case of a person who has heard the teachings in the present lifetime and is developing awareness/insight, then I believe there is bound to be a positive effect on the person's behaviour. (Of course, changes will also occur due to aging and becoming a conventionally wiser person anyway.) > =============== > If a student of A.S answers no, it seems to contradict everything they've told me about sila. They always say that sila is taken care of or covered by developing understanding of reality, I think they've even said that when there is a moment of understanding reality, there is automatically sila at that moment. Does that mean that moments of sila do not mean moments of modified behaviour? > > Could you clarify please, Jon? Thanks. > =============== J: Phil, I think you've summarised things fairly well here (as I know you can ;-)). Hoping this has clarified. Jon #111030 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:09 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting jonoabb Hi pt (110789) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE and Nina (and Jon), > ... > > Nina: > 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?). > =============== J: Right, it is how the kammatthaana is perceived/contemplated that brings in the wisdom factor, not the fact of it being the object of concentration. So while at the stage of access concentration the kammatthaana is the object of successive cittas without interruption, the aspect of non-interruption has no relevance at the earlier stages. > =============== 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, > =============== J: It's a contemplation that occurs naturally as and when the object appears, rather than a dedicated session of choosing an object and contemplating it. > =============== 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. > =============== J: A common fallacy about samatha (imo). Think for example about the other subjects of contemplation such as foulness of the body, death, virtues of the Buddha, etc. > =============== 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? > =============== J: Yes. As the necessary skill (i.e., panna) develops, there is the inclination to spend more time in its development, if conditions allow. But at the beginning level, it is any kusala consciousness that is being referred to. Jon #111031 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:11 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110745) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > Well, it sounds like you are saying that inanimate rupas arise independent of being objects of experience, > =============== J: As far as I read the texts, yes, that would be the case. > =============== but that Abhidhamma is only concerned with those rupas which are experiential objects. > =============== J: Yes, pretty much so. > =============== That sounds like the the physical universe does exist, > =============== J: In purely conventional terms, that could be said (but this is not something found stated in the texts, as far as I know). > =============== but that we are not especially interested in it in its own right, as far as Dhamma is concerned, which makes sense. > =============== J: Agreed. > =============== > 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. > =============== J: Well, how much of what we talk about here are things we "actually know"? (Speaking for myself, not much at all ;-)) Jon #111032 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:18 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110746) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > 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. > =============== J: Stripping out the hyperbole, I think you're saying you see it differently? ;-)) > =============== 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. > =============== J: I don't think the Buddha ever said that developing mindfulness/insight could be likened to learning a conventional 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 meditator focuses on arising realities and trains the mind to return to focus on the present moment until it becomes an established skill. > =============== J: This assumes that dhammas can be selected as the object of concentration. I don't think that was the Buddha's message. To my understanding, dhammas can only be directly discerned by panna. Any attempt to focus on a dhamma as part of a practice is bound to fail, since the object would not be a dhamma but one's (imperfect) concept of what a dhamma is. > =============== 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. > =============== J: Here again you are assuming that the skill of kusala can be acquired by undertaking an intentional activity, i.e., something that must be akusala to begin with (hence leading to ever more akusala). > =============== 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. > =============== J: There must of course be the appreciation that what is being discussed or considered is a description of the present moment, and that it is direct understanding of present dhammas that is to be develoed. Intellectual understanding properly so called and direct experiential panna (Pali: pariyatti and patipatti) are different degrees of the same dhamma, namely, panna cetasika. The progression from one to the other is natural, organic. This is because intellectual understanding is not just academic or theoretical knowledge of matters contained in the texts, but is an understanding at the intellectual level *of dhammas as they truly are*. > =============== Practice is the bridge between pariyatti and actual experience, > =============== J: This is not the way the Pali term 'patipatti', usually translated as 'practice', is used in the texts, as far as I know. > =============== not waiting and being as passive as possible in order to imitate the idea of anatta and turn it into an ideology. > =============== J: There is no aspect of waiting or being passive in the path taught by the Buddha, just as there is no aspect of doing or being active. The anatta spoken of in the teachings is not an idea but is a characteristic of all dhammas. > =============== > 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. > =============== J: The idea of a person 'participating in conditions' is not something the Buddha ever spoke of, I'm sure ;-)) Jon #111033 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:20 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110747) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > 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?" > =============== J: It is practice in the sense of that word as used in the expression "the practice of medicine/the law", rather than of "violin practice". In other words, it means the actual skill itself rather something being done to help acquire/develop the skill. Jon #111034 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! egberdina Hi Jon, On 24 October 2010 18:18, jonoabb wrote: > > > What do you think Jon? > > =============== > > J: I can only repeat that the conditions for the development of the path do > not include the undertaking of specific intentional activities. What more is > there to say? ;-)) > > It leaves unanswered the question: is the undertaking of specific intentional activities a hindrance to development? Cheers Herman #111035 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:42 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Howard, I am so relieved that you have finally given up that "one reality" theory! :-) --------- H: > This is excellent, Ken! I have now learned some NEW Abhidhamma, namely that there are 4 sorts of realities: 1) rupas, 2) conditioned namas, 2) nibbana, and 4) characteristics. --------- I hate to curb your enthusiasm, but, no, characteristics of realities are not themselves called realities. --------------------------- H: > Oh, and I have also learned that paramattha dhammas have SUBSTANCE, and inherent characteristics are part of that substance. ---------------------------- Yes, they are the substance of elements just as properties are the substance of conventional elements. --------- H: > What's the rest of that substance, BTW? Oh, and I guess the Substance is yet a 5th reality. --------- The rest of the substance is the other characteristics. Conditioned dhammas have three general characteristics plus their own, particular, characteristics. As far as I know, there is nothing else that forms part of their substance (sabhava). ---------- H: > What shall we call this new Abhidhamma? Maybe Substancianavada"? ;-)) ---------- There's nothing new about it, and it already has a name. :-) Ken H #111036 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:55 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi 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. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for taking the trouble to come back and mention this specifically. (Would be interested to know what prompted the change in your view on this!) Ph: The Vism text passage did it for me, the conditions laid out there make it clear that the clansman in question is not "a beginner" in the sense we would understand it. Metta, Phil p.s I'll bow out on your other question about what "meditation" means, thanks. It's just not a primary concern for me. #111037 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:09 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) philofillet Hi Sarah First of all, I didn't find anything to counter in your post on "cutting off at feeling." I asked about it, but it was one of those topics that becomes interesting for me momentarily (or for a day is more like it) before being dropped. As for the following. > S: As for the other discussion we were having and the detail I quoted on mindfulness of the body that sent you to sleep, in very brief, the points were that: Ph: Just to point out that I didn't say long posts put me to sleep, that would indicate a complete lack of interest in the Dhamma, and no understanding of it. It's not sloth and torpor, it's restlessness. I feel uncomfortable staying online for a long time, want to get off a.s.a.p for some reason, so can't make it through long posts unless I print them out. > 1. In reality, there is no body, Phil's, Sarah's or anyone else's. > 2. There are only various rupas taken to be a body (through all that proliferation, again). > 3. So now, there can be awareness of tangible object - heat/hardness/pressure, but there can never be an experience of body except by thinking. > 4. Understanding elements/dhammas leads to more detachment, less conceit and attachment on account of this body. Ph: OK, so what I consider to be mindfulness in the body is (perhaps) thinking about a concept. Possibly. Ok, whatever. I feel that it is mindfulness in the body, and it conditions good behaviour later in ways that I explained to Azita (remember the woman on the train?) and that is all that interests me. I am just about 100% about conventional behaviour, it's a good way to fulfill my interest in the Dhamma, in my opinion. I do occasionally read about and reflect on deeper teachings, but don't feel inclined to discuss them for some reason. That may change, we'll see.. Metta, Phil p.s nice news here, I put an ad in a local free magazine to find Theravadin friends in Tokyo, and so far a man from Thailand and a man from Indonesia have answered. I'm going to try to form a kind of group to get together occasionally and discuss Dhamma. Aside from a couple of meetings with Robert K and James' visit to me here, I have never discussed Dhamma "live" with people who share my interest.... #111038 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:14 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob E >>I was just pointing out that in different stages of development there are other possibilities than staying home to avoid negative proliferations from provocative material. Like you were saying about "looking down," it's not something you want to or can do all the time. OK, I guess we were just on different tracks, because I was thinking of watching movies that one chooses to watch. If it were the case of porn, there would be no question of anything except watching with full desire to let the objects come rushing on in, so your interesting and well explained points about guarding the sense doors were not relevant to my point, that's all. No problemo, thanks for having laid it out so nicely. Metta, Phil #111039 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:18 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------------- <. . .> RE: > I am waiting for you to give a better description of what this positive characteristic is like, that has nothing in it but an absence. So far you can only say what it might be like to experience it -- like looking into the abyss, which I like quite a lot -- but unable to say what it itself *is.* Since we all understand anatta to be the absence of self or relation to self, how does that actually appear as a characteristic? -------------- It's quite simple, really. Consider, for example, the characteristic of temperature that is born by the tactile rupa of that name: Temperature is experienced as . . . . . temperature, isn't it? Similarly, anatta is experienced as anatta. ---------------------- RE: > I can tell you what it is like to be angry or greedy, but I cannot tell you what it is like to be no-self-ish. ---------------------- I think you can. We all can to some degree. ---------------------- REL > I can express anger, I can feel hardness, I can sense motion, but I can't feel, touch or see "no-self-ness." So please illuminate how you know and understand this to be a positive experienceable characteristic, other than saying "I read it in a book." ---------------------- What about that feeling of utter insignificance that people can get from gazing at a starry sky? Wouldn't that be similar to anatta? Ken H #111040 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:48 am Subject: Re: present moment/ phil/depression philofillet Hi Ari What a coincidence, just last week I was talking with a Japanese friend who has a severe thyroid disorder and when meditating the next day, I had a sense of how meditation might help her by giving her a solid base from which to observe her glandular disfunction with some detachment. But I'm sure you're familiar with that from your own meditation. (I also felt really deeply what a bitch of a condition it must be, and how unfair it must feel that the dis-balance of one small gland can cause such an array of harsh symptoms!) The kind of meditation I do was developed by Ajahn Lee, a Thai forest monk. Apparently he came up with it after he suffered a heart attack while in a remote area during the rains retreat. There was no way he could get to a doctor, so apparently he kind of put his body back together if you will by doing developing this meditation style. For this and other reasons, I hesitate to call this a pure Buddhist meditation style, it feels to me more like a form of breath based yoga (pranayana) or even New Age visualization, but I don't care, I don't do it to be a pure Buddhist, I do it because I find it conditions better behaviour, and being a Buddhist who behaves well is all I'm interested in, at this point. And it feels so good. One reason that I stopped having even the occasional beer is that I find the pleasant mental states conditioned by this meditation are better than the buzz from a drink, by far. Anways, I hope you find it helpful and I hope you continue to gain detachment from your harsh disorder! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/painhelp.html Metta, Phil p.s I still think the advice of a medical doctor is the best way to go for clinical depression, as we already discussed...and a healthy attitude to nutrition for the mind as well as the body, I guess... #111041 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? philofillet Hi Nina > > But it sometimes feel when I hear you and others that you want > > people to have supramundane right view, that you are promoting > > supramundane right view. > ------- > N: No, not at all, how could I? It all depends on the growth of > pa~n~naa, it develops according to its own conditions and cannot be > interfered with. Well, I'm sorry Nina, but I still feel that the kind of pariyatti promoted by you and others is too deep, or is used in a way that means it will be exploited for comfort. If it were really teaching that could be merely understood at the intellectual level without trying to leap ahead and apply it to what is experienced in daily life, fine, but from my experience at least, there was too much wanting to have a kind of liberating understanding. For example, "there is no Nina" is for me leaping ahead, that is an understanding that is only revealed by deep, penetrative panna. It is fine for me to learn the theory about what the liberated mind comes to understand, but to be told to see things in that light (the way Ken H, for the clearest example always tells me) just makes me feel disinterested in the deep teachings because I feel they are being used for mental pleasure. I know that this must seem to you that I misunderstand what pariyatti is, but I'm sorry, I can only speak from my own experience of the way I use (still, on occasion) the deep teachings for mental pleasure. It could be that it is becaues I have such very strong tendencies to lust after all kind of objects, so it is impossible for me to touch the deep teachings without using them for mental pleasure. I found an example the other day of the kind of thing I mean, in my notebook, from the Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "If different types of realities are known, one characteristic at a time, as nama and rupa, the wrong view that takes realities for self is eliminated. One will let go of the idea of realities as a "whole." Then it can be understood what it means to have inward peace, because citta does not become involved in outward matters such as self, people and things." For me, since this is written by people's respected teacher, it is a clear invitation to try to see things in that way, at least it was for me. On paper, it sounds perfectly correct, but off paper the lobha rooted mind takes over, I think, and turns a perfectly correct theoretical description into a recipe for thinking with pleasure about deep teachings. Anyways, Nina, not to worry. I keep repeating this, and you keep saying I don't understand what A.S is getting at, and that's been going on for a few years now, so really, not to worry, you are busy, a response won't change anything for either of us. This is my problem. There will be occasions (probably after having been pushed too hard by Ken H to put on Ariyan Eyeglasses) where I will lash out again, but hopefully those occasions will continue to become less and less frequent. Metta, PHil #111042 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/24/2010 6:46:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I hate to curb your enthusiasm, but, no, characteristics of realities are not themselves called realities. ================================= I thought that your accepted ontology consists of exactly 2 categories: realities and concepts! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111043 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:16 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi Jon, KenH, Sukin, all, >J: There's no part of the teachings that says that reading a >Dhamma >book (or listening to a discourse) is likely to condition >panna to >arise, ... >...but that does not mean that the commission of akusala kamma patha >of other kinds is an obstacle to the development of insight. Then why read them or listen to a discourse if it is unlikely to condition panna? Why not engage in akusala behaviour, like watching porn, or athletic girls with guns doing Kung-Fu and shooting bad guys - if panna is just as likely to arise after listening to dhamma or watching movies? If panna can arise after akusala kamapatha then why did the Buddha tell us so often not to do it? If listening to a dhamnma isn't likely to condition panna, then why did the Buddha taught so much? Why did He called it very important to listen to the Dhamma? Why did the Buddha, using active and imperative verbs, kept commanding his monks to meditate (anapanasati, various kayagatasati meditations, jhana, etc)? I am yet to find any passage in the suttas or even commentaries where it says that "one shouldn't do any of these actions" and that "whenever it tells you to do such and such things, it doesn't actually mean that you do them. You just read about them". With metta, Alex #111044 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:27 pm Subject: intentional activities=hindrance to development? truth_aerator Hello Jon, Herman, all, >H:It leaves unanswered the question: is the undertaking of specific >intentional activities a hindrance to development? I wonder if there is any sutta or even ancient commentary that clearly says so. I also wonder if there is any sutta or even ancient commentary that clearly says that whenever it talks about doing things, it doesn't actually mean that, and one should just stick to reading the menu rather than eating the food. With metta, Alex #111045 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:48 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert, ------ <. . .> RK: > Am I not explaining that a human is the shadow of the ultimate realities as is said in the Abhidhammatha sangaha "All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things." -------------- It seems to me that you are not saying exactly the same thing. "Do not exist" are the key words in that quote. I believe the science of things that do not exist in the ultimate sense *must* be radically different from the science of things that do exist in the ultimate sense. ------------------ RK: > You see the reason one can know 'that is my mother, this is my father" and doesn't mistake one's wife for one's father is because the ultimate realities of each stream of arising and ceasing nama and rupa are unique - thus they exbhiit different charactaristics, different colors, sounds, and so on. ------------------ I don't see how that could be helpful for understanding paramattha dhammas. A dhamma has to be understood as being utterly devoid of personality - no mother, no father- - no one. On the other hand, metaphors that use different concepts as shadows of dhammas can be helpful, of course. ---------------------- <. . .> RE: > What do you mean when you say that """view (ditthi) takes either an ultimate reality or a concept of an ultimate reality as its object, doesn't it""?? ------------------------ According to my understanding, ditthi experiences only ultimate realities or concepts of ultimate realities. A scientist can do his work without thinking "This is all there is; there is no other reality." In that way he can believe in evolution and senseless injustice without having miccha ditthi. ---------------------------------- RK: > All thoughts - when we refer to words not yet spoken, or as words spoken or written- are rooted in lobha without ditthi, or lobha with ditthi, or dosa, or panna (nana- sampayuttam), or simply ignorance, moha. > When the thought one is expressing are about worldview they must be rooted in either nana- sampayuttam or ditthi -sampayuttam. ----------------------------------- Yes, that is how I understand it. But I think your definition of "thoughts of world-view" includes more than the thoughts that can be the objects of ditthi. I would have said ditthi could know only thoughts that either confirmed or denied the Dhamma. Conventional science doesn't necessarily do that. It doesn't necessarily confirm or deny the possibility of another reality (nama and rupa). ------------------ <. . .> Robert: So this view of Dawkins you evaluate as being rooted in nana-sampayuttam. In fact your enthusiasm for this wrong view is itself an expression of ditth-sampayuttam as it is impossible that someone with right view could agree with it. ------------------ (I hope I have correctly fixed your typo.) As we both agree, there are only namas and rupas: there are none of the sentient beings that Dawkins is talking about. So he isn't confirming or denying the Dhamma any more than you or I are when we discuss the weather. --------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Concepts are concepts, realities are realities, and never the twain shall meet. >> Robert: >Yet the Dhamma is explained by means of concepts. --------------------- Yes, concepts of paramattha dhammas would seem to be an exception to the rule. :-) But you know what I mean; concepts (or concepts of concepts) and realities behave in accordance with two completely different sets of rules. A dhamma must be understood as being completely different from a concept. Therefore, any conventional science that purported to ascribe ultimate characteristics to concepts would be working against the Dhamma, not with it. ------------------------------ KEN: > > Therefore, a Buddhist in conventional life would be someone who behaved sensibly and rationally. He would subscribe to the best possible conventional sciences available to him. In that way, his conventional life would be a shadow (or metaphor) of his ultimate reality - citta with panna. > RK: > Why would a Buddhist need to subscribe to science, especially the science displayed in the quotes above that you say heartily endorse? ------------------------------- In order to behave rationally and decorously. We don't want Buddhists behaving like those Creationists who are dishonestly and deviously sabotaging their counties' education systems. Ken H #111046 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 19 October 2010 15:27, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > S: As for the other discussion we were having and the detail I quoted on > mindfulness of the body that sent you to sleep, in very brief, the points > were that: > 1. In reality, there is no body, Phil's, Sarah's or anyone else's. > It sort of rolls of the tongue, doesn't it? We could even just say, there are no emails. :-) 2. There are only various rupas taken to be a body (through all that > proliferation, again). > And that just rolls of the tongue / keyboard too. But here at least you say that proliferation is real. It would be interesting to find out what you mean in point 1, when you say "there is no..." (it doesn't matter what you apply it to, I'm more interested in the reality of not-being). What does it mean, to you, that you there is no x, while still being able to refer to it ? Cheers Herman #111047 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:02 pm Subject: Wild Horses! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Senses run after objects like Wild Horses! The eye likes to see beautiful and attractive forms. The ear likes to hear sounds that are beautiful, melodious and pleasing to the mind. The nose likes to smell things that are pleasantly scented, making one feel elated & joyful. The tongue likes to taste things that are delicious. The body likes to touch and feel things that are soft and smooth, which produces a mental state of absorbed fascination all the time without ever having too much of it. All of this originates from the mind, which is the overlord of all these sense sources. The mind is the one that wants to play about with them all the time without being the least bit concerned to consider what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. All the mind wants, is to fulfill its desires. This makes all the fields of sense, including the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body, whirl about according to the emotional dictates of the mind. It is the mental defilements that force the mind to this rampage of struggling for stimuli. When guarding each sense field, we must keep a guard on the mind at the same time. The mind is the ringleader, which constantly creates the desire to see sights, to hear sounds, to smell scents, to taste foods and to sense touches. The mind is the one that desires, that craves, that is ever hungry and thirsty, the one that goes searching for sensations. So the mind uses its instruments, which are the eyes, ear, nose, tongue and body, as the paths by which it travels out to search for all sorts of objects that induce pleasure. So you must guard the mind with awareness and investigate it carefully with understanding. Dont let it roam about getting involved in things, which are dangerous. Use awareness to control the mind & understanding to examine the objects that arise from making contact with forms, sounds, smells, tastes and things which contact the body, so as to learn the basic truth of such momentary contacts. Then mind will remain detached and indifferent. It will not love some things and hate others, and so become angry. It will then easily enter into a state of calm & peacefulness without always being burdened or troubled by external matters. When the mind is replete and satisfied in that calm state, it will withdraw from it & examine the internal sense sources of the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body as being merely empty instruments of the mind. It will then examine those objects in relation to the mind, seeing that they both become intimately blended together, as though they were one and the same thing. You will see that sensations are things, which infiltrate the mind, and so are not one & the same thing as the mind, which nevertheless run out after these empty sensations as wild horses... More on the Sense Sources (Ayatana ): The_Source_of_All , Sour_Sense_Sources , Hands_and_Feet , Mistaken_Reference , The_Fisherman's_Hook , Source_of_What Things_that_can_be_clung_to, Guarding_the_Sense_Door , Source (edited extract): Venerable Ajaan Khao Analayo Biography. by Ajaan Maha Boowa anasampanno. Translated by Ajaan Paavaddho: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/pdfs/Ajaan_Khao_Analayo_Bio.pdf Published by: Forest Dhamma Books. Baan Taad Forest Monastery. Udon Thani 41000, Thailand fdbooks@..., www.forestdhammabooks.com Venerable Ajaan Khao Analayo. 1888-1983. He was a Bhikkhu for 64 years! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Wild Horses! #111048 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi Ken H, On 24 October 2010 12:32, Ken H wrote: > > > > BTW, I think the conversation between you, me and Herman might be drawing > to a close, don't you? If I may have the last word by way of summary: you > and Herman say (wrongly) that anatta is just a concept or logical > conclusion, whereas I say (rightly) that it is an inherent characteristic, > which, as such, forms part of the substance of a paramattha dhamma. > I suspect the discussion is drawing to a close because there is now only the asserting and re-asserting of your right position, rather than any real considering of the implications of what is being said Following your line of reasoning, I suppose nibbana too must have this inherent anatta characteristic. And that would lead us into the absurdity of a featureless feature, a characteristic-less characteristic. I hope that's cleared things up. :-) > > Oh yes, I see the light :-) Cheers Herman #111049 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Jon, On 24 October 2010 18:07, jonoabb wrote: > > J: How could meditation not be about bhavana? Doesn't the improved > behaviour reflect a better mental space? (As I've said before, nobody who > uses the term 'meditation' here has ever bothered to explain what they mean > by it. Perhaps you'd like to be the first? ;-)) > > Phil has politely declined, so I'll take this opportunity: Meditation is something that occurs / is done when it is realised that the alternatives are not satisfactory. Cheers Herman #111050 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Alex and all, On 22 October 2010 08:59, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Robert, all, > > These are some of my thoughts as to why jhanas may be important for the > path: > > What is "the path"? What is the value or meaning of "the path" for you? > 1) Jhana temporary suppress the hindrances, so that insight has a chance to > do its job. Insight cannot occur in the same citta as akusala citta. > > 2) Jhana itself can be a direct experience to be investigated by insight. > > 3) It develops the skills required to permanently abandon the fetters. > If you cannot abandon lobha & dosa for a short while, how can you abandon > it PERMANENTLY? > > It makes sense to me that if one cannot temporary abandon something, then > one definately can't permanently abandon it. > > I gather from the above, that "the path" must be the aspiration of permanently "not having" lobha and dosa? Is it different to aspiring to have a permanent near-death experience? Cheers Herman #111051 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:16 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ----------- <. . .> Do these stories from the Buddha help you to understand the results of akusala , are they not exceedlingly beautiful demonstrations of kamma and vipaka? ------------- They remind me of the different ways of reaching nibbana. The way taken by a Buddha is unique and infinitely difficult. The way taken by a chief disciple is not unique, but still very rare and difficult. (And so on down the line.) So these suttas suggest to me how the same principle might apply to the different ways in which people can be instructed. People with great accumulations of panna could understand the most difficult-to-understand explanations. People with less panna would need proportionally easier explanations. I think the three suttas you have quoted would be suitable for monks with well developed panna. Anyone else could get horribly confused. They might be tempted to believe that conventional things could be the objects vipakka citta, and that conventional activities could be kamma. They might even think some animals deserved to be burnt to death, and some women deserved to be thrown overboard. Therefore, I think those suttas should be treated with extreme caution. They shouldn't be shown to beginners who do not have someone to teach them Abhidhamma and to show them how, in reality, it is only disinterested namas that actually perform those functions. Ken H #111052 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Jon) - In a message dated 10/24/2010 6:56:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Jon, On 24 October 2010 18:07, jonoabb wrote: > > J: How could meditation not be about bhavana? Doesn't the improved > behaviour reflect a better mental space? (As I've said before, nobody who > uses the term 'meditation' here has ever bothered to explain what they mean > by it. Perhaps you'd like to be the first? ;-)) > > Phil has politely declined, so I'll take this opportunity: Meditation is something that occurs / is done when it is realised that the alternatives are not satisfactory. Cheers Herman ===================================== My perspective: Meditation is any internal process that suspends the hindrances while maintaining consciousness and heightening mindfulness, attention, clarity, mental energy, and joy-changing-to- equanimity. With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #111053 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Jon, Sarah, pt, KenH and all, On 24 October 2010 20:00, jonoabb wrote: > > > Hi Hermann > > (110772) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > ... > > > > 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. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding of the teachings, in the absolute sense there are > only namas and rupas, not namas and rupas 'as part of this or that'. It's > all about the present moment, and in the present moment there can be no > direct experience of any 'this or that', only of the objects experienced > through the six doorways, and the experiencing itself. > > Thanks, Jon. BTW, it is Herman, not Hermann :-). Something that others may be interested in, and which only became apparent to me at the Manly get-together. pt and I were talking about sound, and how its wave nature needs there to be at least one full wave/cycle/period in order for sound to have some known quality like pitch. Sarah and Ken politely let us talk for a while, and then Ken chipped in that sound is not a wave or a particle, but a rupa. Sarah said something like that what we were talking about was not actually relevant to the dhamma. She said that the rupa of sound has no characteristics like pitch, volume. or timbre, it's only characteristic is sound. Of course, I could say no more, and it leaves me wondering how anyone else in the know can say anything about sound. > Now it is no doubt the case that to our way of seeing things, the world is > a world of 'thises' and 'thats' (people and things), and so the reality of > the present moment as seen by us is necessarily a slice of that same > perception. But to my understanding the Buddha is saying that the reality is > in fact something else altogether. > > All I can say is that if the Buddha conveyed that meaning, that means someone must have been so deluded as to have heard him say it. And with that, we are not left with some titillating paradox, but with unmitigated absurdity :-) Cheers Herman #111054 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:47 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- H: > I suspect the discussion is drawing to a close because there is now only the asserting and re-asserting of your right position, rather than any real considering of the implications of what is being said --- Yes, it will be sad to leave it after such a long time. But there are plenty of other DSG threads in which we can unswervingly inflict our opinions on each other. ----- H: > Following your line of reasoning, I suppose nibbana too must have this inherent anatta characteristic. ----- Too right it has! All conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta: all dhammas of any kind are anatta. (Dhammapada) ------------ H: > And that would lead us into the absurdity of a featureless feature, a characteristic-less characteristic. ------------ The only way it would lead to that particular absurdity would be if people didn't listen to what they were being told at DSG! You insist on interpreting anatta to mean "no reality of any kind" whereas it actually means "no reality of the atta kind." --------------- KH: > >I hope that's cleared things up. :-) >> H: > Oh yes, I see the light :-) -------------- I hope you see it now. :-) Ken H > > BTW, I think the conversation between you, me and Herman might be drawing > > to a close, don't you? If I may have the last word by way of summary: you > > and Herman say (wrongly) that anatta is just a concept or logical > > conclusion, whereas I say (rightly) that it is an inherent characteristic, > > which, as such, forms part of the substance of a paramattha dhamma. > > #111055 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:38 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K, and Ken H - and other members of the "single letter last name" club. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Kenh > And where do I or have I ever suggested that a human is a reality? > > Am I not explaining that a human is the shadow of the ultimate realities as is said in the Abhidhammatha sangaha > "All such different things, though they do not exist in > an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form > of shadows of (ultimate) things." > > You see the reason one can know 'that is my mother, this is my father" and doesn't mistake one's wife for one's father is because the ultimate realities of each stream of arising and ceasing nama and rupa are unique - thus they exbhiit different charactaristics, different colors, sounds, and so on. Rob, I really like your sensible explanation above of the relation between the conceptual level of identification of dhammas and the paramatha level, where the dhammas are seen and understood as they actually exist. The very understandable idea that the conceptual appearances of familiar people and objects are the "shadows" or conceptual representations of ultimate realities gives one a kind of connection to the ultimate level, even though it is currently unseen as it is, that one can work from. One can look at the components of a body and see that it is made up of multiple appearances of rupas, and sort of piece together what the shadow-world is identifying out of the components of the "real world." Ken H. seems to have a very different philosophy than this one, one in which the conceptual appearances of people and things are pure halllucinations, with absolutely no relation at all to the actual dhammas that are arising and falling away. In this way of looking at it, one would have no clue from normal perception as to what the real rupas are like, or how real namas apprehend them. It is a sort of totally shrouded mystery that can only be suddenly grasped when all the right conditions come together, and those only through unpredictable accumulations of past conditions. Your view, and apparently that of the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that there is a relation between concept and reality, and that is this shadow relation in which concepts give a distorted hint at what the real dhammas are like. In your view, as I understand it, the differences between one conceptually-derived person and another can be understood by virtue of different namas and rupas that arise to correspond to different people. That actually makes sense, which is nice. In Ken H.'s version, the reality of dhammas is totally obscured, other than through theoretical understanding, until direct seeing becomes possible. Best, Robert E. ======================== #111056 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi pt and all, > > On 24 October 2010 15:36, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > pt: I think so too, but this is unfortunately only a part of the picture > > because we didn't yet take into account transmigration. I.e. there's no > > knowing what we'll get up to in the next life if anusayas haven't been > > eradicated. > > > > <..> > > > > > Anyway, we're now entering some highly speculative waters, but, > > > > > If you, or anyone else who assumes transmigration (of presumably anusayas) > as fact, are inclined, could they say whether they believe that view to be > similar or different to Lamarckian evolution, and how? I don't believe or disbelieve rebirth or transmigration, as I remain agnostic about things I have not experienced, but my understanding of rebirth is that the kandhic structures and tendencies of a person are not dependent on physical form, and continue to create their pattern of effects between lives and then into the next life. It is not that one life "evolves" and passes its enhancements on to the "next life," it is that there is no real distinction between life A and life B - they are mere continuations of the same kandhas, which, until stilled, continue to create new conditions and tendencies. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111057 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, Sarah, pt, KenH and all, > ... > Thanks, Jon. BTW, it is Herman, not Hermann :-). Apologies, and noted! Jon #111058 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Mon, 25/10/10, Herman wrote: > S: As for the other discussion we were having and the detail I quoted on > mindfulness of the body that sent you to sleep, in very brief, the points > were that: > 1. In reality, there is no body, Phil's, Sarah's or anyone else's. > >H:It sort of rolls of the tongue, doesn't it? We could even just say, there are no emails. :-) .... S: Yes, we could and we'd be right - in truth, no emails either :-) ... >2. There are only various rupas taken to be a body (through all that > proliferation, again). > >And that just rolls of the tongue / keyboard too. But here at least you say that proliferation is real. ... S: Correct - just mental and physical phenomena, just namas and rupas. The proliferation is just one citta after another, one moment of thinking after another.... .... >It would be interesting to find out what you mean in point 1, when you say "there is no..." (it doesn't matter what you apply it to, I'm more interested in the reality of not-being). What does it mean, to you, that you there is no x, while still being able to refer to it ? .... S: What it means is that, at moments of wise consideration and understanding, "body" is just a term, a label, to be used for convenience only, just like "car" or "chariot". In fact, what is touched now is only solidity, temperature or pressure. What is seen now is only visible object. Metta Sarah p.s Btw, let us know in good time whenever you and Vicki are planning a stay in Sydney again so we can round up a few discussion "suspects" and try to be there ourselves:-) ====== #111059 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:23 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: How could meditation not be about bhavana? Doesn't the improved behaviour reflect a better mental space? (As I've said before, nobody who uses the term 'meditation' here has ever bothered to explain what they mean by it. Perhaps you'd like to be the first? ;-)) I'm a little behind on posts, so not sure if Phil has answered yet or not, but I'm interested in your question - how to define meditation. It's a more complicated question than it might seem, because there are many different types of meditation, and some of them have different objects or aims. It's much easier to define a type of meditation than to give a generic definition of meditation, but I will try both: a/ Buddhist meditation - practice of mindfulness and development of peacefulness towards developing awareness, leading to insight and awakening. The base practice is sitting meditation following the breath. More advanced practices involve special objects of meditation, such as observing and distinguishing mental and physical experiences, satipatthana and contemplating Dhamma. Other meditation practices include walking meditation, observation of ordinary life physical postures and activities, metta meditation, and corpse meditation, among others. b/ Meditation - practice of focusing the mind on spiritual factors in order to develop spiritual functions or awareness. Different disciplines include standing and sitting meditation, breathing meditation, energy circulation, mantra meditation, purification meditation, movement meditation, inner self meditation, inner light meditation, developing awareness or factors of awareness such as concentration, contemplation, etc. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111060 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Herman, Pt and all, --- On Mon, 25/10/10, Herman wrote: > Something that others may be interested in, and which only > became apparent > to me at the Manly get-together. pt and I were talking > about sound, and how > its wave nature needs there to be at least one full > wave/cycle/period in > order for sound to have some known quality like pitch. > Sarah and Ken > politely let us talk for a while, and then Ken chipped in > that sound is not > a wave or a particle, but a rupa. Sarah said something like > that what we > were talking about was not actually relevant to the dhamma. > She said that > the rupa of sound has no characteristics like pitch, > volume. or timbre, it's > only characteristic is sound. ..... S: To clarify a little, each sound is just "sound", the rupa that is heard. However, each sound is different from each other sound. No two sounds are ever the same, so of course each one has its particular pitch, volume, timbre and so on. The sound of thunder is clearly different from the sound of a waterfall and at each instant, the sound of thunder is different from the next. This, of course, is also true for visible objects, odours, tastes and tangible objects. The point I was making, which you summarised above, was that the Path, the development of satipatthana, is not about conceptualising or thinking about the differences of sounds or visible objects or tastes, but the direct understanding of sound or visible object or taste that appears right now - just a dhamma, an element of no special significance. .... > > Of course, I could say no more, and it leaves me wondering > how anyone else > in the know can say anything about sound. .... S: There is plenty that musicians and sound specialists like yourselves can say about various sounds. The point was and is that this kind of knowledge, however fascinating, doesn't take us closer to the direct understanding of the dhamma appearing now. The same would apply to artists discussing the intricacies of colours or foodies discussing different tastes. .... > > Now it is no doubt the case that to our way of seeing > things, the world is > > a world of 'thises' and 'thats' (people and things), > and so the reality of > > the present moment as seen by us is necessarily a > slice of that same > > perception. .... S: A "slice of that perception" as seen through the screen of ignorance. .... >But to my understanding the Buddha is > saying that the reality is > > in fact something else altogether. .... S: Exactly, he is pointing out that the world is not a world of people and things, but a world of visible objects, sounds and so on - no people or things in them at all. .... > All I can say is that if the Buddha conveyed that meaning, > that means > someone must have been so deluded as to have heard him say > it. And with > that, we are not left with some titillating paradox, but > with unmitigated > absurdity :-) .... S: The Buddha conveyed the meaning, just as we do, because different cittas condition different rupas so that different sounds are uttered and heard. No titillating paradox, just sounds to be understood for what they are - rupas experienced through the ear-door by hearing. I've heard people say that they've tried to experience "neutral" visible objects or sounds. This is clearly an "unmitigated absurdity" and not what either the Buddha or I would recommend :-) Hope that's clarified a little.... Metta Sarah ======= #111061 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:43 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110739) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > J: For the person of sufficiently developed samatha, counting can be done with kusala. Whereas if you or I focussed on the breath and started counting, there'd just be the usual akusala ;-)) > > > =============== > Practice, practice, practice, is what I'm trying to say! :-) > > =============== > > J: If the practice is mostly akusala, there'll be no development of kusala. ... > J: Whatever the "looking back" is, it's a looking back with kusala. It's not a kind of practice to be done in order to make/help kusala to arise. I don't know, Jon, I am not a scholar of sutta or Abhidhamma, so maybe my understanding is way off; or maybe I just have a different way of looking at Dhamma than you do, but I don't see the path in terms of all this pre-ordained kusala and akusala, and this whole idea that you can't do things with kusala because you're most likely in akusala most of the time, and so you have to do nothing until you develop kusala, but until you develop enough kusala you won't know if what you're doing is kusala or not, so you'd better not do anything - to be an extremely circular argument that seems a giant justification for not doing things that you already think should not be done for reasons of dogma. When I say "dogma," I mean that it is always understood that meditation is "bad," and that no one anyone knows is advanced enough to have enough kusala to do it, which translates into "no one should do it because when you think it's kusala it's really akusala." So meditation is out. On the other hand, the "dogma" dictates that Dhamma study is always good. You acknowledge in passing that the intention for Dhamma study could also be akusala, but this gets dismissed and it turns out that everyone should be encouraged to study and understand Dhamma, because *that* is the path. Well, Buddha did give meditation instruction, but only to the most *advanced* disciples who were already doing it because of past accumulations, so that's okay. But today no one has those accumulations, so it's *not* okay. How anyone knows whether it really is good for someone, or whether someone really is advanced enough, is another great unknown, since apparently no one knows the answer to that question, but again, since that is the case - better not to do it and just restrict practice to studying, discussing and understanding Dhamma and other intellectual pursuits towards pariyatti which will magically transform into direct knowing some day in another lifetime; but don't trust any meditation results today, because they are "most likely akusala" disguised as kusala. Tricky business that is. It all comes back to supporting the predominant dogma - Dhamma study: good! Meditation: bad! It's not a real definition of kusala and akusala, just one that fits the prevailing philosophy of what the path is. That is not the path that was outlined by the Buddha - Buddha spoke of both; understanding Dhamma and practicing meditation; but it has been determined that only the Dhamma study part is *really* the path - and one knows that because - the local teaching says so. In addition, the idea that the entire path is to be followed according to a kusala/akusala on/off switch is also, in my view, contrary to the path. Buddha defined what was wholesome and unwholesome in very ordinary terms. Anyone knows what is wholesome and unwholesome. Playing dice - bad! Sympathetic joy - good! It's not rocket science. But you have turned kusala and akusala, using the Pali terms almost exclusively, into mystical cetasikas, which, like anatta as a positive characteristic, then take on a special life of their own, dissociated from actual wholesome and unwholesome activities. Not only mystical objects, but ones we have no access to, sort of like dhammas, part of a fleeting reality that only an arahant can really sense or understand. To me, this view of the Dhamma and the path is disempowering. It takes away any hope of really developing discrimination in everyday life because it is not applied to the real things we cling to and really experience. They are all concepts, not worth the time it takes to be aware of them. The real objects are not available, so we may as well focus on good concepts of Dhamma instead of bad concepts of person, place and thing which are illusory, but all we ever experience. I think it's valuable to see the anicca in our body as it gets older and work on detachment from that, instead of dismissing that as a "concept" and going back to fantasizing about invisible dhammas. I think there is some value to seeing that our vision of things is a shadow of realities, but a main focus of the path is to see, discern, understand what we are really experiencing, let go, detach, work on developing real kusala ways of relating and living in the actual *now* of experience, not the idealized *now* of paramatha dhammas in the future of awakening. To understand those ultimate units, and their conditions is valuable, but that should be backed up by understanding of our relationship to concepts. When we cling to a person or thing, or cling to our sense of self, that is when we really have a chance to see anicca and anatta and dukkha *now,* not in a future lifetime when we will see the anatta-ness of fleeting dhammas, but the stuck heavy shadow-dhammas we are fixated on *now.* Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111062 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:34 am Subject: dangerous teachings was Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >> I think the three suttas you have quoted would be suitable for monks with well developed panna. Anyone else could get horribly confused. They might be tempted to believe that conventional things could be the objects vipakka citta, and that conventional activities could be kamma. They might even think some animals deserved to be burnt to death, and some women deserved to be thrown overboard. > > Therefore, I think those suttas should be treated with extreme caution. They shouldn't be shown to beginners who do not have someone to teach them Abhidhamma and to show them how, in reality, it is only disinterested namas that actually perform those functions. > ______ Dear Ken Isn't that somewhat ironic, when how many times a year do you say to dsg members that dsg follows the Theravda Commentaries,other people cherry pick the parts that suit them, or something like that.. "Shouldnt be shown to beginners"? so these stories which are traditional Theravada are to be kept away from anyone except advanced monks . Presumably there is no danger to you though, right? I assume though you must appreciate this sutta: Majjhima Nikaya 135: The Shorter Exposition of Kamma (Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta 2. "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?" 3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority." 4. "I do not understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be good if Master Gotama taught me the Dhamma so that I might understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning." "Then listen, student, and heed well what I shall say." "Even so, Master Gotama," Subha the student replied. The Blessed One said this: 5. "Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. 6. "But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to long life, that is to say, to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to lay aside the rod and lay aside the knife, to be considerate and merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. 7. "Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to sickness, that is to say, to be one who harms beings with one's hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. 8. "But here some woman or man is not one who harms beings with his hands, or with clods, or with sticks, or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is healthy wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to health, that is to say, not to be one who harms beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. 9. "Here, student, some woman or man is angry, much given to rage; even when little is said, he is furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, he shows ill-temper, hate and surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is ugly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to ugliness, that is to say, to be furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, and to show ill-temper, hate and surliness. 10. "But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry, ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness. 11. "Here, student, some woman or man is envious; he envies, begrudges and harbors envy about others' gains, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is insignificant wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to insignificance, that is to say, to be envious, to envy, begrudge, and harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. 12. "But here some woman or man is not envious, he does not envy, begrudge or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is influential wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to influence, that is to say, not to be envious, not to envy, begrudge or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. 13. "Here, student, some woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks or brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is poor wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to poverty, that is to say, not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. 14. "But here some woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is rich wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to riches, that is to say, to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. 15. "Here, student, some woman or man is obdurate and haughty; he does not pay homage to whom he should pay homage, or rise up for whom he should rise up, or give a seat to whom he should give a seat, or make way for whom he should make way, or worship him who should be worshipped, or respect him who should be respected, or revere him who should be revered, or honor him who should be honored. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is low-born wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to low birth, that is to say, to be obdurate and haughty, not to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, nor rise up for..., nor give a seat to..., nor make way for..., nor worship..., nor respect..., nor revere..., nor honor him who should be honored. 16. "But here some woman or man is not obdurate or haughty; he pays homage to whom he should pay homage, rises up for whom he should rise up, gives a seat to whom he should give a seat, makes way for whom he should make way, worships him who should be worshipped, respects him who should be respected, reveres him who should be revered, honors him who should be honored. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is high-born wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to high birth, that is to say, not to be obdurate or haughty, to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, to rise up for..., to give a seat to..., to make way for..., to worship... respect... revere... honor him who should be honored. 17. "Here, student, some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, does not ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir? What is unwholesome? What is blamable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, by my doing it, will be long for my harm and suffering? Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he will be stupid wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to stupidity, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, not to ask: 'What is wholesome?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?' 18. "But here some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, asks: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is wise wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to wisdom, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, to ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?' 19. "So, student, the way that leads to short life makes people short-lived, the way that leads to long life makes people long-lived; the way that leads to sickness makes people sick, the way that leads to health makes people healthy; the way that leads to ugliness makes people ugly, the way that leads to beauty makes people beautiful; the way that leads to insignificance makes people insignificant, the way that leads to influence makes people influential; the way that leads to poverty makes people poor, the way that leads to riches makes people rich; the way that leads to low birth makes people low-born, the way that leads to high birth makes people high-born; the way that leads to stupidity makes people stupid, the way that leads to wisdom makes people wise. 20. "Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority." Robert #111063 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:59 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Dear Kenh I am not sure if you thought it was Robert Epstein that wrote to you, why are you using teh acronym RE: when citing me? > RE: > What do you mean when you say that """view (ditthi) takes either an ultimate reality or a concept of an ultimate reality as its object, doesn't it""?? > ------------------------ > KENH According to my understanding, ditthi experiences only ultimate realities or concepts of ultimate realities. > A scientist can do his work without thinking "This is all there is; there is no other reality." In that way he can believe in evolution and senseless injustice without having miccha ditthi. > I would have said ditthi could know only thoughts that either confirmed or denied the Dhamma. Conventional science doesn't necessarily do that. It doesn't necessarily confirm or deny the possibility of another reality (nama and rupa). > > ------------------ > <. . .> > Robert: So this view of Dawkins you evaluate as being rooted in nana-sampayuttam. In fact your enthusiasm for this wrong view is itself an expression of ditth-sampayuttam as it is impossible that someone with right view could agree with it. > ------------------ > KENH (I hope I have correctly fixed your typo.) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It Robert: has not fixed it in any way (unless you are trying to make a joke) It was perfect according to my meaning when I wrote it, now it is meaningless. -------- KENH As we both agree, there are only namas and rupas: there are none of the sentient beings that Dawkins is talking about. So he isn't confirming or denying the Dhamma any more than you or I are when we discuss the weather. > _________ I see. So is it ever possible for someone who is not involved in religion to have wrongview (ditthi)? Dawkins when he writes about a world of senseless injustise(the human and animla realm) is according to you rooted in what type of citta? Is it nana-samputtam or ditthi sampayutaam or what other type. You accept, right, that voice or movement (as in typing) are conditioned by cittas . Robert #111064 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Dear Nina, > N: I found the Visuddhimagga Ch XIV study with its Tiika > I made with Larry most helpful. Thanks for mentioning. For those interested, some of the discussion on this Vsm chapter can be traced through: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/z-VismXIVlinks.htm Best wishes pt #111065 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. ptaus1 Dear Nina and all, > DN 33.2.2(22) 'Six perceptions conducive to penetration (nibbedha- > bhaagiya-sa~n~naa): the perception of impermanence, of suffering in > impermanence, of impersonality in suffering, of abandoning, of > dispassion (as Sutta 33, v.2.2(26)) and the perception of cessation > (nirodha-sa~n~naa). This is an interesting passage. I was wondering: - these six perceptions - they in fact refer to a moment of (supramundane) insight and understanding which understands (perceives) the characteristic of a dhamma, right? - what does perception of "suffering in impermanence", and perception of "impersonality in suffering" mean in terms of language? I mean, is it the same as the stock formula "anicca, dukkha and anatta", or does it in this case have a more specific meaning, which is why it's specified "suffering in impermanence", and "impersonality in suffering"? I mean, the last one for example seems to say that one perceives anatta in dukkha, which sound a bit weird to me, as I thought these are just characteristics of dhammas, so it's not like these characteristics themselves have further characteristics... - how are abandoning and dispassion classed? Also as general charactersitics of dhammas, like anicca, dukkha and anatta? No rush to reply, enjoy your break. Best wishes pt #111066 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:07 am Subject: What I heard. Nimitta, 1. nilovg Dear friends, What I heard. Nimitta. (part 1). Conditioned dhammas, sankhaara dhammas, appear now, because of conditions. When sound appears it is heard and then it falls away very rapidly. When visible object impinges on the eyesense there is a process of cittas that experience it, arising and falling away in a continuity, very rapidly. They arise and fall away so fast that we could not catch each one, and what is left is a nimitta, a sign. Which citta is at this moment the citta that sees? There is hearing again, seeing again. Each dhamma just appears for one moment and we cannot know that exactly. While we are seeing now there are numerous cittas arising and falling away in succession, very rapidly. The nimitta appears as that which is seen and it does not fall away. What appears through the eyesense is ruupa nimitta, the nimitta of visible object. Visible object arises and falls away. It is not so that ruupa does not arise and falls away, but it appears as if it does not arise and fall away, it appears as lasting. The nimitta of what arises and falls away very fast appears as if it is still there. We cannot penetrate it as the Buddha could with his pa~n~naa. The experience of the nimitta can be compared to a burning torch that one swings around so that a circle of fire appears. There seems to be a circle that remains but in reality there is no circle. At this moment a dhamma appears for an extremely short moment and then it falls away. But since dhammas arise in succession there is a continuity which is steady, firm, so that we take what is experienced for some thing. It was for such a long time that we did not know the truth, until the Buddha attained enlightenment and taught the truth. Those who have the opportunity to listen can gradually understand the truth of what is real and what appears. They may one day have the opportunity to listen again and develop pa~n~naa to the degree of knowing the ariyan truths. We cannot change what is true, nobody can prevent seeing from falling away. We cannot change a dhamma into something else. We cannot change hardness that appears now, which is true dhamma that arises and falls away. Very gradually the truth can be known. We often hear that dhammas are impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. This is the Buddhas teaching and it refers to every reality that appears now. What is impermanent is dukkha and nobody can exert control over it, it is anattaa. We do not see the falling away of realities and we see the nimitta as lasting, as happiness; we like it. We think that it is self. Seeing things as lasting, happiness and self is contrary to the truth of impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. Develop pa~n~naa so that it becomes firm and do not worry about it when we will become an ariyan. We should be truthful as regards our understanding and realize to what extent we have understood the words we hear. The word dhamma, for example, refers to what is real, what does not belong to anyone. Nobody is the owner of it. Is what appears at this moment already understood as a dhamma? We heard and understood that it is dhamma but it does not really appear as dhamma, until understanding knows the characteristic of each dhamma, one at a time. Where is I? It does not exist . There must be right understanding of the characteristic of what appears. Now everyone feels confortably cool because of the right temperature, but this experience has fallen away already, it is gone. Now everyone is seeing, but it is already gone. One should begin to see that the dhamma that appears is just a reality, so that the truth of it can be penetrated later on and it can be clearly understood. ******** Nina. #111067 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:28 am Subject: re: sammaasankappa. nilovg Hi Herman. You wrote: I appreciate that you have written that book, Nina, and how you have written it. In every sentence I can see the great care that you have taken in writing, down to the finest details. Your referencing is superb. For all of us, not only is it OK to take great care in what we do, as you have done, it is necessary :-) --------- N: Yea, yea, quite true. I realize that I am addressing myself to all kinds of people with a different background and different levels of understanding. I am aware that people rightly critizise what I write. Words may often be insufficient to express what one means. So obviously there are many shortcomings in my writings that may cause misunderstandings. That is why I appreciate Phil's challenging remarks that I can discuss with Lodewijk and that make me think. Thanks for your kind words, Nina. #111068 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:37 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi RobE, Herman, Alex, Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't mind me replying to all of you in the same post as some of the issues you raise seem related: > > pt: In my experience, KenH is right. Whenever I decide to meditate, it's mostly because I want to get something - more sati, panna, calm, whatever, which is in essence nothing else but trying to control dhammas. There's a hope though that during the actual meditation, this particular want will fall away, and a moment of clarity can arise with awareness of present moment, and so, free of want for something else. But this might be a fools hope... > RobE: Well at every moment in samsara we're going to be doing something. There isn't anyone here who wouldn't spend time meditating if they thought it would produce the path factors, and that is also why they are studying Dhamma at all. So the idea that there is no result orientation in anything is just foolish. If we didn't have any result orientation towards the path we wouldn't follow it, period. + related comment by Alex, which wasn't addressed to me but seems related: > Alex: Why did the Buddha, using active and imperative verbs, kept commanding his monks to meditate (anapanasati, various kayagatasati meditations, jhana, etc)? > > I am yet to find any passage in the suttas or even commentaries where it says that "one shouldn't do any of these actions" and that "whenever it tells you to do such and such things, it doesn't actually mean that you do them. You just read about them". pt: Ok, perhaps I should have been clearer. Sure there is intention all the time. And desire for results. This intention (or desire for that matter) can be either kusala (chanda) or akusala (lobha). So, the fact that there is intention (as well as desire, etc) is not under dispute. What's under dispute is my ability to tell the difference between the two. If I'm able to tell the difference between the two as they are happening, then that's great, because that would mean I'd be able to develop kusala as it happens (samatha bhavana in this case). But, if I can't tell the difference, then I'm most probably engaging in akusala meditation, because (if you remember our recent discussion on this topic) one of the prerequisites for successful samatha development is knowing the difference between aksuala and kusala states in real time as they happen. I think I can't really tell the difference between a/kusala. Hence my conclusion that my desires are mostly akusala, and therefore, I'm driven by a mistaken view that dhammas can be controlled, etc. So, my meditation is mostly akusala, not kusala. So, since I can't really tell the difference between a/kusala, then I probably shouldn't be trying to develop samatha bhavana, since I'm most likely just developing akusala, not kusala. In other words, my understanding and abilities are nowhere near those monks that the Buddha actually encouraged to meditate. > Herman: You seem to have an upfront higher valuation for samsara being interrupted by spontaneous moments of sati, calm etc, than for sati, calm etc being interrupted by moments of samsara. pt: For reasons explained above, I think that I'm just not at that level where I could have long uninterrupted periods of sati, calm, etc. Hence, the importance of spontaneous arising of sati and other kusala factors becomes valuable. An added bonus is that the spontaneously arisen kusala factors are, well, kusala, in the sense that they are not disguised akusala (remember the expression cheating dhammas) - like when I try to arouse kusala trhough meditation, which is really just akusala in the first place, so I'm basically just fooling myself. P.S. Herman, I'll address the other interesting bit of your reply in another post because it reminded me of something we discussed in Manly, and I think it deserves a thread on its own. Apologies for being late with replies. Best wishes pt #111069 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 24-okt-2010, om 13:33 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > For example, "there is no Nina" is for me leaping ahead, that is > an understanding that is only revealed by deep, penetrative panna. ... -------- N: I discussed this again with Lodewijk who also dislikes such statements. He feels that this is not well formulated, perhaps mixing conventional ways of expression with ultimate realities. He says: what we take for an individu is constituted by elements. But it takes long to really understand this, I know. So long as we are not sotaapannas, you know that we still cling to self. But this is certainly not pleasant to hear: there is no person. For you and I: lobha takes over. By conditions. There were so many lives in the past with ignorance. -------- > Ph: I found an example the other day of the kind of thing I mean, > in my notebook, from the Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "If > different types of realities are known, one characteristic at a > time, as nama and rupa, the wrong view that takes realities for > self is eliminated. One will let go of the idea of realities as a > "whole." Then it can be understood what it means to have inward > peace, because citta does not become involved in outward matters > such as self, people and things." > > On paper, it sounds perfectly correct, but off paper the lobha > rooted mind takes over, I think, and turns a perfectly correct > theoretical description into a recipe for thinking with pleasure > about deep teachings. ------ > N: Yes, I know what you mean. I think just for that short moment of > right understanding there is peace, but it does not last, gone > immediately. Lobha takes over time and again. The kusala citta with right understanding is accompanied by many sobhana cetasikas, and among those there is calm, passaddhi. But it is gone immediately. I still have a feeling of: I see, not yet: the seeing that sees. But we learn that all dhammas crumble away. Even we do not realize the truth it does help to hear the right Dhamma and to begin to think in the right way. I just heard: "through eyes not a person appears". True, how could a person impinge on the eyesense. Kh Sujin: "Anattaa should appear through eyes, ears, nose, tongue. bodysense and mind- ddor, in daily life, so that the idea of attaa, self, will be eradicated." Thus, hearing the right things will help, because then intellectual understanding can grow and one day become direct understanding. We certainly should not jump, I agree. When observing siila the question is: who abstains from akusala: Sati cetasika, not a person. So again, we have to hear this often, but sure, we cannot realize the truth yet. There has been such an amount of ignorance in past lives. ------ Nina. #111070 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. ptaus1 Hi Herman, > Herman: If you, or anyone else who assumes transmigration (of presumably anusayas) > as fact, are inclined, could they say whether they believe that view to be > similar or different to Lamarckian evolution, and how? pt: Hm, I don't know much at all on either subject. My take atm is that the main difference is that here we're really speaking about cittas - one citta and its mental factors condition the arising of the next citta and so on. And that's how latent tendencies (both wholesome and unwholesome, I think the term is asayaanusaya) are 'transmitted' so to speak from one citta to another. Death and rebirth cittas shouldn't be any different in that respect I guess. One difficulty I'm not quite sure how to put into perspective is the fact that, conventionaly speaking, at birth there's (usually) no memory of what has been learned previously (presumably in previous life, in conventional terms). E.g. in this life we've had the opportunity to come in touch with Dhamma teachings which could have lead to some modification of behavior in this life as you say. But in the next life, say the rebirth is somewhere where there's no access to Dhamma, and in fact, the moral grounds are somewhat different - say it's ok to kill people of one race, but not of another. Well, would I not be then likewise influenced by those teachings as well, since I already have the predisposition towards killing (thanks to anusaya)? Tricky subject. But anyway, my point was that I'm not exactly sure how to account for the apparent loss of memory and yet maintain transference of asaya and anusaya. Best wishes pt #111071 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 20-okt-2010, om 16:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > This hitting, striking, probing action of vitakka remains one of my > favorite cetasikas. :-) I have always liked this function. > > Sammaa > > sankappa assists sammaa di.t.thi, while it hits the naama or ruupa > > that is the object of awareness and right understanding, so that > > sammaa di.t.thi can see it as it is. > > I am happy to hear about this coordinated action between the > striking action of vitakka and the discernment action of samma ditthi. > > I am recalling additional features which I think are part of > vittaka - turning the object over, beating the object - this is all > part of the description of vitakka...? Is this correct? --------- N: Using some quotes form my Visuddhimagga study: The Visuddhimagga (IV, 88) defines vitakka as follows: ...Herein, applied thinking (vitakkama) is applied thought (vitakka); hitting upon, is what is meant. It has the characteristic of directing the mind onto an object (mounting the mind on its object). Its function is to strike and thresh- for the meditator is said, in virtue of it, to have the object touched and struck at by applied thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object. The Visuddhimagga (IV, 88) defines vicaara as follows: ...Sustained thinking (vicara.na) is sustained thought (vicaara); continued sustenance (anusacara.na), is what is meant. It has the characteristic of continued pressure on (occupation with) the object. Its function is to keep conascent (mental) states (occupied) with that. It is manifested as keeping consciousness anchored (on that object). Vitakka touches the object and directs citta to the object, and vicaara keeps the citta occupied with the object. However, they arise with citta at the same time and fall away together with it. Thus, they perform their functions only during an extremely short time. The Visuddhimagga uses similes to show the difference between these two cetasikas, it illustrates that vitakka is more gross and vicaara more subtle. Applied thought is like the first striking of a bell and sustained thought the ringing of the bell. When the first type of mahaa-kusala citta arises it needs vitakka and vicaara for the experience of its object. Vitakka is a factor of the eightfold Path and it is in that case called, right thinking, sammaa- sankappa. When insight is developed, vitakka touches the naama or ruupa that appears so that understanding can penetrate its characteristic. Right thinking is necessary so that precise understanding of one object at a time can be developed. When there is mindfulness of sound, vitakka hits that object, so that understanding of sound can be developed and can realize it as a type of rupa. When there is mindfulness of hearing, vitakka hits that object, so that there can be understanding of hearing as a type of nama. Paaa and right thinking, sammaa-sankappa, are the wisdom of the eightfold Path. Understanding of nama and rupa cannot develop without right thinking. -------- We cannot experience each cetasika yet, but knowing more details helps to understand conditions. This again supports the understanding of anattaa which is at first intellectual understanding but can develop one day to direct understanding. It is beneficial to know that sammaa-di.t.thi is conditioned by many accompanying sobhana cetasikas, it needs conditions for its arising. This will cure us from the idea that we could control the arising of pa~n~naa. --------- Nina. #111072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 20-okt-2010, om 15:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. > > Book [V: 95-6] section 46: The Links. 38: Unhindered... > > > > ""When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the Dhamma, > > alert with keen ears, > > attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of > vital > > importance, directing > > his entire mind to it, in that very moment the Five Mental > Hindrances > > are absent in him. > > On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards > > complete fulfilment...>endquote > > > > complete Fulfilment coincides with nibbana > ..... > What do you think constitutes "directing his entire mind to it?" Is > there a more precise definition of this in Abhidhamma or commentary? ------- N: I could not follow all threads and do not know whether you received an answer already. I think that this is a conventional way of saying that there is thorough attention, yoniso manasikaara, to the object. Manasikaara has several meanings, but it can stand for a cetasika arising with each citta. In this case it arises with kusala citta accompanied by pa~n~naa. (Manasikaara can also stand for the five sense-door adverting consciousness and for the citta that precedes the javanacittas, in the sense-door process the votthapanacitta and in the mind-door process the manodvaaraavajjanacitta, but it is hard to pinpoint all these details.) Anyway, we can understand that citta and cetasikas perform their functions when there is thorough attention in the wholesome way and that it is not "I" who is doing this. ------- Nina. #111073 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: memories of the late Ven. Dhammadharo, to Lukas. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-okt-2010, om 18:13 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > What patthana says on akusala dhamma being object for kusala? or > akusala dhamma condtioning akusala? ------ N: Natural decisive support-condiiton, pakkatupanissaya paccaya. For example, pa~n~naa may see the akusala dhamma as just a conditioned reality, non-self. As to akusala dhamma conditioning akusala, lobha likes lobha very much and so there will be ever more lobha accumulated. This happens all the time in daily life. ------ Nina. #111074 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? philofillet Hi Nina, thanks for your feedback > N: I discussed this again with Lodewijk who also dislikes such > statements. He feels that this is not well formulated, perhaps mixing > conventional ways of expression with ultimate realities. > He says: what we take for an individu is constituted by elements. > But it takes long to really understand this, I know. So long as we > are not sotaapannas, you know that we still cling to self. > But this is certainly not pleasant to hear: there is no person. Ph: Hmm, I don't know Nina, it was different for me, it was always pleasant to hear "there is no Nina" and reflect on it, because it felt like I had achieved some kind of proximity to great wisdom, there was no real understanding whatsoever, in my case, just words, that, as Herman wrote earlier, roll off the tongue or the keyboard so easily. For me, it was so facile, so fake. That is not you, I don't know where your understanding is. But I know for me it was a bit farcical to say or believe "there is no Phil" etc, because there wasn't an ounce of real understanding to back it up, it was just repeating what other people said. If that is pariyatti, well, I don't know. And I just don't feel the Buddha says, to me, there is no Phil. He says that there is no lasting, eternal soul, he says that the eye etc are impermanent etc, but he doesn't say to me "there is no Phil." He tells me to take care of the way Phil behaves because there will be consequences to pay if Phil doesn't. How can that be, if there is no eternal self, why does the Buddha teach me to care about what happens after death? I can't answer that, and don't need to, all I hear is the Buddha's message to me, he speaks to different people in different ways, and to me he says "make sure Phil behaves properly and avoids harming others." At other times he gives hints about deep teachings, such as when I read and reflect on the ayatanas etc (that is about as deep as I can go) but that message is not predominant for me, it is not the message I need to hear the most. Nina: just heard: "through eyes not a person appears". > True, how could a person impinge on the eyesense. Kh Sujin: "Anattaa > should appear through eyes, ears, nose, tongue. bodysense and mind- > ddor, in daily life, so that the idea of attaa, self, will be > eradicated." > Thus, hearing the right things will help, because then intellectual > understanding can grow and one day become direct understanding. Ph: Well, for me, this is not how it works. Before intellectual understanding can develop, lobha will take what is heard and turn it into something pleasant to suck on, like a candy. But that is me. NIina: We > certainly should not jump, I agree. Phil: I don't have any choice in the matter, lobha, greed, fear, desire for comfort, they all push me to suck pleasure out of the teaching. Nina :When observing siila the question is: who abstains from akusala: Sati > cetasika, not a person. > So again, we have to hear this often, but sure, we cannot realize the > truth yet. There has been such an amount of ignorance in past lives. Ph: Very true. So since we can't realize the truth yet, let's make good and sure that at least we do not behave in a bad way and do as many good deeds as possible. (And I'm sorry, I don't believe it is necessary to worry about whether lobha etc are involved in what we take to be good deeds, the good deeds that are laden in lobha etc will encircle and protect many moments of pure kusala...) To be honest, I always find it a little difficult to believe, though, when people say they are not concerned so much about what happens in this one lifetime, one of so many countless ones, etc. That always feels a little dishonest-to-oneself to me. I find it almost impossible to believe that we are not all eager to accomplish a foothold of merit in this one lifetime, it's beyond my ability to beleive that there are people here who have enough detachment not to care, but of course, that is just my own defilements speaking... Anyways, thanks again Nina. Metta, Phil #111075 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:58 am Subject: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas upasaka_howard Hi all Abhidhammikas - I have read that the commentaries say that conditioned dhammas, cittas and cetasikas in particular, arise, peak, and decline, but I have heard of no other change within them. According to Abhidhamma itself, is there any change within a citta or a cetasika, or does it just arise, endure, and pass? If there is no change within it, with the only changing being the ending of one citta (or cetasika) and the arising of the next, each being analogous to a still-photograph, then in what way do they *function*? As regards this question, the matter is clearer with respect to a citta, an expected answer being that it knows (as a snapshot) its unmoving object, and then the next citta knows the next (or same) object. [The only (minor) issues being the question of why a citta involves any positive duration of time and the basis for considering that any time has passed.] But what of the cetasikas that perform operations? What sort of operation can involve no change??? For example, what sa~n~na (i.e., perceiving/recognition/recollection) occurs without mental change? These are questions that I deem important, not so much in the content of the answers, although I find that very interesting, but more so in the significance of their being unanswerable if they are not in fact answerable. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111076 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi Herman, Sarah, > Herman: Something that others may be interested in, and which only became apparent > to me at the Manly get-together. pt and I were talking about sound, and how > its wave nature needs there to be at least one full wave/cycle/period in > order for sound to have some known quality like pitch. Sarah and Ken > politely let us talk for a while, and then Ken chipped in that sound is not > a wave or a particle, but a rupa. Sarah said something like that what we > were talking about was not actually relevant to the dhamma. She said that > the rupa of sound has no characteristics like pitch, volume. or timbre, it's > only characteristic is sound. > > Of course, I could say no more, and it leaves me wondering how anyone else > in the know can say anything about sound. pt: Yes, this was another interesting topic. I thought about it a bit more in the meantime. Here's my take on it, perhaps you and Sarah can comment further on my conclusions: I think that in abhidhamma terms, "sound" (as in "sound object") would stand for whatever impinges on the ear at a certain instance. Here I'd obviously need to define a bit more precisely what do "whatever" and "instance" stand for exactly, but before that, let's compare hearing to something a bit more generally obvious - vision. As I understood Nina, visible object which becomes the object of eye-consciousness would stand for what impinges on the eye at a certain instance. In Vsm, that's termed visible data I think, or something like that. So, in layman terms, maybe it could be said - it's all the light that impinges on the eye at one instance. So, visible object is not a chair, a table, sky, etc, but it's just light so to speak - all the light that's collected at the eye at an instance. Chair, table and the rest emerge a bit later on in the cognition process, when the light that was at the eye is processed and conceptualised. Such explanation of vision makes sense to me. Sure we're a bit vague here regarding the color rods in the eye, and different wavelengths of light which are responsible for the perception of color, etc, but I don't think this part of the phenomenon of vision is particularly important in experiential terms, I mean, it's more sicence than experience, so I'm content with the abhidhamma explanation. Now, if we try and apply the same abhidhamma model to hearing, it also makes sense. Here's my attempt: Sound, or audible object, in abhidhamma should probably stand for the relationship between the actual air-wave front that impinges on the ear - so air molecules that undergo compression and rarefaction, thus moving the membrane of the ear drum - so the first link in the chain of events that results in hearing. Importantly, it's not one cycle of air compression-rarefaction, nor a particular air-wave frequency, but just the symphatic movement of the membrane of the ear drum in correspondence to the fluctuations in the surrounding air. Looking to our example in vision, surrounding air corresponds to light, and the ear drum membrane corresponds to the eye where the light collects in one instance so to speak. Now, the movement of the ear drum is transferred along the middle and inner ear to the auditory nerve and then the brain, but since this is all again a fully symphatic action, I think we can lump together and ignore all these components for now, sort of like we lump together the retina, color rods, etc, and just call it all "the eye". So, the question that interest you then is, ok, so when does 440Hz enter the stage, or sound of violin, or airplane, for example? My thinking is that these again are products of the cognition process when audible object is processed and conceptualised. So, 440Hz, violin, airplane, are not "sound" or "audible object" anymore in abhidhamma terms, in the same way that chair, table, etc, are not visible object in abhidhamma terms. Perhaps an analogy that might make sense to you is to think of a loudspeaker cone reproducing the sound of a symphony orchestra - the cone just moves back and forth in response to the complex wave that represents the sum-total of 100 instruments together. But all these 100 instruments in one instance are basically summed to a single position of the cone along one axis (positive-negative voltage variation basically). Now, to actually perceive a violin, or a trombone, among those 100 instruments - that would require many moments of hearing consciousness arising and a lot of processing and conceptualising in between, in a similar way that it would be required in order to perceive a chair, a table, etc, in the example of vision. So, just like the cone, the ear-drum membrane simply moves back and forth - and it's position at one instance is basically a sum-total of all the sound coming from outside onto the membrane. Then, to perceive a 440Hz, a violin or an airplane, a lot of these membrane positions are necessary over some time, with a lot of processing and conceptualising to shape it all into "the sound of a violin", "airplane", etc. How does that sound to you? Best wishes pt #111077 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi Herman, Sarah, > pt: ... Perhaps an analogy that might make sense to you is to think of a loudspeaker cone reproducing the sound of a symphony orchestra - the cone just moves back and forth in response to the complex wave that represents the sum-total of 100 instruments together. But all these 100 instruments in one instance are basically summed to a single position of the cone along one axis (positive-negative voltage variation basically). Now, to actually perceive a violin, or a trombone, among those 100 instruments - that would require many moments of hearing consciousness arising and a lot of processing and conceptualising in between, in a similar way that it would be required in order to perceive a chair, a table, etc, in the example of vision. ... pt: What a long post. To sum it all up - in the above - the single position of the loudspeaker cone (or eardrum membrane) would represent the "audible object", while many positions over time interspersed with processing and conceptualising would represent "the sound of" 440Hz, violin, airplane, etc. Best wishes pt #111078 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas nilovg Hi Howard, Op 25-okt-2010, om 13:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But what of the > cetasikas that perform operations? What sort of operation can > involve no change??? > For example, what sa~n~na (i.e., perceiving/recognition/recollection) > occurs without mental change? ------ N: We could take as an example pleasant feeling, performing its function of experiencing the flavour of an object. It is there for such a short time while it performs its function, how could it change? It does not change into indifferent feeling or unhappy feeling. Happy feeling may be kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya, depending on the citta it accompanies, how could it change? Each cetasika accompanies citta, it has its own unalterable characteristic, performs its function, how could it change? Sa~n~naa marks and remembers the object citta experiences. Cetasikas experience the same object as the citta they accompany, while they perform their own function. How could they change their characteristic and function? Nina. #111079 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear pt, Op 25-okt-2010, om 14:32 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > So, just like the cone, the ear-drum membrane simply moves back and > forth - and it's position at one instance is basically a sum-total > of all the sound coming from outside onto the membrane. Then, to > perceive a 440Hz, a violin or an airplane, a lot of these membrane > positions are necessary over some time, with a lot of processing > and conceptualising to shape it all into "the sound of a violin", > "airplane", etc. > > How does that sound to you? ----- N: I think all this is difficult for me to understand since I am very ignorant of science. Science is a subject far removed from what I know. Quite different from what I learn through the Abhidhamma. How is sound experienced. without having to think of it? I learnt from Kh Sujin: it has a degree of loudness, and I find this quite clear. As to visible object: I am not thinking of light or of anything. Just all that appears when our eyes are open, but not yet defining it. There is not yet thinking of it. But when we try to know it, there is thinking, not just plain seeing. Nina. #111080 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:45 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. Thanks for mentioning the Satipatthana commentary link, and the references to the anapansati posts. I recall a couple of them, and will hunt around. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > 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. > > =============== > > > [R:] Bikkhu Bodhi expressed a view on some of these similar statements, > particularly one that suggests that he has put aside the 5 hindrances before > sitting down to practice in the Satipatthana Sutta, that this is an intention > that one begins with, and then one continues to encounter the hindrances arising > and deals with them each time they do. That would be similar to "having > established mindfulness in front of him." For almost anyone, they would begin > with concentration and mindful awareness, but it would have to be reestablished > several times throughout the period of sitting. It is the practice that > develops mindfulness fully. Therefore it would not be fully established before > the practice takes place. > > ********************************* Thanks, Jon. Yes, that would be good to discuss. I may be getting time-challenged, as my wife is returning home again and will wonder why I've let so many things pile up, but I will get over to the satipatthana commentary when I can, and hopefully we can talk about it sometime soon. My wife was away in her government capacity for three weeks to India, Kazakhstan, Kirgzstan and Tajikistan, then was home for two weeks, then went to visit her sister in Colorado for a week, so I've been hanging out with my daughter and "taking care of" both the condo and my business most of the month - and BTW, no overly exciting Kung Fu movies while she was gone! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111081 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. nilovg Hi pt, Op 25-okt-2010, om 10:57 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > But anyway, my point was that I'm not exactly sure how to account > for the apparent loss of memory and yet maintain transference of > asaya and anusaya. ------ N: Because cittas succeed one another already and the accumulation goes on already. No matter there is loss of memory or not. Nina. #111082 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, > What is "the path"? Process of development where the fetters and underlying tendencies are being completely eradicated stage by stage. > > I gather from the above, that "the path" must be the aspiration of > permanently "not having" lobha and dosa? Is it different to aspiring to have > a permanent near-death experience? A) to permanently uproot all latent and overt unwholesome tendencies, so as not to experience mental discomfort and eventually to stop all rebirth. B) To cease without remainder of any kind (no consciousness, not even the unlimited one, no knowing, no willing, no namarupa) at the best occasion that can happen- Parinibbana. The END! Existence of any kind, consciousness of any kind, is simply not worth it. It is all conditioned dukkha. There isn't any controller who could control the reality to make it nice. Even nice things don't appear to be happiness in the highest sense, few fleeting sharp feelings - for sure, but nothing that is permanently satisfying. If there was only one life, then the short cut would be easy. With metta, Alex #111083 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110743) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > > > 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. > > =============== > > J: If what is being referred to is the understanding of the dhamma that is hardness or softness, being the hardness or softness that is (erroneously) taken for breath, then what is the value/significance of knowing, for example, long breaths from short breaths? Well, I tend to subscribe to what I think is a similar view to Rob K. at this point in my neophyte development, that the perception of conventional objects has a kind of shadow-relation to the actual dhammas arising and falling, so that there would be a value, albeit imperfect, in attending the sensation of movement, filling hardness, release, softness, movement, etc., that would take place within the space of a breath, which is more precise, and closer to the actual dhammas at play, than just a casual, peripheral awareness of the breath. It may be just "conventional sati," but it would be the beginning of a rough sort of sati that would eventually lead to more perceptual precision, as insight and mindfulness increase. I think the Abhidhammatha Sangaha hints at such a relation when it talks about concepts being the "shadows" of dhammas. In my view, that would be a kind of shape, or silhouette, or approximation of the dhammas, just not seen clearly or as immediately as they actually occur. This is not the view of Ken H, who seems to say that the concept has *no* relation to the dhammas arising and that they are totally unknown until a totally different enlightened perception comes into play due to conditions. Rob K. made the sensible observation, which I liked very much, that the differences we recognize between "conventional Jon" and "conventional Sarah" is based on an actual perception of different streams of dhammas arising that represent each one of them differently, even though we don't see them with the clarity and actuality with which they occur. That would mean that the conventional world, and even conventional development of satipatthana, would relate in a rough way to a perception of dhammas and a development towards the ability to perceive them. In this scenario, more precise sati and insight into conventional objects would create conditions for further development towards eventual direct seeing of dhammas. I don't know if Rob K. would agree with this last part, but that would be my happy conclusion. :-) It makes much more sense and viability to me of the entire Abhidhamma, if it is a guide not only to some final reality that can only be known at present in conceptual terms, but also a guide to current perception and development of real actual current sati and insight, albeit still within conventional terms at present. In other words there would be a real path, a sensible continuity between what we perceive now and what we may come to perceive by understanding Dhamma and practicing mindful observation and wise reflection, and it would not be dependent on some ineffable gnosis that is unrelated to life as we know it, but would arise from the refinement of the path from where we are. > On the other hand, for the person developing samatha with breath (a concept) as object, following long and short breaths makes sense. Well, I think there is value in developing concentration, awareness of what is taking place in the moment, and sati - mindful understanding of what is arising now. To distinguish a long from a short breath is a step towards seeing the breath more fully as it is, and developing sati. Those who believe there are no steps, just gnosis of real seeing that will pop out of the dark one day, will not follow these practical steps, but those who see continuity between practice now and understanding gradually increasing, will see the value. I believe that's why that practice is there. It's clear to me at least, that such observations of breath develop both sati and samatha, though I am sure you will disagree. There is a psychophysical element there as well, which is obvious to anyone who has practiced yoga or meditation of any kind, but which is probably also unacceptable as a step on the path to many here, which is that as the breath is observed it tends to relax. As it relax it lengthens. As it lengthens it calms the nerves. As the nerves are calmed it develops samatha. As samatha develops the mind focuses more easily, and becomes more mindful and observant. This pattern is inherent in the steps that Buddha gives, in the order they are given, in the satipatthan sutta, and forms a path which he says can take one all the way to enlightenment if followed. It includes mindfulness development as well as development of samatha into the jhanas, and leads to the arising of the enlightenment factors. And it all makes sense, and is clearly what Buddha intended in that progression of practice. > > =============== > > 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." > > ... > > That is Thich Nat Hanh's translation, and I thought that was pretty neat. > > =============== > > J: Yes, but I think this part of the sutta may from a section that comes after the section on long and short breaths. I don't see why that's a problem or consideration - perhaps you can explain why that changes the meaning or context of the stanza. Buddha repeats this admonition, that he will see the body as a body until such time as he sees more clearly, and then applies it to the objects of further meditation along the way, so it is not after just one thing, it is a repeating refrain for each stage of satipatthana, and not just about the body. > > =============== > > 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. > > =============== > > J: When mindfulness has been developed to the stage that it becomes a faculty (indriya) or power (bala), then it may be sufficiently continuous that the person is properly described as being "ever mindful". > > I would see the reference to "ever mindful" as being a reference to prior accomplishment, rather than an aspirational thing. Well it's a fair interpretation. I'm a gradualist, and don't see that as an admonition not to practice. That is the understanding of the mainstream Theravada tradition as well in pretty much all countries in the world that the Buddha taught, that breathing meditation is the base from which one can develop satipatthana. > > =============== > > > 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. > > =============== > > J: I think we have to be more precise. For a start, (mere) concentration does not "lead to" samatha or mindfulness, it can only ever be a supporting factor. I'm a gradualist, that which supports also promotes through supporting. Everything whether it supports or promotes development is a condition for its development. That is logical. > Secondly, only kusala concentration can support the development of kusala, and kusala concentration only ever arises with kusala citta. Kusala cannot be induced to arise by undertaking (akusala) concentration on a chosen object. I don't see why you would think that it would be akusala any more than kusala. Both will arise, obviously. But looking at whatever arises with mindful intentionality is more likely to be kusala in my view. I know you disagree. > So the question comes back to why concentration on the breath (as opposed to any other object) should necessarily be kusala. It's not necessary to say 'necessarily.' I just think it's likely, and that with some akusala, kusala will arise and that developing mindfulness will lead to more kusala. > > =============== > 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? > > =============== > > J: I think here you are referring to the fact that the Buddha attained jhana before he attained enlightenment, rather than to any statement in the suttas to the effect that jhana is a prerequisite for the development of awareness/insight. I'm going by the Buddha's example, but also by the sequence of the anapanasati sutta, which clearly develops sati and samatha as increasing supports for further development of both, right through the jhanas and enlightenment factors. It's right there in the text. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111084 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Jon and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > (110741) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Robert and Jon - > > > > > 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?" ... > > > > =================================== > > Were you to use to use 'development' instead of 'practice', Jon, as > > translation of 'bhavana', that might clarify these discussions a bit, I think. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it's 'bhavana' that is being discussed here, but 'patipatti' or some other Pali term. > > I agree that 'development' is a good term to use for 'bhavana'. Wikipedia has a good, short article on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavana It distinguishes between bhavana, jhana and samadhi in what I think is a useful way. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111085 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/25/2010 10:45:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 25-okt-2010, om 13:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But what of the > cetasikas that perform operations? What sort of operation can > involve no change??? > For example, what sa~n~na (i.e., perceiving/recognition/recollection) > occurs without mental change? ------ N: We could take as an example pleasant feeling, performing its function of experiencing the flavour of an object. It is there for such a short time while it performs its function, how could it change? It does not change into indifferent feeling or unhappy feeling. --------------------------------------------- Feeling is probably the poorest example, for it is imaginable that it can occur instantaneously, though I doubt it, but more complex operations are surely not instantaneous, and, being operations, they must involve change. -------------------------------------------- Happy feeling may be kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya, depending on the citta it accompanies, how could it change? Each cetasika accompanies citta, it has its own unalterable characteristic, performs its function, how could it change? Sa~n~naa marks and remembers the object citta experiences. -------------------------------------------- Recollection involves construction, and that involves change. The idea of a cetasika "performing it's function" instantaneously and without mental change strikes me as a gross over-simplification. Putting it more simply, I just don't buy it. I was hoping for an explanation of how it could be so. I don't find the mere assertion of that to suffice. (Sorry.) ----------------------------------------- Cetasikas experience the same object as the citta they accompany, while they perform their own function. --------------------------------------- Performing a function is a dynamic matter, requiring change through time. The best that can be said, IMO, is that at any instant, an operation can be *in the midst* of occurrence. ------------------------------------- How could they change their characteristic and function? ------------------------------------ They are operations, Nina. ----------------------------------- Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111086 From: "Christine" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas christine_fo... Hello Howard, Nina, all, Would this sutta have any relevance to the matter under discussion - ''Change while standing''? Friends, the arising of matter [...of feelings; ...of perception; ...of conditions; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, change while standing is manifest. S. XXII,37: iii,38. with metta Chris #111087 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas upasaka_howard Hi, Chris (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/25/2010 2:43:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cjforsyth1@... writes: Hello Howard, Nina, all, Would this sutta have any relevance to the matter under discussion - ''Change while standing''? Friends, the arising of matter [...of feelings; ...of perception; ...of conditions; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, change while standing is manifest. – S. XXII,37: iii,38. with metta Chris ================================= Yes, thanks, Chris. I thought of such suttas. The trouble is that the nature of the change isn't specified. If, indeed, for a cetasika such as perception, it indicates processing over time, that would make sense to me, but would contradict the Abhidhammic perspective as I have understood it to have been expressed on DSG. With metta, Howard P. S. Nice to be in contact with you, Chris! :-) It's been a long while. Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111088 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:42 pm Subject: dangerous teachings was Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---------- <. . .> RK: > "Shouldnt be shown to beginners"? so these stories which are traditional Theravada are to be kept away from anyone except advanced monks . Presumably there is no danger to you though, right? ----------- That was just my way of saying that suttas needed to be understood in the light of the Abhidhamma. --------------------- RK: > I assume though you must appreciate this sutta: Majjhima Nikaya 135: The Shorter Exposition of Kamma (Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta <. . .> ---------------------- Yes, I appreciate them all, now that I have understood a little Abhidhamma. Ken H #111089 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:51 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, --- RK: > I am not sure if you thought it was Robert Epstein that wrote to you, why are you using teh acronym RE: when citing me? --- It was force of habit; I have been typing RE quite a lot lately. ------------------ > <. . .> > Robert: So this view of Dawkins you evaluate as being rooted in nana-sampayuttam. In fact your enthusiasm for this wrong view is itself an expression of ditth-sampayuttam as it is impossible that someone with right view could agree with it. > ----------------- > KENH (I hope I have correctly fixed your typo.) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It Robert: has not fixed it in any way (unless you are trying to make a joke) It was perfect according to my meaning when I wrote it, now it is meaningless. ------------------ My mistake; no joke intended. ---------------------- KH: >> As we both agree, there are only namas and rupas: there are none of the sentient beings that Dawkins is talking about. So he isn't confirming or denying the Dhamma any more than you or I are when we discuss the weather. >> RK: > I see. So is it ever possible for someone who is not involved in religion to have wrongview (ditthi)? ----------------------- It depends on what you mean by "not involved in religion." If you are talking about a citta that has something other than a concept of absolute reality as its object, then I suppose, no, it is not possible. --------------------- RK: > Dawkins when he writes about a world of senseless injustise(the human and animla realm) is according to you rooted in what type of citta? --------------------- I understand "realms" to refer to ways in which the five khandhas can be conditioned to arise. Dawkins doesn't talk about that sort of thing. If he writes the way he does in a genuine attempt at helping people, then there must be some kusala cittas involved. ----------------------- RK: > Is it nana-samputtam or ditthi sampayutaam or what other type. > You accept, right, that voice or movement (as in typing) are conditioned by cittas. ----------------------- Typing is definitely not a conditioned dhamma. I don't know about "voice or movement" it depends on what you are referring to, concepts or dhammas. Ken H #111090 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:57 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > And I'm still not saying which one I think myself, as I am somewhat agnostic about things that I don't actually know. > > =============== > > J: Well, how much of what we talk about here are things we "actually know"? (Speaking for myself, not much at all ;-)) I agree. I have experienced some interesting things, but they do not form a complete picture of things at this point, and there's a lot more I haven't even winked at. Makes it kind of interesting to be rowing in the dark, talking about which way the current is going. Of course, having a map is helpful. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #111091 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:14 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: I don't think the Buddha ever said that developing mindfulness/insight could be likened to learning a conventional skill. I wouldn't call it a conventional skill, but I do think the Buddha recommended developing it through practice. I guess that's the continuing crux of our disagreement. > > =============== > "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 meditator focuses on arising realities and trains the mind to return to focus on the present moment until it becomes an established skill. > > =============== > > J: This assumes that dhammas can be selected as the object of concentration. I don't think that was the Buddha's message. I think that this is a continuing straw man, though I know you don't mean it that way. I think that one can practice something without trying to control or select dhammas. If you practice tennis, you don't control, direct or select the serves that are served to you; you just respond to whatever comes your way, and that's how the skill develops. Having the intention to pay attention does not mean that you are promoting self-view; it means that the intention is directed towards that skill. If one is open to whatever comes up within the practice, there is neither control nor some great overriding self-view leading the way, in my view. Even if you "choose" the breath as object, because you either have the inclination and/or you are following the Buddha's roadmap and that's what makes sense to your understanding, you still have to deal with whatever comes up. You don't control the breath, and you don't control how you perceive the breath, or what you perceive. I have never sat down to meditate, or sat down to dinner for that matter, and had things happen according to plan. Rather things happen according to conditions, just like you would say. :-) > To my understanding, dhammas can only be directly discerned by panna. Any attempt to focus on a dhamma as part of a practice is bound to fail, since the object would not be a dhamma but one's (imperfect) concept of what a dhamma is. Well, my radical - for around here - view is that conventional objects are okay for practice, and still develop positive qualities of concentration, mindfulness etc. But I'm obviously not as rigorous as someone who has a list of conditions that have to be met before any experience is genuine. I just don't see practice or the path in the black and white terms that such a view would dictate. I may be wrong! One day a fleeting dhamma may tap me on the head and panna may make itself known and tell me how stupid I used to be. If that happens I'll let you know. > > =============== > 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. > > =============== > > J: Here again you are assuming that the skill of kusala can be acquired by undertaking an intentional activity, i.e., something that must be akusala to begin with (hence leading to ever more akusala). I know; it's really the crux of the conflict. I don't see kusala and akusala as independent qualities that arise due to mysterious accumulations. I see them as qualities of what is happening and how it is being approached. So kusala can arise any time, and it can be related to anything. I don't think an intentional activity is akusala at all, unless it is forced or directed towards result instead of process, and I don't think that's a given. Intention is not the enemy and it isn't the twin to akusala. > > =============== > 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. > > =============== > > J: There must of course be the appreciation that what is being discussed or considered is a description of the present moment, and that it is direct understanding of present dhammas that is to be developed. > > Intellectual understanding properly so called and direct experiential panna (Pali: pariyatti and patipatti) are different degrees of the same dhamma, namely, panna cetasika. The progression from one to the other is natural, organic. This is because intellectual understanding is not just academic or theoretical knowledge of matters contained in the texts, but is an understanding at the intellectual level *of dhammas as they truly are*. I don't think that a thorough understanding of the menu will lead to the meal being served. One has to engage with the actual food and cook the meal. It's an additional endeavor not covered by intellectual understanding. How do you actually come to see dhammas? It can't just be by understanding them more and more thoroughly. A blind person can read about seeing in Braille all day long, it won't grant vision. Leaving practice out of the equation gives no sensible means for the actual seeing to develop. It seems that you expect it to pop out of thin air. > > =============== > Practice is the bridge between pariyatti and actual experience, > > =============== > > J: This is not the way the Pali term 'patipatti', usually translated as 'practice', is used in the texts, as far as I know. Can you say more about this? I don't get the bridge between pariyatti and patipatti, it seems there isn't one. > > =============== > not waiting and being as passive as possible in order to imitate the idea of anatta and turn it into an ideology. > > =============== > > J: There is no aspect of waiting or being passive in the path taught by the Buddha, just as there is no aspect of doing or being active. > > The anatta spoken of in the teachings is not an idea but is a characteristic of all dhammas. It's still an intellectual understanding until one actually looks. I think it misses a great opportunity to refrain from looking closely at the anatta and anicca that surrounds us in the conventional world, waiting to see the fleeting mystical version in another lifetime. > > =============== > > 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. > > =============== > > J: The idea of a person 'participating in conditions' is not something the Buddha ever spoke of, I'm sure ;-)) He also didn't speak of effort, intention and action happening by themselves - they are part of the 8-fold path. He gave much instruction about how the "person" would practice these things, and did not say to just read about them. The conventional path is what the Buddha taught, as well as the "Noble" level in which a more refined understanding would emerge. There is no evidence that I've seen that suggests the conventional path is separate from the Noble path, and I think it is suggested by their proximity in the teachings that skill on the conventional 8-fold path leads to the higher understanding of the Noble path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111092 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:20 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110747) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > > > > 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?" > > =============== > > J: It is practice in the sense of that word as used in the expression "the practice of medicine/the law", rather than of "violin practice". In other words, it means the actual skill itself rather something being done to help acquire/develop the skill. I understand what you are saying, but I think both usages are probably pretty common in the suttas. When Buddha says that a monk should "train himself thus" he's clearly talking about my version of practice - learning a skill. When he talks about a practice Monks should engage, such as the correct way to wear your robe or beg for food, then he's using your version. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111093 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:27 pm Subject: Re: memories of the late Ven. Dhammadharo, to Lukas. szmicio Dear Nina, Can you say more on pakkatupanissaya paccaya? > > What patthana says on akusala dhamma being object for kusala? or > > akusala dhamma condtioning akusala? > ------ > N: Natural decisive support-condiiton, pakkatupanissaya paccaya. > For example, pa~n~naa may see the akusala dhamma as just a > conditioned reality, non-self. L: Does akusala dhammma can condition kusala dhamma? Or only akusala dhamma can be an object for kusala(such as satipatthana)? Once I killed a fish, and next moment there was kusala reflection on dhamma and calm. It seems like akusala dhamma conditioned kusala dhamma. Is it still possible? Does pakkatupanissaya paccaya includes akusala dhamma conditioning kusala dhamma or only akusala brings more akusala, and kusala brings more kusala. In my opinion even akusala dhamma can condition kusala, not the same as akusala dhamma is an object for futher reflection to kusala citta. > As to akusala dhamma conditioning akusala, lobha likes lobha very > much and so there will be ever more lobha accumulated. This happens > all the time in daily life. L: Actually, here I made a typo. I shall ask akusala dhamma conditioning kusala. Best wishes Lukas #111094 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:22 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > OK, I guess we were just on different tracks, because I was thinking of watching movies that one chooses to watch. If it were the case of porn, there would be no question of anything except watching with full desire to let the objects come rushing on in, so your interesting and well explained points about guarding the sense doors were not relevant to my point, that's all. > > No problemo, thanks for having laid it out so nicely. Thanks, I just find the different levels of guarding the sense doors really interesting for some reason, so I applied it to the situation. I understand that for you - and probably me too in most cases - the other strategies may not apply. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111095 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:24 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, > J: It is practice in the sense of that word as used in the >expression "the practice of medicine/the law", rather than of "violin >practice". In other words, it means the actual skill itself rather >something being done to help acquire/develop the skill. But how does one arrive at "practice as action"? It isn't uncaused and unconditioned. Why can't there be developing of a skill, such as having kusala citta arise more often? Do you think that it happens fortuitously? I don't think that conditionality and anatta changes the fact that what we call practice, does occur. A person starts out training in the gym, and after a while of proper practice, good nutrition, necessary circumstances, s/he gets much stronger. Or a clumsy young person joins a karate club and also get a punching bag at home, and practices skill at karate - to eventually be very skillful martial artist. Of course all things here are fully conditioned. Failure and success are all conditioned and without any controller. But they DO occur. Why can't the same principle be applied to lets say anapanasati and dozens of other formal practices found in VsM? With metta, Alex #111096 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:28 pm Subject: Dhammapada or other texts recited in Thai? Help please. philofillet Hi all I've started studying Thai in anticipation of retiring in Thailand a few years down the road, and in addition to the usual kind of textbook, I would like to listen to Dhamma related Thai. I found an audio version of the 5 daily recollections on ageing, illness, death etc in Pali and Thai online, and it's great, I aleady understand the Thai to the key phrases even though I don't know how to say "my name is Phil." Could anyone provide me with either a copy of or a link to recitation of Pali Canon texts in Thai? Or how to buy? Dhammapada would be especially appreciated. Thank you very much, I guess you should contact me offlist since it will not be of interest to that many people. Metta, Phil #111097 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:32 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob E > Thanks, I just find the different levels of guarding the sense doors really interesting for some reason, so I applied it to the situation. I agree, guarding the sense doors is an incredibly important topic, absolutely essential! (Interestingly, there is one sutta that puts it before sila, and another that puts sila before it, but in any case, it is right at the beginning of the practice.) I should return to your post with the Vism references and study them in light of that, I skipped over it since it didn't apply to the situation I was talking about. Metta, Phil #111098 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:00 pm Subject: Mind is Home! bhikkhu5 Friends: My mind is my Home & best Friend: To overcome loneliness, first learn to meditate, and to live in the moment! Living like this, your mind becomes very peaceful, very calm, & very strong. Mindfulness makes you very strong. You will develop serene inner strength... I have no parents. I make heaven and earth my parents. I have no home. I make mindfulness my home. I have no life and death. I make breathing in-&-out my life and death. I have no divine power. I make honesty my divine power. I have no friends. I make my mind my friend. I have no enemy. I make carelessness my enemy. I have no sword. I make absence of ego my sword! Source: Sayadaw U Jotika from Burma. His Book: Snow in the Summer is published by DMG Books (www.dmgbooks.com) Have a nice homeless day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net My mind is my Home & Friend! #111099 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:49 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------------- > <. . .> > RE: > I am waiting for you to give a better description of what this positive characteristic is like, that has nothing in it but an absence. So far you can only say what it might be like to experience it -- like looking into the abyss, which I like quite a lot -- but unable to say what it itself *is.* Since we all understand anatta to be the absence of self or relation to self, how does that actually appear as a characteristic? > -------------- > > It's quite simple, really. Consider, for example, the characteristic of temperature that is born by the tactile rupa of that name: Temperature is experienced as . . . . . temperature, isn't it? Similarly, anatta is experienced as anatta. > > ---------------------- > RE: > I can tell you what it is like to be angry or greedy, but I cannot tell you what it is like to be no-self-ish. > ---------------------- > > I think you can. We all can to some degree. > > ---------------------- > REL > I can express anger, I can feel hardness, I can sense > motion, but I can't feel, touch or see "no-self-ness." So please illuminate how you know and understand this to be a positive experienceable characteristic, other than saying "I read it in a book." > ---------------------- > > What about that feeling of utter insignificance that people can get from gazing at a starry sky? Wouldn't that be similar to anatta? Yeah, that's a good example. That is a feeling in response to anatta. It isn't anatta. And it is also a comparison, which is what anatta is based on. I can see this isn't going to get anywhere - by the way, you still haven't defined anatta as a characteristic, just given more examples of how it can affect you. Anyway I guess when a glass is empty, that's not a comparison to it being full, it is a definite characteristic of that glass that goes with it. It's not an interpretation of the space in the glass, hm? If I mistakenly go out without any pants on, my "lack of pants" is a positive characteristic. We would say I am "pants-less" or "pants-free," but it's not really a characteristic; it's a comparative state or condition. If I have a mole on my face, that's a characteristic. If I don't have a mole, however, that is not a characteristic, except by comparison. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111100 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:36 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep I sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part I. ======== > As you can see, this response is a record for DSG. I'll therefore > probably let you have the last word if you wish. Rob: Well it would be impolite not to say anything! :-) I will say that I appreciate your effort in communicating this way. Couldn't have been easy to write all those posts! S: I appreciate your saying this and the other kind remarks made here and there. :-) Here I have taken points in amongst these 11 posts which youve replied to, some requiring clarification and some further explanation and changed the thread heading. ======== > Is this not underestimating the power of this particular kind of > panna and lack of appreciation the way in which it is developed? Rob: No it's not a lack of appreciation, it is a disagreement. Sorry that disagreeing with your point of view is seen as a "lack of appreciation." But that is only true if you are correct, and I don't think you are. S: Never mind the disagreement. But cant you appreciate that the Buddha was enlightened to the N8FP and taught this as The Way? That he practiced Jhana prior to this and judged this as *not* the way? I tried to point out how this particular kind of panna is developed gradually alongside with the development of the paramis, the process by which nowhere along the way is the other kind of development ever necessitated. The reason is that this particular kind of panna is aimed at the understanding of conditioned nature of all realities and these are all equally ephemeral and insubstantial, hence one no more or less valid an object of study than the other. This being the case, why would you think then that calm is needed? But more importantly, given that Jhana does *not* see into the conditioned nature of realities and in a way even presumes a self, would not using Jhana as a support for insight be a case of encouraging ignorance? Isnt it the other way round then, that Jhana needs to be understood with insight, because otherwise we continue to take Jhana for self? ======== Rob: I like the way you throw those things in - a big of a disparagement of the other person's point of view in the form of a Socratic question to push them towards answering in your favor. Are you a lawyer in daily life by any chance? :-) S: :-) I couldnt become a lawyer no matter how hard I try. Im the most scatter brained person I know and cannot work things on more than one level at a time. Sure Id have all the accumulations to be a real bastard, but in this particular lifetime, I couldnt be scheming and crafty even if I wanted to. Metta, Sukinder #111101 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:37 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep II sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part II. ======== > Besides in Jhana the defilements are suppressed by power of the citta > one after the other, taking on the same subject. Going along with your > theory, vipassana arising subsequent to Jhana, would not then have the > same object as did the Jhana citta and therefore the defilements at the > time, would not in fact remain suppressed. So if this is the case, what > good then was the Jhana? Do you have an alternative explanation? Rob: Yes, I don't think it works that way. The state of formations being calmed by jhana is immensely powerful and remains a peaceful setting after exiting the state, according to anyone who describes this process. The cittas that arise in this setting are still within the realm of post-jhana and it is not the same as jumping back on your bicycle, but much more focused and peaceful. In addition, you have traces of the jhana object as well as the state in memory, and so mindfulness has quite a fertile field to arise in. I don't know the technicalities, but that is my general sense of the role that jhana plays in calming formations, giving peace and equanimity, and this continues after exiting jhana and contemplating it with mindful review. S: I know that you find the idea agrreable because it makes sense to you at some level, but then you would also be rejecting some basic principles. Not knowing or even being wrong about certain technicalities is no problem, however there are some basic premises going wrong about which is not permissible. Lack of precision is not the inability to state exactly which cittas follow which ones or which cetasikas accompany the cittas, but ignoring certain important aspects of the Dhamma and preferring instead, some other theory. You talk about post-jhana and traces of the jhana object and then you say that jhana calms the formations, giving peace and equanimity, and this continues after exiting jhana and contemplating it with mindful review. First, each citta is conditioned variously including by object condition. There is only even *one* object at a time. In this regard, Jhana is jhana due to having a particular object depending on the level. But no matter which level, so called post jhana wouldnt be jhana and have some other object. Depending on the mode of contemplation of this object, there will be calm or not, this is conditioned by natural decisive support condition. Are you saying that this is what happens here, namely that by NDS condition; post-jhana necessarily arises following jhana proper? And does this mean that for example, seeing, hearing and the other sense door experiences couldnt arise since these are in fact vipaka cittas? Do you think that this is what the Suttas say? Second, what would traces of jhana object be like? Is this about other kinds of citta with their particular object interspersed with moments of jhana with its particular object? And you are suggesting that in amongst these is mindful review? But no matter what the overall picture, wouldnt this mindful review also necessarily *not* be jhana? And if not, what would the object be? Third, equanimity and calming the formations would be the function of particular cetasikas which arise *together* with the citta. How can the calm of Jhana influence any subsequent citta which is *not* itself jhana when that particular citta is conditioned in various ways by the cetasikas accompanying it? For example if this happens to be a citta rooted in aversion, how can it be that there is also calm at that moment? Metta, Sukinder #111102 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:37 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep III sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part III. ========= > As far as I'm concerned, the panna which is the N8FP can and *must* be > developed from the very beginning without ever shying away from any > akusala dhamma that happen to arise. Rob: Have you experienced any gaps so far, or has it been 100%? S: :-) 100% of ignorance is more like it. The gaps would be the very occasional instances of other levels of kusala with some suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna here and there. The point I was making is not that we should be mindful all the time, but not to think that certain dhammas are more easy than others to be mindful of or that one situation is better than another. ======== > There is of course some minimum required before patipatti can > begin to arise occasionally and when this begins to happen, then sure > the two levels of understanding support each other. But even an ariyan > would need to continue listening on and on and this itself is evidence > of the value of listening. Rob: It is necessary, but in most cases not sufficient. S: The position is this: Listening, considering and discussing the Dhamma is most valuable. Patipatti can arise at any time including when reading and discussing. So while there must sometimes be thoughts such as going to listen or discuss the Dhamma, thoughts about going to practice must necessarily be wrong. You think the way you do because you have separated pariyatti and patipatti in a way which shows a misunderstanding of what these really are and what their relationship is. Of course pariyatti is not patipatti and without the latter there cant be pativedha. However it is never correct to think along the lines such as to limit pariyatti and preferring instead to practice, especially when given the understanding that patipatti can be conditioned to arise at any time whatsoever. Metta, Sukinder #111103 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:37 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep IV sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part IV. ========== > There can be wholesome interest in listening to the Dhamma and > discussing it, but the same can't apply to any idea about meditation. Rob: Of course it can! This is what I'm talking about. I have said over and over that this is just prejudice and you can't say anything to back up this statement except that the idea of "practice" necessarily entails self-view and control. Not true! S: Hearing the Dhamma is vipaka, understanding it would be kusala arising due to accumulations. This conditions an interest in hearing more and so it is natural that thered be associated intentions to listen, read and discuss. But listening is not hearing and hearing does not guarantee understanding. Without intending to open a book or tape or to be engaged in discussions however, there wont be any listening. But if we intend to listen, believing that the act will lead to understanding, this is wrong view, since we forget at such times, that understanding (pariyatti) arises only by conditions beyond control. Besides none of this is a denial of the possibility of understanding of any level arising at other times. Now just as pariyatti cant be made to arise so is the case with patipatti. And even though pariyatti is linked with hearing, one needs to keep in mind that there is wise and unwise attention and also distinguish cause from result. In this case even though there may be some right motivation to read and discuss, it is accepted that wrong view may arise at any time. However when it comes to meditation, the motivation itself must be wrong given that there is the assumption of the particular conventional activity as being more useful. This being the case one cant expect then to know any wrong view which may intermittently arise, since the initial wrong view is not even recognized as such. What according to you is the causal relationship between the activity of meditation and the arising of patipatti? ======== Rob: There is no other time and place in meditation. S: You mean you do not even conceive of the idea but that by conditions you suddenly find yourself, sitting crossed legged, taking breath as object for an extended period of time? Metta, Sukinder #111104 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:38 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep V sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part V. ======== > Suk: Even if you gave yourself 10 minutes a day for meditation and spent > say, 9 hours in discussions, this would still indicate lack of Right > Understanding. Rob: In "your view." In "my view" the opposite is true, so I agree that one of us is deluded about this, but surprisingly, I think it's you! :-) S: Yes one or both of us is deluded, but both cant be right given that we are attempting to represent the One Path as taught by the Buddha. But you sometimes suggest that we are both right in our way, and this to me is equal to admitting that you are indeed deluded!! ;-) ========= Rob: And you take your "idea of the Path" for "the Path itself." Have fun eating the menu! S: And you are identifying something as reading and eating the menu what isnt. Not being able to distinguish between the acts of reading, listening and any acquiring of information from the fact of understanding or misunderstanding based on accumulations; you have thrown out the baby with the bath water. =========== Rob: Did you know that breathing takes place at every moment with rare exceptions? It is actual. S: Is this the kind of information got from meditation and are you trying to impress someone with this? This actually explains a lot. The knowledge and understanding sought and got in meditation is not about conditioned nama and rupa. There is hence a sense of achievement in having come to discover such things as in the above example, when in fact Right Understanding would know to distinguish between reality and concept and not therefore be taken in by the latter. You talked earlier about the need for good doubt and now I think I know where you are coming from. You were talking in terms of conventional knowledge, the kind which believe me, I am ever ready to question any preconceived ideas about. I dont usually place much weight in my own knowledge about things and so Ill believe almost anyone about anything. If you told me that there are 67 planets in the solar system, Id have absolutely no reason not to believe you. However if you were to say for example, that consciousness is result of chemical reactions in the brain, this I wont believe. And if it happens to be that I doubt myself as a result of hearing your ideas, Id understand this to be exactly due to wrong view on my part. So do you see now, why Im so adamant when faced with what you say about Dhamma practice? Metta, Sukinder #111105 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:38 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep VI sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part VI. ======== > Samvega or sense of urgency is the function of panna. And this panna > would not move away from the dhamma 'now' into ideas about time, place, > posture and some idealized object such as the breath. Rob: Your characterization of meditation as "ideas about time...etc.," is your own prejudiced illusion about the reality of meditation. It comes directly out of your philosophy. As Hamlet once said to Horatio "There are more things between Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The reality of meditation is "now," not "ideas about time." In fact the idea that meditation is about something in the future is the silliest thing I ever heard. It is an actual experience of now, rather than just thinking and chatting about it while lost in a whirl of concepts. S: You are not differentiating between the statements, about meditation from the activity of meditation. I am objecting to the concept of meditation which means that it is an idea conceived prior to the time when actually being engaged in the activity. This thinking about is what I am stating as being about the future. But of course the very act itself must consequently also involve thoughts about future, although here thinking about the past will happen even more. ========= > Sorry about that, but yours is no sense of urgency. ;-) Rob: Sorry about it too, but sitting around feeling certain about intellectual ideas does not sound like someone running out of a "house on fire" to me! Maybe you should inspect the actual arrow of samsara rather than read a complex medical manual about "wounds caused by arrows." Hm...where is diagram 3b? S: The Middle Way is very narrow and subtle and we all must move along very slowly. To one busy and hastily moving in the wrong direction, the perception of one who inches forward while trying to stay balanced on this narrow path, would appear as sitting around feeling certain. And what has happened in their own case is seeing smoke, running away in panic and jumping into a worse kind of fire. ;-) Many meditators think that they are practicing to remain still and not being tempted to react to any sensory input. But the truth is that they are in fact very agitated as is manifested in the need to practice / meditate, having never experienced the Middle Way. Metta, Sukinder #111106 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:38 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep VII sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part VII. ======== > Third, you can always bring up ideas by any of these > teachers and traditions to argue and prove me wrong. Rob: I, in my stupidity, accept the idea that various teachers have good and viable ways of practicing Dhamma. I don't believe there is one right way of experiencing the 8 NP. S: Youd need to correct all this, and see that the N8FP is about the development of wisdom aimed at better and better understanding conditioned realities. This means that it begins with the reality vs. concept distinction which is stressed only by very few people while others talk about study and practice in a way which involves taking conventional realities and activities seriously. So I dont think that you can say for example, that both you and I are rightly practicing the N8FP! ========= Rob: I think that people have different points of emphasis in a given lifetime. It may be that you are meant to read and study Dhamma this lifetime, but next lifetime will be all about jhana. S: What is the basis for such a conclusion? ========= Rob: At any time, each of us has something that conditions have given us to work on. I don't presume that others' approaches are wrong unless they directly contradict the Buddha's basic teachings. Buddha described those who study samatha and then vipassana later, the reverse and those who experience both together. He left a lot of room for different temperaments to work out the path in different ways. You should not be so dogmatic and so set in your ways that you are instantly dismissive of everyone else who is doing the Buddha's work. S: For any and everybody, no matter what temperament and whether they are practicing samatha with varying subjects or they are not, the goal is understanding the nama or rupa which appears now. If anyone objects to this and insists upon such things as, I need to develop sila or samatha or jhana first, however much saddha he claims to possess, in reality this reflects very little saddha about the Path. Metta, Sukinder #111107 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:39 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep VIII sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part VIII. ========== > Why don't you just do this instead of passing judgements such as the > above? There is nothing to be proud of ever, although sometimes there > may be some attachment to the idea of having some level of right > understanding. Rob: Or thinking we do. We should never be attached to our own view, or we will not learn anything new. Insight is defined as being an understanding that one has not had before, so there is still much to learn. S: Right Understanding could be said to coming to have a better picture about reality and this is got through the development of the N8FP. This is about now from beginning to end. What other object of study do you expect someone to have? Is it not that the ideas put forward by you and others encourage the study of concepts? ========= > Suk: How do you know that some kind of self-assessment doesn't happen in > a day including while arguing here? Are you perhaps seeking an > acknowledgement on our part that you are right and that we are wrong? > But how can you expect this to happen when the perception arises each > time, of you and everyone else being wrong? Rob: We have to challenge our own perceptions, based on the idea that most of them will be deluded. I don't dismiss your path. I think that understanding Dhamma is very important. I just don't appreciate having my path dismissed. I have room for both. You don't appear to. That is the definition of dogmatic, when you think that note for note you are right and everyone else is necessarily wrong. S: And you are right about that!! ;-) You remind me of followers of the Sikh religion. They assert that all paths / religion are equally good and lead ultimately to the same goal. This automatically places their religion in a position where others cant judge it as wrong, ever. ========= > Suk: You've got it all backwards. Understanding the three > characteristics is the end result of an extremely long road of > development beginning with pariyatti. It's like you've not even begun to > understand the Dhamma! Rob: Your approach is backwards to me. Read and discuss for a few thousand lifetimes, before you open your eyes. That is absurd. S: Well surely the Dhamma Eye opens only at Stream Entry? But thats so long that yes, many lifetimes would go away when only suttamaya panna will happen. But better this than to get it all wrong and follow the wrong path. To expect quick results, this is absurd. To think that Bhavanamaya panna will arise as a result of a decision to meditate, this is even more so. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #111108 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:39 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep IX sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part IX. ========= > (not referring to conceit here), which when actualize each time what it conceives > of, becomes more bloated. Your "now" *is* a conceiving about the future, Rob: What makes you say that? How would you know that? Wghy would you think that? Why have a strong opinion about someone else's experience? S: Would you need to judge someone who experiences say, god consciousness only after going into detail about his experiences? Luckily this is all about right understanding and not experiencing. Wrong view is the one that is being addressed and so we dont need to go through all the trouble of finding out all about the other persons experiences. And what would you use to judge anyones experience after getting all the information needed? ========= > since it involves some kind of 'doing'. Rob: That is your conceptual formula. I think it's nonsense that any form of doing is the result of self-view. S: Only those associated with the idea of development of wholesome qualities, particularly Right Understanding. Dhammas are conditioned and beyond control, therefore any doing in this regard would be going against this particular understanding. The idea of setting up conditions is a denial of such an understanding in that even such thinking is conditioned already, and clearly without any prior plan to set up conditions. ========= > The only real "now" is that which appears at this very moment and any > Right Understanding of this would be of it as having already fallen away. Rob: We don't actually experience that, do we? So it's just a story for you. Practice actually develops the capacity to see more clearly, rather than just spin ideas about it. S: We *understand* that on levels depending on conditions. That you talk about experiencing instead of the development of understanding indicates lack of appreciation of need for much development at the level of suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna. Your assertion therefore of practice developing the capacity to see more clearly therefore has little merit. ======== > But you and others keep encouraging one another to instead go along with > own ideas projected. Take for example the idea of "letting go", any fool > will have his own idea as to what this is. Rob: Only someone stuck in concepts will fail to understand letting go. it is when something is no longer an object of clinging or craving and one no longer grasps after it. S: And how would I know this if this hasnt happened yet to any degree? Would not jumping at the idea be exactly an expression of the opposite? Metta, Sukinder #111109 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:40 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep X sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part X. ======== > Your asserting this here is > therefore a case of encouraging me to go along with the perverted > understanding that I may have. Is this not encouraging more ignorance, > attachment and wrong understanding and a case of one blind leading > another blind? Rob: I don't know. I believe in a bit of common sense. Letting go is letting go. S: You *should know* that this could only be the result of the arising of Right Understanding and that the object at the time is the present moment. So just saying let go without understanding is recipe for delusion. ======== > Suk: Rright! I and others have always admitted to having only an > intellectual understanding, but you are claiming to have direct > understanding Rob: Uh...no I'm not. I'm just claiming that meditation creates conditions for understanding and trains more sati and samatha. But no direct seeing, that's too much. S: And how would you know what those conditions are exactly? ======== > Robert: > There is no thought of the future but only the experience of now. > > Suk: Now is now. This has nothing to do with trying to be present, the > determining factor being the arising of panna of some level to know > something about the present moment, and is quite opposed to being > involved in ideas about past and future. So apparently this is all about > gradual development of understanding, again beginning with pariyatti. In > this comes the idea of saccannana, which is firm intellectual > understanding about the 4 NTs. This manifest as not moving away from > this present reality whatever it is, knowing that this is the object > that must be studied. It is the kind of understanding which leads to > satipatthana arising more often. Rob: Well nothing wrong with developing that in meditation, as far as I'm concerned. S: What is the difference then and why must you even think in terms of time for meditation and not? Metta, Sukinder #111110 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:40 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep XI sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part XI. ======== > Suk: But it is alright for you to go on to defend other meditaters even > though you have no more information about them than I do? But let's just > talk about you then. Rob: Really I am defending meditation as a practice, not "all meditators." I just don't think you know that they are "all wrong." S: And when I criticize meditation as a practice you say that I should get information from each individual meditator before doing so. ;-) ======== > Why is it that the mindfulness which arises during your meditation > practice, this can't arise now while reading and discussing? Rob: If it does that is great. I accept Dhamma study and discussion as extremely important. I never denied their importance. I just don't think they are usually sufficient to give someone an actual experience of what is being read and studied. S: Im not arguing about study vs. practice. Im talking about the conditioned arising of panna at the level of patipatti. Im asking why someone for whom such level of understanding has arisen during meditation, that the same couldnt arise at any other time. What is the difference in the conditions? ======== > > S: If there is an idea of a self who is reading / discussing in order > that panna will arise at some point, sure this can condition an illusion > of result. Rob: Then why indicate meditation as a wrong activity? Why not just talk about the problem of self-view in all our activities? S: Because we do what we do according to accumulations. Development of understanding could be said to be a process of coming to know our accumulations. An interest in the Dhamma can lead to reading and discussing the Dhamma and not being interested will not. Being led to any akusala activity is not a hindrance as this could be the object of right view which understands that such is conditioned already. Meditation on the other hand is based on the assumption that certain situations are not suitable for the development of mindfulness and understanding and projects into the future a better situation. Therefore instead of coming to understand who we are, we come to be fooled by illusions of result. Its therefore a case of wrong view leading to more wrong view and never coming to understand our own accumulations. Metta, Sukinder #111111 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:40 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep XII sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part XII. ======== > Robert: > Well one needs to look and see if they know what that means, not just > say the words. > > Suk: It looks like you believe that for those of us who don't meditate, > sati can't arise during everyday activities and what we end up with is > just 'talk'. Rob: If it does arise, that is good. I think meditation maximizes such possibility. If you talk about that, I will certainly accept it. But it seems that everyone is content to argue doctrine and criticize views that are not in one's own dogma. S: Well, it is your view that meditation maximizes the possibility of sati arising, so youll need to say something to back this up, otherwise Ill only continue to judge this as product of wrong view. ======== > But remember, there is only the present moment, and this is > the background understanding from which direct study can ever arise. Rob: That is true, and that is also good. S: Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all conform to each other, meaning theyd all come to the same conclusion about there being only the present moment. Do you agree wholeheartedly with this? ======== > Robert: > Have you ever seen the present moment as it actually is, or is it just a > concept? If the latter, what makes you think you know what you are > talking about? > > Suk: And the reason for your questioning my understanding is because I > don't see the need to meditate....? Rob: No, because I don't accept that doctrine is the same as understanding. I would love to hear you talk about your own understanding, rather than make general statements about what is right and what is wrong on some conceptual level. S: I *am* talking about my own understanding, but perhaps you mean experience? And how would you know if someone is talking from direct understanding anyway, after all what hed say would be what the texts say wouldnt it? ======== > Suk: So in your meditation you have yet to come to experience dhammas > and understand that in fact at any given moment there are only > paramattha dhammas rising and falling away, each equally fleeting, > insubstantial and non self, because otherwise you wouldn't have a > problem with so called 'chatter'. Rob: I mean outside chatter, but of course whatever arises is fine. S: Yes, because whatever that may be, all are equally fleeting and insubstantial. Metta, Sukinder #111112 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:41 pm Subject: Response to Robert Ep XIII sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part XIII. ========= > But wouldn't it take wisdom to recognize wisdom? And could I make > wisdom arise by wanting to have it and wishing? Rob: I think Phil said recently that there is good wanting of wisdom that is kusala... S: Im almost a month and a half behind in my reading now, so I havent read the conversation. But as far as Im concerned Phils statement could very well be a case of an expression of wrong view and wishing what he says to be true. ;-) ======== > Robert: > When you open your eyes, you don't see "dhammas," you see objects, > bodies, familiar things that you are attached to. Instead of going back > to concepts, see your own attachment and clinging and start to discern > that with sati so that there is some chance to let go. > > Suk: If I fail for the reason you state when it comes to such things as > seeing and visible object, how can you expect me to succeed when it > comes to 'attachment and clinging' and how could I be certain that it is > in fact sati that is involved? Rob: I don't know. To me, it's just a question of doing what we can and keep developing. S: Or recognizing that such are instances of attachment and wrong view and hence not following its dictates. ;-) Whew. I keep breaking my own records, but at least Ill be remembered for this. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #111113 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:58 pm Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > It would be interesting to find out what you mean in point 1, when you say > "there is no..." (it doesn't matter what you apply it to, I'm more > interested in the reality of not-being). What does it mean, to you, that you > there is no x, while still being able to refer to it ? Two possibilities: a/ What is perceived as x is actually y. [Misidentification] eg, what appears as a continuously present body is really a series of momentary arising dhammas, misidentified. b/ What is perceived as x is actually not-x. [Hallucination] eg, what appears to be a present body is actually not there - it is an image only, produced by the mind, without any real substance. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #111114 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment sarahprocter... Hi Ari, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "a_true_lotus" wrote: > 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. ... S: Thanks for sharing your experiences. I agree with what you write....leaving behind the past, not dwelling on the future and most importantly, understanding the present experiences, the present dhammas as anatta - not Ari's experiences, not anyone's. Metta Sarah ====== #111115 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > you both have my sympathies with regards to daily life :-) .... S: It's just the dust - the lobha, dosa and moha - that cause the daily life difficulties. Without that, it'd all be plain sailing without any need for any sympathy:-) Metta Sarah ====== #111116 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >K: 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. > >R: What about what the suttas actually say? ..... S: There are several suttas in AN which also stress that right understanding is the leader - that the other path factors depend on it. I don't have my books with me, but here's a passage I've quoted before from AN 10s, 115: " 'Your reverences, wrong view is not-dhamma, right view is dhamma; and those divers evil, unprofitable states that come to be because of wrong view, that is not-aim; whereas those divers, good, profitable states, due to right view, which come to fullness of culture, this is the aim......Right release, your reverences, is dhamma, and those divers good, profitable states, due to right release, which come to fullness of culture, that is the aim.'" Also, there is the sutta about the bitter nimb-seed in AN 10s, 104, "The seed": " 'Monks, for a man, a person, who has wrong view, wrong thinking, speech, action, living, effort, mindfulness, concentration, wrong knowledge and wrong release, whatsoever bodily action is carried to completion and fulfilment according to that view, whatsoever action of speech, of mind, whatsoever intention, aspriration, resolve, whatsoever activities of mind (directed thereto) there may be - all of those states conduce to what is unpleasant, not delightful, not charming, not profitable, to what is painful. What is the cause of that? Monks, the view is bad. " 'Suppose, monks, a nimb-seed or a seed of creeper or bitter gourd be planted in moist soil. Whatever essence it derives from earth or water, all that conduces to its bitterness, its acridity, its unpleasant taste. What is the cause of that? The bad nature of the seed, monks.'" S: Of course, the reverse is true and pointed out, for one with right view, right thinking, speech, action, living, effort, mindfulness concentration, right knowledge and right release follow. Metta Sarah ========== #111117 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) sarahprocter... Hi Antony, Thanks for sharing another good sutta on the topic of useless questions revolving around self-view. The more there is an understanding of dhammas, the less concern there is about "me" in the past, future or present. Wouldn't you agree? Please share any more you find relevant to our discussion. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I found the companion sutta to Majjhima 2 as Majjhima 38: > > "Good, Bhikkhus! You say this and I also say it. Thus when this is present, that happens. When this arises, that arise. That is, because of ignorance, [volitional] formations arise. Because of [volitional] formations, consciousness arises. Because of consciousness, name and form arise. Because of name and form, the sixfold sense base arises. Because of the sixfold sense base, contact arises. Because of contact, feelings arise. Because of feelings, craving arises. Because of craving, clinging arises. Because of clinging, becoming arises. Because of becoming, birth arises. Because of birth, old age, sickness, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress arise. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha. > > "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir." > http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm ========= #111118 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:17 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Phil & all, I'd like to go through these comments slowly - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >P:Interesting. But can't it be assumed that we are feeding a >hindrance when watching those movies? > > This is what I am thinking as well. It appears that the more I watch, the more hindrances are there. .... S: Yes, the hindrances "are there", but this misses the point. The point is that just as at this moment, the seeing, the thinking, the wise/unwise attention is conditioned, so it is whilst watching "those" movies or at any other time. Just as now, it's impossible to make seeing arise/not arise or to see/not see any particular visible object, so it is at any other time. Just as now, it's impossible to make the thinking arise/not arise or to think about any object in particular, so it is at any other time. All such dhammas, now or whilst meditating or whilst watching those movies are conditioned. The path is about understanding what has been conditioned already at this moment, not about trying to change what has been conditioned already. This is what is meant by dhammas being anatta, not subject to anyone's control or mastery. .... > >P:If one accumulates moments of lust (for sex, violence, whatever) >while watching those movies, can a reflectin "this is seeing, this >is visible object, this is anatta" be of any possible value? > > This is what I am concerned, accumulating more unwholesome things. .... S: I understand. No one wants to accumulate "more unwholesome things". These accumulations are very dangerous as you both point out. It's not a matter of repeating like a parrot "this is seeing...." and so on, but at that moment of thinking with strong lust, that accumulation has to be known then and there. The same applies to any other accumulations. This is why the path takes a lot of courage - to face up to our defilements, to see how very ugly they are - when they arise. We may lead very seemingly harmless lives for a long while - in the forest, away from people and computers, for example - but sooner or later the ugly accumulations have to appear and be known. This is why I made the comment to Pt and Herman about not measuring a person's understanding by the outward appearances or apparent changes in character. We don't know when the deep latent anusayas will, so to speak "bubble up" and condition strong akusala in this life or another lifetime to come. This is why the path always comes back to the understanding of dhammas, to the eradication of ignorance. This means seeing whatever has been conditioned, however much lobha would like it to be something else. .... > >Isn't it just justification for accumulating harmful behaviour? > >Why don't we go all the way and turn the kung fu movie into a porn >movie. I wonder if you would go so far as to justify watching porn? >If porn is part of the path, it is good news for me, I am developing >the path. ..... S: No, understanding what has arisen is not a "justification for accumulating harmful behaviour". It's a facing-up to the truth, an "acknowledgement", an honesty about the present accumulations. Sacca-~nana - being truthful to this very moment. Just as when someone's angry, they may follow any kind of helpful conventional steps not to shout out, such as counting breaths, taking a break, so you might turn off the TV, go for a walk or close down the computer. However, at each moment during any of these activities, there are conditioned dhammas and the path is about understanding these for what they are, not about finding the best breath-control method for avoiding defilements. Why? Because dhammas are anatta and understanding them as such is the only way out. .... > Unfortunately I think that I have a bigger problem. These video clips on Youtube are violent, bloody and aggressive. I don't think that porn is as bad as this "art". I got so much kilesas... ... S: Not just you....same for all. Lobha, dosa and moha arising in different circumstances according to conditions. I understand the fear of such kilesas, but understanding them as well as all other kinds of dhammas as anatta, regardless of what activity follows is the only way. The Buddha never said it was easy. Like Herman, you and everyone else with such very "dusty" accumulations has my sympathy. At least you're acknowledging the problem - the very strong, deep-seated lobha. .... > The few positive things that I've learned from this: > a) Sense restraint is a must. But some here may say that it is a practice that reinforces the Self. > > b) Since some of these clips are from 80s, checking them now and then gives additional thought about aging and impermanence. .... S: Whatever we do, whatever we think, whatever reflections arise, do so by conditions. Just as there is not greed and anger all the time, there cannot be wise reflection and right understanding all the time. Patience and courage! And now? No violent or porn movies as you read here now. The past is all gone. What about this moment? Life is just at this very moment of seeing now. Metta Sarah ========= #111119 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex and Phil) - In a message dated 10/26/2010 12:17:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Just as now, it's impossible to make the thinking arise/not arise or to think about any object in particular, so it is at any other time. =================================== It is possible to intentionally discontinue a line of thought, and doing so is part of what the Buddha called "right effort." With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111120 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi pt, KenH, Jon and all, On 25 October 2010 19:37, ptaus1 wrote: > > <...> > pt: Ok, perhaps I should have been clearer. Sure there is intention all the > time. And desire for results. This intention (or desire for that matter) can > be either kusala (chanda) or akusala (lobha). So, the fact that there is > intention (as well as desire, etc) is not under dispute. What's under > dispute is my ability to tell the difference between the two. > My question at Manly was how it is even possible to know a/kusala presently, because a/kasula is defined in terms of future result. I think it was KenH and Jon who answered, and I must not have understood their answers, because I still don't understand how a/kusala can be known presently. If I'm able to tell the difference between the two as they are happening, > then that's great, because that would mean I'd be able to develop kusala as > it happens (samatha bhavana in this case). But, if I can't tell the > difference, then I'm most probably engaging in akusala meditation, because > (if you remember our recent discussion on this topic) one of the > prerequisites for successful samatha development is knowing the difference > between aksuala and kusala states in real time as they happen. > > I think I can't really tell the difference between a/kusala. Hence my > conclusion that my desires are mostly akusala, and therefore, I'm driven by > a mistaken view that dhammas can be controlled, etc. > I think the notion of control is a particular dsg red herring. I doubt very much that you or anyone else here is incapable of learning or unlearning. There are, of course, things that are just not learnable or unlearnable, and it is therefore useful to determine, before embarking on some epic journey of self-modification, firstly whether the destination actually exists, and whether it is possible to get there by the means you propose to employ :-) > So, my meditation is mostly akusala, not kusala. > If you feel your meditation does not deliver, it may be because your expectations are unrealistic? Or your method? > So, since I can't really tell the difference between a/kusala, then I > probably shouldn't be trying to develop samatha bhavana, since I'm most > likely just developing akusala, not kusala. In other words, my understanding > and abilities are nowhere near those monks that the Buddha actually > encouraged to meditate. > > > Herman: You seem to have an upfront higher valuation for samsara being > interrupted by spontaneous moments of sati, calm etc, than for sati, calm > etc being interrupted by moments of samsara. > > pt: For reasons explained above, I think that I'm just not at that level > where I could have long uninterrupted periods of sati, calm, etc. > OK. > Hence, the importance of spontaneous arising of sati and other kusala > factors becomes valuable. An added bonus is that the spontaneously arisen > kusala factors are, well, kusala, in the sense that they are not disguised > akusala (remember the expression cheating dhammas) - like when I try to > arouse kusala trhough meditation, which is really just akusala in the first > place, so I'm basically just fooling myself. > I would think that the problem of identifying a/kusala does not vanish through lack of intentionality. From my own experience, though, sati and calm are the antithesis of discursive thinking. If you spend the majority of the day feeding your thinking monster, it would be unrealistic to expect that monster to vanish on demand, if only for a minute. For example, I couldn't think of anything more likely to prevent sati and calm, than wading through and processing dhamma texts on a regular basis. It's not so much a matter of being at a particular level, but of what one does. If you prefer to ponder over the Dhamma rather than meditate, that is fine, but you can't have your chocolate cake and eat it :-) > P.S. Herman, I'll address the other interesting bit of your reply in > another post because it reminded me of something we discussed in Manly, and > I think it deserves a thread on its own. Apologies for being late with > replies. > > There are no deadlines here, so no worries about lateness, and look forward to your other posts. Cheers Herman #111121 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? egberdina Hi Nina, On 25 October 2010 19:54, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > <...> > N: I discussed this again with Lodewijk who also dislikes such > statements. He feels that this is not well formulated, perhaps mixing > conventional ways of expression with ultimate realities. > He says: what we take for an individu is constituted by elements. > But it takes long to really understand this, I know. So long as we > are not sotaapannas, you know that we still cling to self. > But this is certainly not pleasant to hear: there is no person. For > you and I: lobha takes over. By conditions. There were so many lives > in the past with ignorance. > In MN28, there is, in relation to the elements, the repeated phrase "Whatever internal, belonging to oneself". In your book The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena, you render this as "...internal, referable to an individual or derived therefrom". I do not understand how you can refer elements to an individual, and yet deny the individual. Could you please explain? Cheers Herman #111122 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:36 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 rjkjp1 Dear Kenh I am starting to warm to this topic now, I will try to continue and address any points you felt I missed - in your comment to Howard- over the next few posts. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > . > > --------------------- > RK: > Dawkins ,when he writes about a world of senseless injustise(the human and animal realm) according to you has waht type of citta? > --------------------- > Kenh: I understand "realms" to refer to ways in which the five khandhas can be conditioned to arise. Dawkins doesn't talk about that sort of thing. If he writes the way he does in a genuine attempt at helping people, then there must be some kusala cittas involved. Typing is definitely not a conditioned dhamma. I don't know about "voice or movement" it depends on what you are referring to, concepts or dhammas. ____________ Robert: We dont need to be pedantic when discussing Dhamma. Obviously I could have said "what cittas conditioned kaya vinnati that moved the kalapas in what is conventionally caused a finger to push down on the rupas in what is conventioanlly called a keyboard at the time that the stream of arising and ceasing namaa and rupas called Dawkins explained his views." But that is unneccesary. Concepts like human, or typing or dawkins or wife or father are designations. They are not, as you claim in an earlier post, metaphors . They designate particular streams of nama and rupa or certain actions. These concepts, are absolutely necessary to talk about Dhamma and if one is misunderstanding this it is clearly because there is no understand ing of Dhamma, dhamma, elements or concepts. You think that Dawkins-assuming he was trying to help or educate people- when he made his statement that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, andyou won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) was having kusala citta and you see no ditthi underlying this view because as in your reply: {RK: > I see. So is it ever possible for someone who is not involved in religion to have wrongview (ditthi)?} KEN: If you are talking about a citta that has something other than a concept of absolute reality as its object, then I suppose, no, it is not possible. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert: So you believe Dawkins had no wrong view . Well this is very wrong, in fact it is evident that wrong view is the dominant force in Dawkin's writings. The same applies to these similar beliefs that you you also find appealing: Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) Futuyma : "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). Now you have explained why you like the above explanations: 1. they were motivated by kusala citta (in your estimation) due to the wish of the writers to help people. No ditthi evident anywhere. 2. KenH:""Therefore, a Buddhist in conventional life would be someone who behaved sensibly and rationally. He would subscribe to the best possible conventional sciences available to him. In that way, his conventional life would be a shadow (or metaphor) of his ultimate reality - citta with panna. "" Hence , the wise Buddhist would most certainly endorse dawkins and Monod (as you see it) Otherwise they might look like those silly Christians: Kenh : ""We don't want Buddhists behaving like those Creationists who are dishonestly and deviously sabotaging their counties' education systems. Similarly, our *behaviour* in the conventional world is a shadow of our ultimate behaviour. Therefore, I would like to behave sensibly and rationally in compliance with the best conventional sciences available. I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views."" Tell me, are these Christians when they promote a Christian worldview motivated by kusala or akusala . I would say it is purely wrongview-ditthi underlying it. But I am interested in how you see it. Robert #111123 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:10 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - feeling of anatta rjkjp1 > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > ---------------------- > > RE: > I can tell you what it is like to be angry or greedy, but I cannot tell you what it is like to be no-self-ish. > > ---------------------- > > KENHOWARD: I think you can. We all can to some degree. What about that feeling of utter insignificance that people can get from gazing at a starry sky? Wouldn't that be similar to anatta? > ++++++++++++++ Dear Ken I don't see how that could be considered similar to anatta.. robert #111124 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:16 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma/concepts realities rjkjp1 Dear Robert Epstein. Yes I think you have outlined nicely the difference between Ken and myself on the matter of cocepts and realities. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Rob, I really like your sensible explanation above of the relation between the conceptual level of identification of dhammas and the paramatha level, where the dhammas are seen and understood as they actually exist. The very understandable idea that the conceptual appearances of familiar people and objects are the "shadows" or conceptual representations of ultimate realities gives one a kind of connection to the ultimate level, even though it is currently unseen as it is, that one can work from. One can look at the components of a body and see that it is made up of multiple appearances of rupas, and sort of piece together what the shadow-world is identifying out of the components of the "real world." > > Ken H. seems to have a very different philosophy than this one, one in which the conceptual appearances of people and things are pure halllucinations, with absolutely no relation at all to the actual dhammas that are arising and falling away. In this way of looking at it, one would have no clue from normal perception as to what the real rupas are like, or how real namas apprehend them. It is a sort of totally shrouded mystery that can only be suddenly grasped when all the right conditions come together, and those only through unpredictable accumulations of past conditions. > > Your view, and apparently that of the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that there is a relation between concept and reality, and that is this shadow relation in which concepts give a distorted hint at what the real dhammas are like. In your view, as I understand it, the differences between one conceptually-derived person and another can be understood by virtue of different namas and rupas that arise to correspond to different people. That actually makes sense, which is nice. In Ken H.'s version, the reality of dhammas is totally obscured, other than through theoretical understanding, until direct seeing becomes possible. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ======================== > #111125 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:29 am Subject: Re: science vs dhammakammavipaka rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" I think the three suttas you have quoted would be suitable for monks with well developed panna. Anyone else could get horribly confused. They might be tempted to believe that conventional things could be the objects vipakka citta, and that conventional activities could be kamma. They might even think some animals deserved to be burnt to death, and some women deserved to be thrown overboard. > > Therefore, I think those suttas should be treated with extreme caution. They shouldn't be shown to beginners ++++++++++++ Dear KenH I think you haven't understood these stories at all. What makes you say that anyone - I mean someone who is not a monk with well-developed panna- "might even think that some animals deserve to be burnt to death and some women deserved to be thrown overboard" Here is the translation of the Pali again: ""The Buddha answer to the first group: "Bhikkhus, once there was a farmer who had an ox. The ox was very lazy and also very stubborn. It could not be coaxed to do any work; it would lie down chewing the cud or else go to sleep. The farmer lost his temper many times on account of this lazy, stubborn animal; so in anger he tied a straw rope round the neck of the ox and set fire to it, and the ox died.On account of this evil deed the, farmer had suffered for a long time in niraya. and in serving out the remaining part of his punishment, he had been burnt to death in the last seven existences." Is not this story showing the terrible consequences of akusala: the farmer had akusala citta, he then killed the ox and was reborn in hell and then in later existences was burned to death. These painful feelings and being born as animal and in hell were the vipaka of killing. I really don't see how even the most uniformed person could get the idea from that story that it is ok to burn animals. I used to tell this story to my children from when they were about 3 or 4 and they loved it and certainly understood the implications about doing akusala kamma , even without much Abhidhamma knowledge. But then , as you said to Howard, you and me have very different ideas about Dhamma. Robert #111126 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:12 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Sarah Sarah: We don't know when the deep latent anusayas will, so to speak "bubble up" and condition strong akusala in this life or another lifetime to come. Ph: So what? This has nothing to do with my intention to avoid bad behaviour. > This is why the path always comes back to the understanding of dhammas, to the eradication of ignorance. This means seeing whatever has been conditioned, however much lobha would like it to be something else. Ph: Yes, but my contention is that you folks are probably fooling yourselves if you believe that your thinking with attachment about deep teachings is anything other than thinking about deep teachings with attachment. As long as you are free from committing a lot of akusala kamma patha, no harm done, and indeed your thinking about deep teachings may help to condition actual understanding. But if you are a student of A.S who is prone to committing akusala kamma patha (and only you know who you are, since students of A.S seem to be completely disinclined to share bad behaviour in the confessional way recommended by the Buddha to Rahula) you are in a very dangerous situation, because you are perhaps believing that your thinking that what behaviour has arisen is conditioned etc somehow bears import. I used to do that a lot. I'd sit in the midst of bad behaviour, and think "this is conditioned, there is an accumulated tendency to do this" and there would be the delusionary belief that that reflection had import. It didn't. It was fiddling while Rome burned, if you will. Well, Sarah, we will never agree on this point, and that's fine. Metta, Phil #111127 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas egberdina Hi Howard, On 25 October 2010 22:58, wrote: > What sort of operation can involve no change??? > > For example, what sa~n~na (i.e., perceiving/recognition/recollection) > occurs without mental change? > These are questions that I deem important, not so much in the content > of the answers, although I find that very interesting, but more so in the > significance of their being unanswerable if they are not in fact > answerable. > > This is a GREAT method. And it SO cuts down on what is worthy of consideration!! Cheers Herman #111128 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Howard, Sarah and all > It is possible to intentionally discontinue a line of thought, and > doing so is part of what the Buddha called "right effort." Right, absolutely. What is not possible, I think, to do intentionally is be aware of the harmful line of thinking. That is beyond our control in a sense, unless we have cultivated morning to night mindfulness. But once there is awareness of a harmful line of thinking, nothing easier than to drop it, especially if one has developed the ability to turn the mind to the subjects recommended by the Buddha. This morning in my notebooks, I found reference to three suttas in which the Buddha lays out the proper contents of thinking, but I'm sure there are many others: 1) SN56:7, "when you think, you should think 'this is suffering,' etc. 2) SN 9:78(78 sounds odd, wrong I think) "Becaus of attending carelessly, you are being eaen by your thoughts, by basing your thoughts on the teacher, the Dhamma, the Sangha and your own virtues.." etc 3) Of course MN 19, on the three kinds of kusala vitaka. There is a lot in the suttanta about what are the right topics to think about and what are wrong. I have heard A.S students deny that the content of thinking is important, that is wrong. As for ways of training the mind so that awareness of one's trains of thought arises sooner and more often, well, I can't imagine that meditation as it is understood today could do anything but help to make that awareness riser sooner and more often. Common sense, if one spends time alone in a quiet room watching the way trains of thought come and go, there will be more frequent awareness of harmful trains of thought and switching of trains during the day. If there is anything wrong with aspiring to do so, tough cookies. I will aspire to do so, and do so. Metta, Phil #111129 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:42 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again >(and only you know who you are, since students of A.S seem to be completely disinclined to share bad behaviour in the confessional way recommended by the Buddha to Rahula) I'll take this back. I think all Western Buddhists are disinclined to the confessional aspect because of associations with Christianity, but it is clearly recommmended by the Buddha. Students of A.S would be more likely to preach against doing so, because it would involve clinging to self, remorse, etc etc. I think I am the king of confessional posting, and that's not just becuase I have a loose tongue (fingers) which I do, but I think telling about my bad behaviour helps to condition abstaining from it. The reason I mention using porn so often (which is bad because it can condition sexual misconduct) is because I know that mentionning it will make me less inclined, more ashamed to use it, there is a method to my confessional babbling... Metta, Phil #111130 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:59 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again > Sarah: We don't know when the deep latent anusayas will, so to speak "bubble up" and condition strong akusala in this life or another lifetime to come. > > Ph: So what? This has nothing to do with my intention to avoid bad behaviour. Ph: I take that back. It is all the better reason to avoid doing bad things, so as not to add to the anusayas. I have yet to understand why understanding that there are anusayas and that they can of course bubble up at any time should make us feel any less urgent about avoiding akusala kamma patha. As I said the other day, it is like being aware that toxins have accumulated in the body from smoking and that as a result cancer may bubble up at any time, therefore no need to be determined to quit smoking. Yes, yes, yes, understanding is the only way out, I got that, I know that. But listening to someone talking about the way the enlightened mind sees things and actually having that understanding? Miles apart, sorry. Metta, Phil #111131 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:12 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------- <. . .> RE: > If I have a mole on my face, that's a characteristic. If I don't have a mole, however, that is not a characteristic, except by comparison. -------- The main point of Dhamma study is to understand that anatta is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas. So maybe we should continue this thread until you and your cohorts are convinced. :-) It might help if you weren't so determined to prove the Abhidhamma wrong on this. Your point about "positive and negative" for example, smacks of desperation. Howard, who is on your side in this, has cautioned you that positive and negative are just words we attach to things. A clear skin can be called a positive, and its opposite - a blemished skin - a negative: or a clear skin can be called a negative and a blemished skin a positive. It's not important. The important thing is that all dhammas (as distinct from concepts) are inherently - by their own intrinsic natures! characteristically! substantially! - anatta. How do you feel about anicca and dukkha? Are they mere logical deductions too? Or do you agree they are inherent characteristics that make conditioned dhammas the worthless rubbish that they are? Ken H #111132 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas, Pali, attention to Scott. nilovg Hi Howard, Christine, Scott, Thanks Chris for the interesting sutta, I am going over the commentary and now it is clearer. I hope Scott will also check the Pali, the commentary is very good! Op 25-okt-2010, om 20:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Would this sutta have any relevance to the matter under discussion - > ''Change while standing''? > > Friends, the arising of matter [...of feelings; ...of > perception; ...of > conditions; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, > change > while standing is manifest. – S. XXII,37: iii,38. ------ A similar sutta: Anguttara Nikaaya, I, 152. Now the commentary to S. III, 38. -------- 37-38. Pañcame ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ paññāyatīti dharamānassa jīvamānassa jarā paññāyati. ----- As to the words: the becoming otherness of what persists is discerned, this is the ageing of what lives. Ṭhitīti hi jīvitindriyasaṅkhātāya anupālanāya nāmaṃ. ------ As to subsists (.thiti), this is indeed the maintenance of what is called the life faculty. -------- Aññathattanti jarāya. Tenāhu porāṇā – ------- As to becoming otherness, this is ageing. Therefore the elders said: --------- ‘‘Uppādo jāti akkhāto, bhaṅgo vutto vayoti ca; Aññathattaṃ jarā vuttā, ṭhitī ca anupālanā’’ti. ------ Birth is said to be the uprising, passing away is called the breaking up; Ageing is the becoming otherness (instability), and subsisting life's maintenance. --------- I did not translate the whole commentary. It explains that a condition is not a characteristic, but that a characteristic cannot be proclaimed without a condition and that also a condition cannot be proclaimed without a characteristic. A condition is explained by means of a characteristic. Thus, as far as I understand, the becoming otherness is ageing, also as regards citta, cetasika and ruupa, all five khandhas. Citta is strong at its arising moment, it can produce ruupa, but not at the moment of its presence and falling away, then it is weaker. The lesson we can learn is that as soon as a conditioned naama and ruupa has arisen it is already ageing, going towards its ending. #111133 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:50 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ------- <. . .> KH: >>I don't know about "voice or movement" it depends on what you are referring to, concepts or dhammas. >> RK: > We dont need to be pedantic when discussing Dhamma. Obviously I could have said "what cittas conditioned kaya vinnati that moved the kalapas in what is conventionally caused a finger to push down on the rupas in what is conventioanlly called a keyboard at the time that the stream of arising andceasing namaa and rupas called Dawkins explained his views." But that is unneccesary. -------- I don't want to change the subject, but I think you have got that wrong. Fingers and keyboards aren't composed of rupas. Concepts aren't composed of realities. --------------------------- RK: > Concepts like human, or typing or dawkins or wife or father are designations. They are not, as you claim in an earlier post, metaphors . They designate particular streams of nama and rupa or certain actions. ---------------------------- "Streams" and "actions" do not exist in ultimate reality. They are concepts - stories. The only designations that are helpful for satipatthana are those that designate the five khandhas. Concepts that designate other concepts are of no importance. --------------------------------- RK: > You think that Dawkins-assuming he was trying to help or educate people- when he made his statement that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) was having kusala citta and you see no ditthi underlying this view because as in your reply: {RK: > I see. So is it ever possible for someone who is not involved in religionto have wrongview (ditthi)?} KEN: If you are talking about a citta that has something other than a concept of absolute reality as its object, then I suppose, no, it is not possible. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert: So you believe Dawkins had no wrong view . ------------------------- As far as I can tell, he has no more wrong-view than any other ordinary person has, including you and I. He is very committed to doing good works, and to saving people from dangerous superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I wouldn't be surprised if his accumulations of wrong view were quite low, compared to most people's. If Dawkins were to hear the Dhamma explained in the right way, he might catch on very quickly, who knows? --------------------- RK: > Well this is very wrong, in fact it is evident that wrong view is the dominant force in Dawkin's writings. The same applies to these similar beliefs that you you also find appealing: Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root ofthe stupendous edifice of evolution...." <. . .> --------------------- Those things are wrong-view only if they are supposed to represent absolute reality. I, as a Buddhist, can appreciate evolution science because I don't see it as either confirming or denying the Dhamma. It is about something else. How would you want science to read, Robert? Would the statement "living creatures are subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka" be any less wrong than "living creatures are not subject to the laws of kamma nad vipakka" or "living creatures are subject to blind chance"? They would all be equally wrong, wouldn't they? In reality there are no living creatures. In conventional science, however, living creatures are clearly subject to blind chance." That's what the scientific method reveals. If you were seriously ill you would expect your doctor to be familiar with modern, scientific, medicine. You wouldn't want him trying to determine which bad deed you had committed in a previous lifetime. Similarly, we should expect our natural scientists to base their work on the scientific method - not on religion, and certainly not on the Dhamma. Ken H #111134 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/26/2010 2:10:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Nina, On 25 October 2010 19:54, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > <...> > N: I discussed this again with Lodewijk who also dislikes such > statements. He feels that this is not well formulated, perhaps mixing > conventional ways of expression with ultimate realities. > He says: what we take for an individu is constituted by elements. > But it takes long to really understand this, I know. So long as we > are not sotaapannas, you know that we still cling to self. > But this is certainly not pleasant to hear: there is no person. For > you and I: lobha takes over. By conditions. There were so many lives > in the past with ignorance. > In MN28, there is, in relation to the elements, the repeated phrase "Whatever internal, belonging to oneself". In your book The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena, you render this as "...internal, referable to an individual or derived therefrom". I do not understand how you can refer elements to an individual, and yet deny the individual. Could you please explain? Cheers Herman ================================ And in a river "all there is" are water molecules plus a variety of adventitious flotsam and jetsum. Does that mean there is no river? Is not the mighty river a powerful phenomenon that incorporates all of these, moving in all sorts of patterns, subflows and whirlpools - all rushing and roaring and constantly changing? To say "There is nothing but water molecules and other particles" is to miss the incredible, dynamic relational wholeness. To apply a metaphor, but turning it on its head, , it is "to be unable see the forest for the trees." If one comes in close, one sees certain aspects of things, but if one looks from a distance, that perspective reveals a seamlessness that otherwise would be unseen. A mountain range has a pattern revealing aeons of the effect of rains and winds, and has a form and wholeness that is missed if only individual mountains are examined. Multiplicity is no more real than wholeness. And true peace is not to be found through a partial fragmentation view nor through a view of dead, homogenous unity without variation, but through a wisdom that encompasses a dialectical synthesis of part and whole and of parts with parts. Truth lies beyond all partial views, and freedom lies in relinquishing all views. With metta, Howard Freed /Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, Bahuna, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling... Freed, dissociated, & released from perception... Freed, dissociated, & released from fabrications... Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness... Freed, dissociated, & released from birth... Freed, dissociated, & released from aging... Freed, dissociated, & released from death... Freed, dissociated, & released from stress... Freed, dissociated, & released from defilement, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. "Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata — freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things — dwells with unrestricted awareness./ (From the Bahuna Sutta) #111135 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:02 am Subject: What I heard. Nimitta, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, nimitta 2. At this moment everyone is seeing, but it has gone already. One should begin to see that this is a reality so that later on the truth of it can be penetrated and it can be clearly understood. Kh Sujin: Is there now ruupa nimitta? N: Does it have a characteristic? Kh Sujin: Now, while you are seeing, is it ruupa that is experienced? N: It is ruupa. Kh Sujin: Is it one ruupa appearing at a time? N: No. Kh Sujin: There must be many ruupas that arise one after the other. In this way a nimitta appears. Many ruupas arise and fall away in succession so that they appear as nimitta. It is like a burning torch that is moved around so that a circle of light seems to appear. If there is no ruupa, a nimitta cannot appear. Evenso is there the nimitta of citta, vi~n~naa.na nimitta. Cittas arise and fall away in succession more rapidly than ruupa. We know that there is seeing, the element that knows something. Dead people cannot see. Seeing is real, it is naama, but there is not just one unit of seeing. There is vi~n~naa.na nimitta, a nimitta of what arises and falls away, but we do not realize the arising and falling away. We mislead ourselves, taking for permanent what is impermanent. We take for self what is beyond control. We should consider whether what appears at this moment is real. Many ruupas arise and fall away, arise and fall away very rapidly. The ruupas that arise and fall away appear as a continuity. We can learn the difference between ignorance and understanding. Because of ignorance we are unable to understand what appears at this moment. ******* Nina. #111136 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? nilovg Hi Herman, Op 26-okt-2010, om 8:10 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > In MN28, there is, in relation to the elements, the repeated phrase > "Whatever > internal, belonging to oneself". In your book The Buddhist Teaching on > Physical Phenomena, you render this as "...internal, referable to an > individual or derived therefrom". > > I do not understand how you can refer elements to an individual, > and yet > deny the individual. Could you please explain? ------ N: In the sutta often conventional terms are used, whereas in the Abhidhamma mostly ultimate realities have been expounded. The conventional terms the Buddha used express the truth of ultimate realities. Individual, person: in fact this points to the five khandhas. As to different individuals with different accumulations: these khandhas, those khandhas that are different, one could say. The Commentary to MṆ.5, No Blemishes, states about these two ways of teaching: -------------- In the Suttanta we find the teaching in conventional way, but also the teaching by way of ultimate realities. When the Buddha spoke in the suttas about situations and people, he pointed to the truth of impermanence, dukkha and anattā. He knew the dispositions of different beings and which kind of teaching was most suitable for them. ------- Nina. #111137 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/26/2010 4:38:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: There is a lot in the suttanta about what are the right topics to think about and what are wrong. I have heard A.S students deny that the content of thinking is important, that is wrong. ================================= I find that to be a stupefying denial. Perhaps the students misunderstood her. (I hope so.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111138 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. nilovg Dear pt, Op 25-okt-2010, om 10:00 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > what does perception of "suffering in impermanence", and perception > of "impersonality in suffering" mean in terms of language? I mean, > is it the same as the stock formula "anicca, dukkha and anatta", or > does it in this case have a more specific meaning, which is why > it's specified "suffering in impermanence", and "impersonality in > suffering"? I mean, the last one for example seems to say that one > perceives anatta in dukkha, which sound a bit weird to me, as I > thought these are just characteristics of dhammas, so it's not like > these characteristics themselves have further characteristics... -------- N: These expressions show that the three characteristics are interrelated, as I see it. The Commentary does not give an explanation of this. Dukkha in impermanence: what is impermanent is dukkha, it falls away, how can it be happiness? Anattaa in dukkha: what is dukkha cannot be controlled, it is anattaa. We would like it to be happiness, but this is impossible, nobody can control it or direct it to be happiness. --------- > > pt: - how are abandoning and dispassion classed? Also as general > charactersitics of dhammas, like anicca, dukkha and anatta? ------ N: No, they are stages of insight leading to the realisation of nibbaana. -------- Nina. #111139 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:42 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert K, > > ------- > <. . .> > KH: >>I don't know about "voice or movement" it depends on what you are referring to, concepts or dhammas. > >> > > RK: > We dont need to be pedantic when discussing Dhamma. Obviously I could have said "what cittas conditioned kaya vinnati that moved the kalapas in what is conventionally caused a finger to push down on the rupas in what is conventioanlly called a keyboard at the time that the stream of arising and ceasing namaa and rupas> ++++ KENH I don't want to change the subject, but I think you have got that wrong. Fingers and keyboards aren't composed of rupas. Concepts aren't composed of realities. > > --------------------------- > RK: > Concepts like human, or typing or dawkins or wife or father are designations. They are not, as you claim in an earlier post, metaphors . They designate particular streams of nama and rupa or certain actions. > ---------------------------- > > "Streams" and "actions" do not exist in ultimate reality. They are concepts - stories. > > The only designations that are helpful for satipatthana are those that designate the five khandhas. Concepts that designate other concepts are of no importance. > > --------------------------------- Dear Kenh You find calling a stream of arising and ceasing namas and rupas somehow not in accordance with Dhamma? You really can't perceive that this is just a way of designation to facilitate explanation? Tell me when in the satipatthana sutta , when it is describing how anatta is perceived and to be understood it states: "Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul which looks straight on or looks away from the front. Still, at the arising of the thought "I shall look straight on," and with that thought the process of oscillation (vayo dhatu) originating from mind, [citta samutthana] bringing into being bodily expression [viatti] arises. Thus owing to the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes down and the upper eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. "" I guess you have no problem with that bit about the eyelid opening and closing, right? You see it expalins """The passage beginning with the words: Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul is stated to explain that looking straight on or looking away from the front is, to be sure, just a variety of occurrence of even bare phenomena and that therefore clear comprehension of non-delusion is the knowing of that fact as it really is [" but no problem referring o eyelid closing and opening right? > RK: > You think that Dawkins-assuming he was trying to help or educate people- when he made his statement that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) > was having kusala citta and you see no ditthi underlying this view no wrong view . > ------------------------- > KENH As far as I can tell, he has no more wrong-view than any other ordinary person has, including you and I. He is very committed to doing good works, and to saving people from dangerous superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I wouldn't be surprised if his accumulations of wrong view were quite low, compared to most people's. > --------------------- > RK: > Well this is very wrong, in fact it is evident that wrong view is the dominant force in Dawkin's writings. > > The same applies to these similar beliefs that you you also find appealing: > > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root ofthe stupendous edifice of evolution...." > > <. . .> > --------------------- > > Those things are wrong-view only if they are supposed to represent absolute reality. I, as a Buddhist, can appreciate evolution science because I don't see it as either confirming or denying the Dhamma. It is about something else. > > How would you want science to read, Robert? Would the statement "living creatures are subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka" be any less wrong than "living creatures are not subject to the laws of kamma nad vipakka" or "living creatures are subject to blind chance"? They would all be equally wrong, wouldn't they? In reality there are no living creatures. In conventional science, however, living creatures are clearly subject to blind chance." That's what the scientific method reveals. >++++++++++ In an earlier post in this thread you expressed appreciation of this sutta which has this http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/111062 """"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn<> and Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."endquote Could you break that down for me and show why saying "beings are owners of their kamma" etc is appreciated by you in light of your suggestion that saying "living creatures are subject to the law of kamma and vipaka " is wrong. #111140 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Sarah, On 25 October 2010 16:40, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Herman, Pt and all, > > ... > S: Exactly, he is pointing out that the world is not a world of people and > things, but a world of visible objects, sounds and so on - no people or > things in them at all. > .... > > And surely that world is also a world of processing and thinking about what is sensed, resulting in a world of meanings and values. As I said at our meeting, if we lived as though we can ignore all the meanings we think, we would be negligent towards others. Rather, the Buddha taught the very opposite. In relationship to other people, one has to take exceeding great care (see eg patimokkha). > > All I can say is that if the Buddha conveyed that meaning, > > that means > > someone must have been so deluded as to have heard him say > > it. And with > > that, we are not left with some titillating paradox, but > > with unmitigated > > absurdity :-) > .... > S: The Buddha conveyed the meaning, just as we do, because different cittas > condition different rupas so that different sounds are uttered and heard. No > titillating paradox, just sounds to be understood for what they are - rupas > experienced through the ear-door by hearing. > A siren is still a siren to be understood as "get out the way, someone is in greater need than you", and a red light still means "stop if you value your life and the life of others". It is only when one is meditative that one can safely dispense with greed and distress with reference towards the world. If one did so in daily life, that would be extremely negligent. > > I've heard people say that they've tried to experience "neutral" visible > objects or sounds. This is clearly an "unmitigated absurdity" and not what > either the Buddha or I would recommend :-) > > Hope that's clarified a little.... > > Thank you, Sarah. Cheers Herman #111141 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:19 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma/concepts realities kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Robert K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Robert Epstein. > Yes I think you have outlined nicely the difference between Ken and myself on the matter of cocepts and realities. > <. . .> > In Ken H.'s version, the reality of dhammas is totally obscured, other than through theoretical understanding, until direct seeing becomes possible. ----------------- I can't speak for Robert K, but I must agree you have summed up my position well enough. Precise examples of kamma and vipakka are acinetyya (unknowable). The more we deny acinteyya - the more closely we look at concepts trying to find evidence of paramattha dhamma - the further away from right understanding we get. That doesn't mean that all examination of concepts leads to wrong understanding. It is only examination with that particular kind of "trying" that follows a wrong path. Therefore an evolution-scientist can go about his business without fear in that regard. Ken H #111142 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi pt, On 25 October 2010 23:32, ptaus1 wrote: > > pt: Yes, this was another interesting topic. I thought about it a bit more > in the meantime. Here's my take on it, perhaps you and Sarah can comment > further on my conclusions: > > Thanks for your further thoughts. > I think that in abhidhamma terms, "sound" (as in "sound object") would > stand for whatever impinges on the ear at a certain instance. Here I'd > obviously need to define a bit more precisely what do "whatever" and > "instance" stand for exactly, but before that, let's compare hearing to > something a bit more generally obvious - vision. > > As I understood Nina, visible object which becomes the object of > eye-consciousness would stand for what impinges on the eye at a certain > instance. In Vsm, that's termed visible data I think, or something like > that. So, in layman terms, maybe it could be said - it's all the light that > impinges on the eye at one instance. So, visible object is not a chair, a > table, sky, etc, but it's just light so to speak - all the light that's > collected at the eye at an instance. Chair, table and the rest emerge a bit > later on in the cognition process, when the light that was at the eye is > processed and conceptualised. Such explanation of vision makes sense to me. > Sure we're a bit vague here regarding the color rods in the eye, and > different wavelengths of light which are responsible for the perception of > color, etc, but I don't think this part of the phenomenon of vision is > particularly important in experiential terms, I mean, it's more sicence than > experience, so I'm content with the abhidhamma explanation. > > Yes, this last statement is of critical importance. The above is science, it is explanation, not description of experience. The reason that this distinction is critically important to know upfront is that some people will tell anyone prepared to listen that it is possible, and necessary for progress on "the path", to experience seeing at the eye. Well, sorry, that just isn't possible. A second important point is that we are talking about all the light that impinges on the retina, not one photon at a time. It is an ever-rolling wave front. > Now, if we try and apply the same abhidhamma model to hearing, it also > makes sense. Here's my attempt: > > Sound, or audible object, in abhidhamma should probably stand for the > relationship between the actual air-wave front that impinges on the ear - so > air molecules that undergo compression and rarefaction, thus moving the > membrane of the ear drum - so the first link in the chain of events that > results in hearing. > > Importantly, it's not one cycle of air compression-rarefaction, nor a > particular air-wave frequency, but just the symphatic movement of the > membrane of the ear drum in correspondence to the fluctuations in the > surrounding air. Looking to our example in vision, surrounding air > corresponds to light, and the ear drum membrane corresponds to the eye where > the light collects in one instance so to speak. > > Now, the movement of the ear drum is transferred along the middle and inner > ear to the auditory nerve and then the brain, but since this is all again a > fully symphatic action, I think we can lump together and ignore all these > components for now, sort of like we lump together the retina, color rods, > etc, and just call it all "the eye". > > So, the question that interest you then is, ok, so when does 440Hz enter > the stage, or sound of violin, or airplane, for example? My thinking is that > these again are products of the cognition process when audible object is > processed and conceptualised. So, 440Hz, violin, airplane, are not "sound" > or "audible object" anymore in abhidhamma terms, in the same way that chair, > table, etc, are not visible object in abhidhamma terms. > > Sure, I accept that. And I would not accept that it is possible to hear unprocessed sound, sound that was just sound, ie without characteristics. > Perhaps an analogy that might make sense to you is to think of a > loudspeaker cone reproducing the sound of a symphony orchestra - the cone > just moves back and forth in response to the complex wave that represents > the sum-total of 100 instruments together. But all these 100 instruments in > one instance are basically summed to a single position of the cone along one > axis (positive-negative voltage variation basically). Now, to actually > perceive a violin, or a trombone, among those 100 instruments - that would > require many moments of hearing consciousness arising and a lot of > processing and conceptualising in between, in a similar way that it would be > required in order to perceive a chair, a table, etc, in the example of > vision. > > So, just like the cone, the ear-drum membrane simply moves back and forth - > and it's position at one instance is basically a sum-total of all the sound > coming from outside onto the membrane. Then, to perceive a 440Hz, a violin > or an airplane, a lot of these membrane positions are necessary over some > time, with a lot of processing and conceptualising to shape it all into "the > sound of a violin", "airplane", etc. > > How does that sound to you? > > It sounds good, pt, thanks for you efforts. Cheers Herman #111143 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhammakammavipaka kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---- <. . .> RK: > I think you haven't understood these stories at all. What makes you say that anyone - I mean someone who is not a monk with well-developed panna- "might even think that some animals deserve to be burnt to death and some women deserved to be thrown overboard" Here is the translation of the Pali again: <. . .> > Is not this story showing the terrible consequences of akusala: the farmer had akusala citta, he then killed the ox and was reborn in hell and then in later existences was burned to death. These painful feelings and being born as animal and in hell were the vipaka of killing. I really don't see how even the most uniformed person could get the idea from that story that it is ok to burn animals. ----- I don't see how anyone could have got the idea I was talking about the ox. The story explains why a crow was burnt to death. Isn't it quite conceivable that some people would think "Good, the crow deserved it! In a previous lifetime it was a farmer who burnt a poor ox to death. Now the crow is getting its just deserts, hooray!" Ken H #111144 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. egberdina Hi pt and Rob E, On 25 October 2010 19:57, ptaus1 wrote: > > Thank you both for your replies. It sounds like you both, as well as me, are uncertain as to the relation between kamma and latent tendencies. Which I find heartening :-) Cheers Herman > Hi Herman, > > > Herman: If you, or anyone else who assumes transmigration (of presumably > anusayas) > > > as fact, are inclined, could they say whether they believe that view to > be > > similar or different to Lamarckian evolution, and how? > > pt: Hm, I don't know much at all on either subject. My take atm is that the > main difference is that here we're really speaking about cittas - one citta > and its mental factors condition the arising of the next citta and so on. > And that's how latent tendencies (both wholesome and unwholesome, I think > the term is asayaanusaya) are 'transmitted' so to speak from one citta to > another. Death and rebirth cittas shouldn't be any different in that respect > I guess. > > One difficulty I'm not quite sure how to put into perspective is the fact > that, conventionaly speaking, at birth there's (usually) no memory of what > has been learned previously (presumably in previous life, in conventional > terms). E.g. in this life we've had the opportunity to come in touch with > Dhamma teachings which could have lead to some modification of behavior in > this life as you say. But in the next life, say the rebirth is somewhere > where there's no access to Dhamma, and in fact, the moral grounds are > somewhat different - say it's ok to kill people of one race, but not of > another. Well, would I not be then likewise influenced by those teachings as > well, since I already have the predisposition towards killing (thanks to > anusaya)? Tricky subject. But anyway, my point was that I'm not exactly sure > how to account for the apparent loss of memory and yet maintain transference > of asaya and anusaya. > #111145 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Alex, On 26 October 2010 02:06, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all, > > > What is "the path"? > > Process of development where the fetters and underlying tendencies are > being completely eradicated stage by stage. > > Thanks for this. It sounds like the path is some kind of goal-oriented evolution. I see that as contradicting dependent origination which, like Darwinian evolution, is not goal directed, but simply conditions adapting to conditions. > > > > I gather from the above, that "the path" must be the aspiration of > > permanently "not having" lobha and dosa? Is it different to aspiring to > have > > a permanent near-death experience? > > A) to permanently uproot all latent and overt unwholesome tendencies, so as > not to experience mental discomfort and eventually to stop all rebirth. > > B) To cease without remainder of any kind (no consciousness, not even the > unlimited one, no knowing, no willing, no namarupa) at the best occasion > that can happen- Parinibbana. The END! > > Existence of any kind, consciousness of any kind, is simply not worth it. > It is all conditioned dukkha. > Do you think that thoughts of the path to cessation are not conditioned dukkha? > There isn't any controller who could control the reality to make it nice. > Even nice things don't appear to be happiness in the highest sense, few > fleeting sharp feelings - for sure, but nothing that is permanently > satisfying. If there was only one life, then the short cut would be easy. > > It is only when a being conceives of the possibility of escape from their conditions, that they become a prisoner and suffer their imprisonment. It sounds like you have already decided that your great escape is going to take aeons. Aaaaargh :-). There is always, of course, the opportunity for a pleasant abiding in the here and now. And that starts with acceptance of conditionality. Cheers Herman #111146 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:22 pm Subject: Is there seeing now? egberdina Hi all, If there is any seeing now, then all of the below play a role. Sorry, KenH, it is not from the Atthasalini, and no, I am not trying to disprove the Abhidhamma. I post it only because in any understanding there is always room for greater and greater precision. The following is a listing of the contents from a book titled Seeing and it is Edited by Karen K. De Valois (2000). 1 Formation and Sampling of the Retinal Image Larry N. Thibos I. Introduction 1 II. Formation of the Retinal Image 2 A. Optical System of the Eye 2 B. Physics of Image Formation 4 C. Linear Systems Description of Image Formation 17 D. Empirical Evaluation of the Eye as an Imaging System 21 E. Schematic Models of the Eye 31 III. Neural Sampling of the Retinal Image 33 A. Retinal Architecture 33 B. Functional Implications of Neural Sampling 37 C. Evidence of Neural Sampling in Perception 41 IV. Optical versus Sampling Limits to Vision 46 References 49 2 The Receptive Fields of Visual Neurons Robert Shapley I. Introduction 55 II. Receptive Fields of Retinal Ganglion Cells 56 A. The Two-Mechanisms Model: Center and Surround 58 B. A Third Mechanism: Nonlinear Subunits 62 v C. Measuring Receptive FieldsSystems Analysis 64 D. Lateral Geniculate Nucleus Cell Receptive Fields 66 III. Visual Cortex 66 A. Simple and Complex Cells 67 B. Orientation Selectivity 68 C. Direction Selectivity 70 D. Orientation Dynamics 74 References 76 3 Spatial Vision Wilson S. Geisler and Duane G. Albrecht I. Introduction 79 II. Single Neurons and Behavior 80 A. Levels of Analysis 80 B. Linking Hypotheses 83 III. Window of Visibility 84 A. Space and Time: Retinal Coordinates 84 B. Space and Time: Environmental Coordinates 85 C. Naturalistic Viewing Conditions 85 D. Retinal Eccentricity, Luminance, and Color 86 IV. Optics and Photon Noise 88 V. Retina and Lateral Geniculate Nucleus 89 A. Selectivity 89 B. Performance 96 VI. Primary Visual Cortex 99 A. Selectivity 99 B. Performance 111 VII. Implications for Object Recognition and Scene Interpretation 121 References 123 4 Color Vision Karen K. De Valois and Russell L. De Valois I. Introduction 129 A. Trichromacy 129 B. Color Spaces and the Representation of Color 131 II. Physiology 135 A. Photopigments and Spectral Sensitivity 135 B. Retino-Geniculate Processing 139 C. Cortex 145 III. Chromatic Discriminations and Their Physiological Bases 151 A. Chromatic Discrimination of Uniform Stimuli 151 B. Spatial Contrast Sensitivity 155 vi Contents C. Temporal Contrast Sensitivity 158 D. Color Vision Defects 159 IV. Color Appearance and Its Physiological Bases 160 A. Opponency 160 B. Hue 161 C. Saturation 163 D. Brightness or Lightness 164 E. Similitude and Contrast 165 F. Adaptation and Afterimages 166 V. The Role of Color in Spatial Vision 167 A. Color Motion 169 References 170 5 Binocular Vision Clifton Schor I. Perceived Visual Direction 177 A. Oculocentric Direction 177 B. The Cyclopean Eye 177 C. Egocentric Direction 178 D. Visual Directions of Disparate Images 179 E. Visual Direction of Partially Occluded Objects 179 F. Violations of Herings Laws of Visual Direction 179 II. Binocular Correspondence 180 A. Binocular Disparity 181 B. Corresponding Retinal Points 181 C. The Horizontal Horopter 182 D. The Vertical Horopter 184 E. Coordinate Systems for Binocular Disparity 187 F. Monocular Spatial Distortions and the Empirical Binocular Disparity Map 189 III. Binocular Sensory Fusion 191 A. Panums Fusional Areas 191 B. Allelotropia 192 C. Spatial Constraints 193 D. Spatial Frequency 193 E. Retinal Eccentricity 195 F. Disparity Gradient Limits 195 G. Temporal Constraints 197 H. Color Fusion 197 IV. Encoding Disparity: The Matching Problem 197 A. Classes of Matchable Tokens 200 B. Matching Constraints 202 C. Computational Algorithms 205 Contents vii D. Interocular Correlation 208 E. Off-Horopter Interocular Correlation Sensitivity 211 F. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Noise and Interocular Correlation 212 G. Estimating Disparity Magnitude 214 H. Disparity Pools or Channels 216 V. Stereoscopic Depth Perception 217 A. Depth Ordering and Scaling 217 B. Hyperacuity, Superresolution, and Gap Revolution 219 C. Stereo-Acuity 223 D. Relative Disparity 224 E. Stereo-Depth Contrast 224 F. Position and Phase Limits 226 G. Off-Horopter and Eccentric Depth Discrimination 230 H. Spatial Interactions 231 I. The Contrast Paradox 231 J. Temporal Constraints 232 K. Upper Disparity Limit for Stereopsis 234 L. Sustained and Transient Stereopsis 234 M. Transient Vergence 237 VI. Occlusion Stereopsis 237 A. Discriminating between Monocular and Binocular Features 238 B. Occlusion Geometry 239 C. Depth Ambiguity 241 VII. Binocular Suppression 241 A. Interocular Blur Suppression 242 B. Suspension 243 C. Binocular Retinal Rivalry 243 D. Binocular Percept Rivalry 246 E. Permanent-Occlusion Suppression 248 References 249 6 Seeing Motion Andrew Derrington I. Overview 259 II. Representing Image Motion 260 A. Movies 261 B. SpaceTime Images 262 C. Frequency Domain Representations 263 D. Second-Order Motion 264 E. Representing Motion in 2-D Velocity Space 266 III. Analyzing Direction of Motion along a Given Axis 268 A. Principles and Approaches 268 B. Experimental Data 274 viii Contents IV. Integrating Motion Signals from Different Axes: Two-Dimensional Vectors 285 A. What Is the Problem in Going from 1-D to 2-D Motion? 285 B. How Does the Visual System Compute 2-D Motion from 1-D Motion Vectors? 287 V. Second-Order Motion Mechanisms 296 A. Importance of Second-Order Motion Signals 296 B. What Sort of Mechanism Analyzes the Motion of Contrast Variations? 298 VI. Conclusions 306 References 306 7 The Neural Representation of Shape Jack L. Gallant I. Introduction 311 II. Organization of the Ventral Pathway 312 III. Physiological Properties 315 A. Area V1 315 B. Area V2 316 C. Area V4 318 D. Posterior Inferotemporal Cortex 319 E. Central and Anterior Inferotemporal Cortex 319 IV. Attention, Learning, Memory, and Motor Signals 321 A. Area V1 321 B. Area V4 322 C. Central and Anterior Inferotemporal Cortex 323 V. Computational Principles 324 A. Area V1 324 B. Area V2 325 C. Area V4 325 D. Central and Anterior Inferotemporal Cortex 327 VI. Current Research in the Neurobiology of Form Vision 329 References 329 8 Visual Attention Jeremy M.Wolfe I. Introduction 335 A. Other Resources 336 II. Vision before Attention 337 A. The Uses and Interpretation of Visual Search Experiments 337 B. Typical Conditions and Pitfalls in Visual Search Tasks 341 C. Texture Segmentation and Visual Search 343 Contents ix D. Preattentive Features 344 E. The Preattentive Processing of Objects 354 F. Preattentive Summary 358 III. Vision with Attention 358 A. Attention Enables Other Visual Processes 358 B. How and What Does Attention Enable? 358 IV. Vision after Attention 364 A. Repeated Search 365 B. Change Blindness 366 V. Vision without Attention 367 A. The Problem 367 B. How Unattended Can You Get? 368 C. All Inattention Is Not Created Equal 369 VI. Conclusion 369 References 370 Cheers Herman #111147 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Howard Well, maybe I have that wrong, but I have heard and read people say that the content of thinking is not as important as well, understanding the usual kind of things, you know, is there seeing now, etc. And as we know, Jon and others have been saying that even understandig of the present moment can't be said to change behaviour, so it wouldn't be surprising if they question that the content of thinking changes behaviour. From an A.S point of view, the first verse of DHammpada about the mind leading all wouldn't be referring to content of thinking, would it, it would be about a minute, ephemeral citta... Sorry to A.S students if I have misprepresented you, surely not the first or last time. Please clarify what I wrote, if you care to. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 10/26/2010 4:38:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > philco777@... writes: > > There is a lot in the suttanta about what are the right topics to think > about and what are wrong. I have heard A.S students deny that the content of > thinking is important, that is wrong. > > ================================= > I find that to be a stupefying denial. Perhaps the students > misunderstood her. (I hope so.) > #111148 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again, Howard and all > From an A.S point of view, the first verse of DHammpada about the mind leading all wouldn't be referring to content of thinking, would it, it would be about a minute, ephemeral citta... And let me modify what I wrote here by saying that they wouldn't be wrong in thinking this, at the deep level of DHamma it's correct, but there is a tendency to not have a very broad view of Dhamma, so there might be failure to appreciate how that one Dhammapada verse can be understood correctly at different levels....(i.e it is not necessary for all who follow the Buddha's teaching to understand Dhamma in the light of Abhidhamma desite what students of A.S and *perhaps* some other Buddhist say...) Metta, Phil #111149 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:21 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ----- <. . .> RK: > You find calling a stream of arising and ceasing namas and rupas somehow not in accordance with Dhamma? You really can't perceive that this is just a way of designation to facilitate explanation? ----- I find talk about "streams of namas and rupas" mostly results from confused thinking. It attributes permanency or lastingness where no such lastingness exists. I can, however, see how those concepts can also be used as mere designations or "conventional names" for the five khandhas. That is the way they are used in the texts. ------------------------ RK: > Tell me when in the satipatthana sutta , when it is describing how anatta is perceived and to be understood it states: "Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul which looks straight on or looks away from the front. Still, at the arising of the thought "I shall look straight on," and with that thought the process of oscillation (vayo dhatu) originating from mind, [citta samutthana] bringing into being bodily expression [viatti] arises. Thus owing to the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes down and the upper eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. "" I guess you have no problem with that bit about the eyelid opening and closing, right? You see it expalins """The passage beginning with the words: Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul is stated to explain that looking straight on or looking away from the front is, to be sure, just a variety of occurrence of even bare phenomena and that therefore clear comprehension of non-delusion is the knowing of that fact as it really is [" but no problem referring o eyelid closing and opening right? ----------------------- You have lost me; I don't know what you are asking. You know my understanding of the Satipatthana Sutta: Whenever someone cites it in support of formal walking-meditation (for example), I am quick to say, no, it is actually in support of knowing ultimate reality - nama and rupa. It is not in support of mindfulness of eyelids, is it? It doesn't suggest eyelids exist in ultimate reality any more than it suggests walking exists in ultimate reality. ------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> How would you want science to read, Robert? Would the statement "living creatures are subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka" be any less wrong than "living creatures are not subject to the laws of kamma nad vipakka" or "living creatures are subject to blind chance"? They would all be equally wrong, wouldn't they? In reality there are no living creatures. In conventional science, however, living creatures are clearly subject to blind chance." That's what the scientific method reveals. >> RK: > In an earlier post in this thread you expressed appreciation of this sutta which has this http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/111062 """"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn<> and Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."endquote > Could you break that down for me and show why saying "beings are owners of their kamma" etc is appreciated by you in light of your suggestion that saying "living creatures are subject to the law of kamma and vipaka " is wrong -------------------------------- Yes, I will give it a try, although I would be interested to know your breakdown of it. When the word "beings" is used by the Buddha it designates the five khandhas, as distinct from conventionally known beings (atta). Therefore, that sutta is saying the five khandhas own kamma in the same way as conventionally known beings are said to own property. The five khandhas are the heirs to kamma just as sentient beings are heirs to the family fortune. They have kammas in the same way that sentient beings have ancestors. And so on. It is not saying that conventionally known entities are the owners (etc) of kamma. Nor is it saying they are *not* the owners of kamma. Nor is is saying they are both - or neither. Ken H #111150 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:24 pm Subject: Living with self-view philofillet Hi all A passage I came across in a notebook yesterday gave me a chance to understand how we are likely to be stuck, like it or not, living with self view, just as some people are stuck, like it or not, living with chronic, incurable diseases. The passage I found was this, from with A.Sujin or one of Nina's books, I'm not sure.. "The unpleasant feeling that arises is a good reminder that we are valuing self. Then we can remember that there are only namas and rupas arising." (I added a note "this seems like intentionally using panna to escape from unpleasant feeling.) Now, I think we can all agree that "the unpleasant feeling that arises is a good reminder that we are valuing self." I don't know the full context of the passage, but it was surely not talking about a brief moment of vipaka, but some kind of unpleasant mental feelings related to something in daily life. It is true, anxiety, for example, is a sign of valuing self, so much of our aversion comes from valuing self, I'm sure we can all agree on that. It is the second sentence I have trouble with. "Then we can remember that there are only namas and rupas arising." I know I have said this many times, but isn't it as clear to use as it is to me that this is an invitation to appropriate deep understanding for the purpose of mental well being. It seems naive to think that as a result of this sort of thing the valuing of self is going anywhere, won't it just transform into a valuing of self that values Dhamma teaching and reflecting on Dhamma? Of course that is better than valuing self through harmful, foolish ways, but I really would like to ask students of A.S to reflect on whether their constant encouragements to reflect on "pleasant realities" really constitutes developing of understanding, or whether it is not just perhaps a way for view of self to live on in Dhamma colored robes? Again, as I was saying a few weeks ago, coming across the sutta that says that we should abandon self-view with the same intensity of purpose that we would put out a fire on our heads helped me to better appreciate that perhaps A.S students have a point in putting such a central importance on working on self view now. I am trying to keep my mind open, and I think I am lucky to have come across people that do have that view (getting rid of self view by understanding realities in daily life) because it seems pretty rare, are rare can of course be very valuable. However, I currenly feel that I have to continue to learn to live with self-view, it is not going anywhere in this lifetime. So I will live with a self-view that is all about being as good a person as possible, and doing as many good deeds as possible to gain merit and perhaps be blessed with rebirth in a realm and situation in which liberating understanding can develop in a way that it doesn't appear it will in this lifetime. But I want to keep open-minded, and keep reflecting on people telling me that liberation is possible in this lifetime. It always helps when people talk in the context of a gradual training, being told to get straight to understanding that there is only nama and rupa doesn't really seem to help me at all. Metta, `jo; #111151 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:29 pm Subject: Re: Living with self-view philofillet Hi again all Some funny typos > but isn't it as clear to use as it is to me that should be "you" > "pleasant realities" should be "present realities", but there might be truth in that typo if, as I often contend, the studying of "present realities" is for the purpose of self having pleasure in reflection on deep Dhamma. Metta, Phil #111152 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, > Thanks for this. It sounds like the path is some kind of >goal->oriented evolution. I see that as contradicting dependent >origination which, like Darwinian evolution, is not goal directed, >but simply conditions adapting to conditions. There ARE goals. But one shouldn't cling to them. When you've understood what needs to be developed, you do it. Without clear direction, the path goes nowhere (and not in a good way). When Arhatship is reached, any attachment to the Dhamma ceases as well. >Do you think that thoughts of the path to cessation are not >conditioned dukkha? Even Arhatship body and mental states are full conditioned. Mental states just aren't based on 3 unwholesome roots, but ayatanas/khandha/dhatu are still there. Even being an Arahant is dukkha. Just physical dukkha and never mental. Arahats do experience painful bodily feelings, and the heaviness of having even the best consciousness. Full cessation of both physical dukkha is parinibbana. Final cessation with no remainder. Existence is not worth it, even being an Arahant isn't full freedom. Physical constrains still remain. Total cessation is the best. With metta, Alex #111153 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:36 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > I think I can't really tell the difference between a/kusala. Hence my conclusion that my desires are mostly akusala, and therefore, I'm driven by a mistaken view that dhammas can be controlled, etc. So, my meditation is mostly akusala, not kusala. So, since I can't really tell the difference between a/kusala, then I probably shouldn't be trying to develop samatha bhavana, since I'm most likely just developing akusala, not kusala. In other words, my understanding and abilities are nowhere near those monks that the Buddha actually encouraged to meditate. ... ...I think that I'm just not at that level where I could have long uninterrupted periods of sati, calm, etc. Hence, the importance of spontaneous arising of sati and other kusala factors becomes valuable. An added bonus is that the spontaneously arisen kusala factors are, well, kusala, in the sense that they are not disguised akusala (remember the expression cheating dhammas) - like when I try to arouse kusala trhough meditation, which is really just akusala in the first place, so I'm basically just fooling myself. Well, I understand what you are saying, and if you take your presuppositions contained in this formulation of practice, then your conclusions about it are logical. I just see practice and Dhamma in general in a totally different way. Maybe I have not studied and absorbed the Abhidhamma and commentaries and sub-commentaries and current interpretations of the "dhamma-only" school well enough to understand why it is the truth and have faith in it, but I just don't buy it. I do not accept that meditation below a certain level is bound to be kusala because if you can't tell the difference between kusala and akusala as it arises, then you can't develop samatha. I think that is a tortured intellectual formula that has nothing to do with actual practice, and I don't live my life by formulas that I can't prove or experience because a particular set of commentaries has set it out. It doesn't appear in the Buddha's words that we know he said. It is not the way he taught. It doesn't represent what he said about meditation in any place that he spoke. He spoke about following the path and understanding the Dhamma as he taught it, and that doing so would gradually lead to greater understanding, more kusala and eventually liberation from suffering. The path he laid out included hearing the Dhamma, wise reflection, keeping good company, doing good and not evil, having work that was in harmony with the Dhamma, spending time in meditation developing samatha and satipatthana leading to vipassana, panna and awakening. To take a few phrases out of the suttas regarding meditation and conclude from them that only the most advanced monks were advised to meditate, or that jhana was included in the sequence because the monks happened to be already practicing jhana, seems absurd to me. The path is coherent. It stands together as a whole. It should not be rejected while we restrict ourselves to reading and talking and don't do any of the things the Buddha did or advised, or that the sangha has practiced consistently throughout the entire history of Buddhism. There are great insights to be gained from Abhidhamma, and K. Sujin's and Nina's books are wonderful and make its complexities much more accessible. To be able to understand the nature of dhammas and the conditions that give rise to different formations of cittas, cetasikas, namas and rupas, to understand the details of kamma, anicca and anatta and the path factors is very important. But there is no reason to go the extra step of throwing away the "mundane" path and thinking that none of the actions the Buddha spoke about for 40 years are supposed to be done. I think you'd be better off doing everything the Buddha advised in sutta and in Abhidhamma, instead of doing practically none of it, or thinking the Buddha's mundane path [the one he actually taught in sutta] is "mostly akusala" and be restricted to reading, talking and thinking only. BTW, how do you know you're not at the level when you can tell the difference between kusala and akusala. Isn't it possible that the difference is more obvious than you think, and that you have been convinced that your own sense of this is just not valid? According to the dhamma theory, to see kusala and akusala and recognize them as they are arising will not take place until very close to enlightenment, so that would be a pretty restrictive prerequisite ofr meditation. Do you really think that Buddha only advised meditation for those who were already past stream entry? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111154 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 20-okt-2010, om 16:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > This hitting, striking, probing action of vitakka remains one of my > > favorite cetasikas. :-) I have always liked this function. > > > > Sammaa > > > sankappa assists sammaa di.t.thi, while it hits the naama or ruupa > > > that is the object of awareness and right understanding, so that > > > sammaa di.t.thi can see it as it is. > > > > I am happy to hear about this coordinated action between the > > striking action of vitakka and the discernment action of samma ditthi. > > > > I am recalling additional features which I think are part of > > vittaka - turning the object over, beating the object - this is all > > part of the description of vitakka...? Is this correct? > --------- > N: Using some quotes form my Visuddhimagga study: > > The Visuddhimagga (IV, 88) defines vitakka as follows: > > ...Herein, applied thinking (vitakkama) is applied thought (vitakka); > hitting upon, is what is meant. It has the characteristic of > directing the mind onto an object (mounting the mind on its object). > Its function is to strike and thresh- for the meditator is said, in > virtue of it, to have the object touched and struck at by applied > thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object. > > The Visuddhimagga (IV, 88) defines vicaara as follows: > > ...Sustained thinking (vicara.na) is sustained thought (vicaara); > continued sustenance (anusacara.na), is what is meant. It has the > characteristic of continued pressure on (occupation with) the object. > Its function is to keep conascent (mental) states (occupied) with > that. It is manifested as keeping consciousness anchored (on that > object). Thanks for this and for the other paragraphs I have snipped. I found that discussion very interesting. I do like these particular cetasikas and like to hear about them - probably because I am inclined to "strike" at objects of thought and try to penetrate and analyze them myself. To hear about the cetasikas that perform these functions is very good. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111155 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, Sarah, > > > pt: > ... > Perhaps an analogy that might make sense to you is to think of a loudspeaker cone reproducing the sound of a symphony orchestra - the cone just moves back and forth in response to the complex wave that represents the sum-total of 100 instruments together. But all these 100 instruments in one instance are basically summed to a single position of the cone along one axis (positive-negative voltage variation basically). Now, to actually perceive a violin, or a trombone, among those 100 instruments - that would require many moments of hearing consciousness arising and a lot of processing and conceptualising in between, in a similar way that it would be required in order to perceive a chair, a table, etc, in the example of vision. > ... > > > pt: What a long post. I thought it was a very good post, very well thought out. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111156 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:11 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > > Thanks, I just find the different levels of guarding the sense doors really interesting for some reason, so I applied it to the situation. > > I agree, guarding the sense doors is an incredibly important topic, absolutely essential! (Interestingly, there is one sutta that puts it before sila, and another that puts sila before it, but in any case, it is right at the beginning of the practice.) I should return to your post with the Vism references and study them in light of that, I skipped over it since it didn't apply to the situation I was talking about. Sounds good. Let me know if you find anything interesting. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111157 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:22 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep I epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > ...But can't you appreciate that the Buddha > was enlightened to the N8FP and taught this as `The Way'? I understand the Noble 8-fold path as The Way, but we have different understandings of what the path entails, I think. In sutta, Buddha did not teach the path as a sudden succession of instantaneous dhammas at the moment of enlightenment, but a life path. That is my understanding. > That he > practiced Jhana prior to this and judged this as *not* the way? I have heard some say that Jhana is not essential to the path, and that dry insight may be developed as an alternative, but that Jhana is desirable for those who have the accumulations for it. I have never heard what you say about it, that it is an obstacle and is not part of the path. I have also never heard anyone say that samatha - which is calm and is in the direction of the jhanas - is not part of the path. If you have some non-conventional understanding of what samatha is, please inform. > I tried to point out how this particular kind of panna is developed > gradually alongside with the development of the paramis, the process by > which nowhere along the way is the other kind of development ever > necessitated. The reason is that this particular kind of panna is aimed > at the understanding of conditioned nature of all realities and these > are all equally ephemeral and insubstantial, hence one no more or less > valid an object of study than the other. I agree that one would come to understand that all conditioned realities are anicca, anatta and dukkha. However, that does *not* mean that they all make equally effective subjects for mindfulness or insight. > This being the case, why would you think then that calm is needed? Without calm and concentration, the mind is unfocused and disrupted. Even if all dhammas are to be known, that doesn't mean that sati and vipassana can develop under all conditions. Conditions that allow for development need to be cultivated, and samatha is one of them. > But > more importantly, given that Jhana does *not* see into the conditioned > nature of realities and in a way even presumes a `self', would not > `using' Jhana as a support for insight be a case of encouraging > ignorance? Isn't it the other way round then, that Jhana needs to be > understood with insight, because otherwise we continue to take Jhana for > `self'? Jhana needs to be understood with insight to be sure, but that does *not* mean that jhana does not represent a very useful still and subtle ground for such insight. Many believe that it does, and that it is an essential part of the path because of the way it prepares the mind and awareness. You are only paying attention to the aspect of jhana that is trance-like. You are ignoring the sequence the Buddha described in which the awareness and qualities of mind become more subtle and refined with each successive jhana, a pathway that he described as a preparation for deepest insight. > ======== > Rob: I like the way you throw those things in - a big of a disparagement > of the other person's point of view in the form of a Socratic question > to push them towards answering in your favor. Are you a lawyer in daily > life by any chance? :-) > > S: :-) > I couldn't become a lawyer no matter how hard I try. I'm the most > scatter brained person I know and cannot work things on more than one > level at a time. Sure I'd have all the accumulations to be a real > bastard, but in this particular lifetime, I couldn't be scheming and > crafty even if I wanted to. :-) None the less, you appear to have excellent qualities of legal argument on dsg. :-))) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111158 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 25 October 2010 16:22, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- On Mon, 25/10/10, Herman > > wrote: > > S: As for the other discussion we were having and the detail I quoted on > > mindfulness of the body that sent you to sleep, in very brief, the points > > were that: > > 1. In reality, there is no body, Phil's, Sarah's or anyone else's. > > > > >H:It sort of rolls of the tongue, doesn't it? We could even just say, > there > are no emails. :-) > .... > S: Yes, we could and we'd be right - in truth, no emails either :-) > ... > > Cute :-) > > >2. There are only various rupas taken to be a body (through all that > > proliferation, again). > > > > >And that just rolls of the tongue / keyboard too. But here at least you > say that proliferation is real. > ... > S: Correct - just mental and physical phenomena, just namas and rupas. The > proliferation is just one citta after another, one moment of thinking after > another.... > .... > That is not my experience of proliferation. My proliferation isn't neatly segmented into discretely packaged chunks. I guess I have wrong proliferation :-) > > >It would be interesting to find out what you mean in point 1, when you say > "there is no..." (it doesn't matter what you apply it to, I'm more > interested in the reality of not-being). What does it mean, to you, that > you there is no x, while still being able to refer to it ? > .... > S: What it means is that, at moments of wise consideration and > understanding, "body" is just a term, a label, to be used for convenience > only, just like "car" or "chariot". In fact, what is touched now is only > solidity, temperature or pressure. What is seen now is only visible object. > > At least you also acknowledge the reality of labeling here. So, as I understand it, there is for you the reality of whatever is sensed, and then a different reality which is comprised of thinking, proliferating, labeling and the like. But we are just not allowed to refer to this latter reality as reality. Thinking, proliferating and labeling happen, but they are not real. Is that right? > Metta > > Sarah > > p.s Btw, let us know in good time whenever you and Vicki are planning a > stay in Sydney again so we can round up a few discussion "suspects" and try > to be there ourselves:-) > ====== > > Vicki is far wiser than me. She can see no value at all in sitting around and talking about how sitting around and talking isn't real. As for me, I'm a glutton for such frivolity :-) I'll be in touch. Cheers Herman #111159 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:31 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep II epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > S: I know that you find the idea agreeable because it makes sense to you > at some level, Not only that, but Buddha talked about it and it is part of the practice of the Theravadin community; so it's a bit more than what is "agreeable" to me, or whether it merely "makes sense" to me. It is in sutta. > but then you would also be rejecting some basic > principles. Not knowing or even being wrong about certain technicalities > is no problem, however there are some basic premises going wrong about > which is not permissible. Lack of precision is not the inability to > state exactly which cittas follow which ones or which cetasikas > accompany the cittas, but ignoring certain important aspects of the > Dhamma and preferring instead, some other theory. Well it is ignoring principles from your point of view and from the dhamma theory that you subscribe to. I can't answer your technical questions which I have snipped below, and indeed it *is* a matter of not knowing the technicalities. However I will give this as a general possibility: that jhana creates conditions for insight in the immediate aftermath when the jhana state just exited is contemplated with discernment. I don't know if that is done via nimitta or how it creates conditions for insight, but I have seen this in sutta and elsewhere, and can't repeat exactly how it takes place. It *does* make sense to me, and if it doesn't to you, or violates what I still see as your technical understanding of how things are supposed to work according to dhamma theory, then I cannot reconcile that for you. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111160 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:35 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep III epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > You think the way you do because you have separated pariyatti and > patipatti in a way which shows a misunderstanding of what these really > are and what their relationship is. You always forget to say, "according to the dhamma theory which I subscribe to but don't actually experience first-hand." > Of course pariyatti is not patipatti > and without the latter there can't be pativedha. However it is never > correct to think along the lines such as to `limit pariyatti and > preferring instead to `practice'', Well, you've put it in terms of "preference," rather than the inclination which comes from both accumulations and reading sutta. The fact that you look at it a different way is okay with me, but I have to follow my understanding of the Dhamma, not yours. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111161 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep IV epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: ...However when it comes to meditation, the > motivation itself must be wrong given that there is the assumption of > the particular conventional activity as being more useful. More useful than what? Don't you think Dhamma study is "more useful" than doing something else? Confess! ;-) > This being > the case one can't expect then to know any wrong view which may > intermittently arise, since the initial wrong view is not even > recognized as such. This is more lawyer logic. I don't think the initial view is wrong view, as meditation is a legitimate part of the path according to Buddha. You forget that! Second, so what if I have a wrong view that gets me to do this or that. Right view may still arise at any time. I don't buy the idea that all right view has been killed by one wrong view. Anyway, your idea that doing an activity is wrong view doesn't make sense to me, though I know it's popular on this forum. > What according to you is the causal relationship between the activity of > meditation and the arising of patipatti? Anything I say will be used against me. I simply experience meditation as kusala and as clearing my mind, making me calmer, and allowing me to see and think more clearly. It seemst to be a most important part of the path to me, and to have a very positive influence. It seems to lead to a more happy and kusala state, and sometimes lead to insight. That is my experience. I experience what seems to be an increase in mindfulness and calm approaching samatha. It's an experiential practice for me, and I don't think a lot about cittas and cetasikas when I'm doing it. > ======== > Rob: There is no other time and place in meditation. > > S: You mean you do not even conceive of the idea but that by conditions > you suddenly find yourself, sitting crossed legged, taking breath as > object for an extended period of time? Pretty much. I sit when I have both the time and inclination, and I get up again when I have the impulse. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111162 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep V epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > Part V. > ======== > > Suk: Even if you gave yourself 10 minutes a day for meditation and spent > > say, 9 hours in discussions, this would still indicate lack of Right > > Understanding. > > Rob: In "your view." In "my view" the opposite is true, so I agree that > one of us is deluded about this, but surprisingly, I think it's you! :-) > > S: Yes one or both of us is deluded, but both can't be right given that > we are attempting to represent the "One Path" as taught by the Buddha. > But you sometimes suggest that we are both right in our way, and this to > me is equal to admitting that you are indeed deluded!! ;-) Yes, I agree. Allowing for any variation in the One Path shows a terrible lack of discipline. Well I was trying to leave some room for your way of following the path, but I guess you will have to stop, and start meditating, so we can both follow the same One Path. > ========= > Rob: And you take your "idea of the Path" for "the Path itself." Have > fun eating the menu! > > S: And you are identifying something as "reading and eating the menu" > what isn't. Not being able to distinguish between the acts of reading, > listening and any acquiring of information from the fact of > "understanding" or "misunderstanding" based on accumulations; you have > thrown out the baby with the bath water. You have mistaken the bath water for the baby, in my opinion. > =========== > Rob: Did you know that breathing takes place at every moment with rare > exceptions? It is actual. > > S: Is this the kind of information got from `meditation' and are you > trying to impress someone with this? Yes, I was hoping to impress you. I am sorry that it was a failure. > This actually explains a lot. The knowledge and understanding sought and > got in meditation is not about conditioned nama and rupa. There is hence > a sense of achievement in having come to discover such things as in the > above example, when in fact Right Understanding would know to > distinguish between reality and concept and not therefore be taken in by > the latter. > > You talked earlier about the need for `good doubt' and now I think I > know where you are coming from. You were talking in terms of > conventional knowledge, the kind which believe me, I am ever ready to > question any preconceived ideas about. I don't usually place much weight > in my own knowledge about things and so I'll believe almost anyone about > anything. If you told me that there are 67 planets in the solar system, > I'd have absolutely no reason not to believe you. However if you were to > say for example, that consciousness is result of chemical reactions in > the brain, this I won't believe. And if it happens to be that I doubt > myself as a result of hearing your ideas, I'd understand this to be > exactly due to wrong view on my part. So do you see now, why I'm so > adamant when faced with what you say about Dhamma practice? I see that you are very committed to your view of things, and that there is little room to communicate in any other terms. That is understandable; you'll just have to forgive me if I look at it a different way. I am not against conventional activity. I think it is an entryway to seeing more clearly. I also think there is One Path, but I think it leads from samsara [conventional reality] to development of insight and understanding. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111163 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:52 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep VI epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Many meditators think that they are practicing to remain still and not > being tempted to react to any sensory input. But the truth is that they > are in fact very agitated as is manifested in the "need" to practice / > meditate, having never experienced the Middle Way. All kinds of mistakes are possible, but this is not how I regard meditation. It takes time to find the Middle Way in anything, but it is possible. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111164 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep VII epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > S: You'd need to correct all this, and see that the N8FP is about the > development of wisdom aimed at better and better understanding > conditioned realities. This means that it begins with the reality vs. > concept distinction which is stressed only by very few people while > others talk about study and practice in a way which involves taking > conventional realities and activities seriously. So I don't think that > you can say for example, that both you and I are rightly practicing the > N8FP! Maybe not, but there are different ways of practicing within the N8FP for different inclinations and temperaments, according to Buddha. I'm sure you will disagree, but that is my understanding. The path is the same, but not everyone practices the same way. > ========= > Rob: I think that people have different points of emphasis in a given > lifetime. It may be that you are meant to read and study Dhamma this > lifetime, but next lifetime will be all about jhana. > > S: What is the basis for such a conclusion? That people do different parts of the path in different lifetimes. The monks in Buddha's time all practiced sitting meditation. Perhaps in next lifetime you will do the same. > ========= > Rob: At any time, each of us has something that conditions have given us > to work on. I don't presume that others' approaches are wrong unless > they directly contradict the Buddha's basic teachings. Buddha described > those who study samatha and then vipassana later, the reverse and those > who experience both together. He left a lot of room for different > temperaments to work out the path in different ways. You should not be > so dogmatic and so set in your ways that you are instantly dismissive of > everyone else who is doing the Buddha's work. > > S: For any and everybody, no matter what temperament and whether they > are practicing samatha with varying subjects or they are not, the goal > is understanding the nama or rupa which appears "now". If anyone objects > to this and insists upon such things as, "I need to develop sila or > samatha or jhana first", however much saddha he claims to possess, in > reality this reflects very little saddha about the Path. Perhaps. I do think that things can be done in a useful order. Buddha described such an order in anapanasati. Do you think he was mistaken? Best, Robert E. = = = = = #111165 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:40 pm Subject: Prime Priority: Get the Right Map! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is a Good Lay Buddhist Disciple? The Sakyan Mahānāma once asked the Blessed Buddha : Venerable Sir, What is a Lay Disciple? Having taken refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha, one is a Lay Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Pure Disciple? Avoiding all killing, stealing, sexual abuse, lying, and neither drinking any alcohol nor taking any drugs causing neglect, one is a Pure Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Faithful Disciple? Placing faith in the Enlightenment of the Tathāgata thus: Worthy, honourable & perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha! ... teacher & guide of gods and humans, exalted, & awakened ... one is a Faithful Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Generous Disciple? Living mentally devoid stinginess, liberal, open-handed , delighting in donation, devoted to charity, enjoying all giving & sharing, one is a Generous Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Disciple who Understands? One who understands the cause of arising & ceasing, which is Noble , decisive, & which enables eradication of Suffering is a wise Disciple who Understands! More on the Buddhist Lay Disciple (Upāsaka ): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/u_v/upaasaka.htm The Buddha Gotama's first five disciples (Pañcavaggiyā ) Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:395] Section 55 on Stream-Entry: Sotāpattisamyutta. Thread 37: Mahānāma. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Good Lay Disciple! #111166 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:04 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep VIII epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > S: Right Understanding could be said to coming to have a better picture > about reality and this is got through the development of the N8FP. This > is about "now" from beginning to end. What other object of study do you > expect someone to have? Is it not that the ideas put forward by you and > others encourage the study of concepts? No, to the contrary, I think you have it reversed. Discerning reality as it appears now, in delusion, is seeing what is actually being experienced now. Thinking about what dhammas are supposed to look like and thinking that is reality is getting lost in concepts. It's amazing that you can reverse actuality with conceptual reality that way, and call it the opposite! > ========= > > Suk: How do you know that some kind of self-assessment doesn't happen in > > a day including while arguing here? Are you perhaps seeking an > > acknowledgement on our part that you are right and that we are wrong? > > But how can you expect this to happen when the perception arises each > > time, of you and everyone else being wrong? > > Rob: We have to challenge our own perceptions, based on the idea that > most of them will be deluded. I don't dismiss your path. I think that > understanding Dhamma is very important. I just don't appreciate having > my path dismissed. I have room for both. You don't appear to. That is > the definition of dogmatic, when you think that note for note you are > right and everyone else is necessarily wrong. > > S: And you are right about that!! ;-) > You remind me of followers of the Sikh religion. They assert that all > `paths / religion' are equally good and lead ultimately to the same > goal. This automatically places their religion in a position where > others can't judge it as wrong, ever. Yeah, but I didn't say that. You really *should* be a lawyer. They can call you whenever they need a straw man for any subject! ;-) > ========= > > Suk: You've got it all backwards. Understanding the three > > characteristics is the end result of an extremely long road of > > development beginning with pariyatti. It's like you've not even begun to > > understand the Dhamma! > > Rob: Your approach is backwards to me. Read and discuss for a few > thousand lifetimes, before you open your eyes. That is absurd. > > S: Well surely the Dhamma Eye opens only at Stream Entry? In the meantime you are only allowed to open the Reading Eye? How about the Experience Eye? > But that's so long that yes, many lifetimes would go away when only > suttamaya panna will happen. But better this than to get it all wrong > and follow the wrong path. Yes, I'm afraid of the Bogeyman too. That's why I keep my night light on. I'm not afraid of wrong view, Sukin! I believe in doing *more,* not less; experiencing with as much discernment as I can; not sitting back scared that I will develop wrong view. That's no way to go forward and follow the path. > To expect quick results, this is absurd. To > think that Bhavanamaya panna will arise as a result of a decision to > `meditate', this is even more so. ;-) Ha ha, well, at least you're set in your ways. I guess that gives you consistency. I'm not expecting quick results. Surprisingly, you have introduced yet another straw man. ;-) I don't expect quick results, but - very important - *I don't think that merely reading and discussing Dhamma will ever develop the path to its completion.* I think that practice in the form of meditation is part of the path and is *necessary.* Now you think that is wrong view, but I don't. I don't expect quick results at all. I expect to follow the path for as long as it takes and the results may come when they do. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111167 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 26 October 2010 13:58, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > It would be interesting to find out what you mean in point 1, when you > say > > "there is no..." (it doesn't matter what you apply it to, I'm more > > interested in the reality of not-being). What does it mean, to you, that > you > > there is no x, while still being able to refer to it ? > > Two possibilities: > a/ What is perceived as x is actually y. [Misidentification] > eg, what appears as a continuously present body is really a > series of momentary arising dhammas, misidentified. > b/ What is perceived as x is actually not-x. [Hallucination] > eg, what appears to be a present body is actually not there - it > is an image only, produced by the mind, without any real > substance. > > Thanks for your thoughts, and as per usual, you make good points. For both options, it will be readily apparent to both us, that in a present moment it is not possible to reality-test percept x. Whether x is real, misidentified or hallucinated is a matter of some future acts that must be done. The upshot for those who claim to know whether a present object is sensed or mind-made, well, I have some news for them. If they don't like being told they are delusional, they shouldn't read on. The news is that they are deluded, as anyone who does not or cannot reality-check is likely to be. Cheers Herman #111168 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:10 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep IX epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > Part IX. > ========= > > (not referring to conceit here), which when actualize each time what > it conceives > > of, becomes more bloated. Your "now" *is* a conceiving about the future, > > Rob: What makes you say that? How would you know that? Why would you > think that? Why have a strong opinion about someone else's experience? > > > S: Would you need to judge someone who experiences say, "god > consciousness" only after going into detail about his experiences? Uh...yeah. I don't judge other people's experiences. > Luckily this is all about `right understanding' and not experiencing. Uh...no. > Wrong view is the one that is being addressed and so we don't need to go > through all the trouble of finding out all about the other person's > experiences. And what would you use to judge anyone's experience after > getting all the information needed? I'm not judging anyone's experiences. You are. > ========= > > since it involves some kind of 'doing'. > > Rob: That is your conceptual formula. I think it's nonsense that any > form of doing is the result of self-view. > > S: Only those associated with the idea of development of wholesome > qualities, particularly Right Understanding. Dhamma's are conditioned > and beyond control, therefore any doing in this regard would be going > against this particular understanding. The idea of `setting up > conditions' is a denial of such an understanding in that even such > thinking is conditioned already, and clearly without any prior plan to > `set up conditions'. I disagree. Sorry. > ========= > > The only real "now" is that which appears at this very moment and any > > Right Understanding of this would be of it as having already fallen away. I still think meditation is kusala because of the real effect it has. It's not a theory. > Rob: We don't actually experience that, do we? So it's just a story for > you. Practice actually develops the capacity to see more clearly, rather > than just spin ideas about it. > > > S: We *understand* that on levels depending on conditions. That you talk > about `experiencing' instead of the development of understanding > indicates lack of appreciation of need for much development at the level > of suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna. Nope. But I don't think you can think your way to enlightenment. > Your assertion therefore of > `practice developing the capacity to see more clearly' therefore has > little merit. It's not true, but I can't prove it to you in terms that you will accept. Practice does what it does, just like any conditions condition what they condition. > ======== > > But you and others keep encouraging one another to instead go along with > > own ideas projected. Take for example the idea of "letting go", any fool > > will have his own idea as to what this is. > > Rob: Only someone stuck in concepts will fail to understand letting go. > it is when something is no longer an object of clinging or craving and > one no longer grasps after it. > > S: And how would I know this if this hasn't happened yet to any degree? You might not. Just like you wouldn't know what a real instantaneous dhamma looks like, yet you are all excited about those! :-) Letting go is something that can be cultivated too, something that the Buddha sometimes said was "all of the path." > Would not jumping at the idea be exactly an expression of the opposite? Depends on whether you are jumping out of insight or craving I guess. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111169 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:13 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep X epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Rob: Well nothing wrong with developing that in meditation, as far as > I'm concerned. > > S: What is the difference then and why must you even think in terms of > time for meditation and not? Because of the discernible effect it has. If it didn't have a discernible effect which appears to me to be kusala and creating greater calm and clarity I wouldn't do it. But it does. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111170 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:20 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep XI epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > Part XI. > ======== > > Suk: But it is alright for you to go on to defend other meditaters even > > though you have no more information about them than I do? But let's just > > talk about you then. > > > Rob: Really I am defending meditation as a practice, not "all > meditators." I just don't think you know that they are "all wrong." > > S: And when I criticize meditation as a practice you say that I should > get information from each individual meditator before doing so. ;-) Yes, you have a lot of research to do in both areas! ;-) > ======== > > Why is it that the mindfulness which arises during your meditation > > practice, this can't arise now while reading and discussing? > > Rob: If it does that is great. I accept Dhamma study and discussion as > extremely important. I never denied their importance. I just don't think > they are usually sufficient to give someone an actual experience of what > is being read and studied. > > > S: I'm not arguing about study vs. practice. I'm talking about the > conditioned arising of panna at the level of patipatti. I'm asking why > someone for whom such level of understanding has arisen during > meditation, that the same couldn't arise at any other time. What is the > difference in the conditions? Meditation creates greater conditions for development, as I see it. > ======== > > > S: If there is an idea of a self who is reading / discussing in order > > that panna will arise at some point, sure this can condition an illusion > > of result. > > > Rob: Then why indicate meditation as a wrong activity? Why not just talk > about the problem of self-view in all our activities? > > S: Because we do what we do according to accumulations. Including meditation! So it's fine according to you! :-) > Development of > understanding could be said to be a process of coming to know our > accumulations. An interest in the Dhamma can lead to reading and > discussing the Dhamma and not being interested will not. Being led to > any akusala activity is not a hindrance as this could be the object of > right view which understands that such is `conditioned already'. So promote Right View in meditation. I'm in favor of that! > Meditation on the other hand is based on the assumption that certain > situations are not suitable for the development of mindfulness and > understanding and projects into the future a better situation. No it's not. It's based on the assumption that meditation is an important way to develop mindfulness and samatha based on the Buddha's teaching. It's part of the Dhamma. > Therefore > instead of coming to understand who we are, we come to be fooled by > illusions of result. This is the currently popular nonsense around here. Meditation leads to understanding, not delusion. Anyone who enjoys meditation according to the Buddha's instructions, is not "fooled by illusions of result," but enjoys the practice as part of the path. > It's therefore a case of wrong view leading to more > wrong view and never coming to understand our own accumulations. I hope you get rid of this wrong view someday, so you can enjoy the whole of the Buddha's path to liberation, and not just the "reading" part. I wonder how many arahants reached the moment of enlightenment with a book in their hand? And how many were sitting under a tree as the Buddha did? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111171 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > >K: 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. > > > >R: What about what the suttas actually say? > ..... > S: There are several suttas in AN which also stress that right understanding is the leader - that the other path factors depend on it. I don't have my books with me, but here's a passage I've quoted before from AN 10s, 115: > > " 'Your reverences, wrong view is not-dhamma, right view is dhamma; and those divers evil, unprofitable states that come to be because of wrong view, that is not-aim; whereas those divers, good, profitable states, due to right view, which come to fullness of culture, this is the aim......Right release, your reverences, is dhamma, and those divers good, profitable states, due to right release, which come to fullness of culture, that is the aim.'" > > Also, there is the sutta about the bitter nimb-seed in AN 10s, 104, "The seed": > > " 'Monks, for a man, a person, who has wrong view, wrong thinking, speech, action, living, effort, mindfulness, concentration, wrong knowledge and wrong release, whatsoever bodily action is carried to completion and fulfilment according to that view, whatsoever action of speech, of mind, whatsoever intention, aspriration, resolve, whatsoever activities of mind (directed thereto) there may be - all of those states conduce to what is unpleasant, not delightful, not charming, not profitable, to what is painful. What is the cause of that? Monks, the view is bad. > > " 'Suppose, monks, a nimb-seed or a seed of creeper or bitter gourd be planted in moist soil. Whatever essence it derives from earth or water, all that conduces to its bitterness, its acridity, its unpleasant taste. What is the cause of that? The bad nature of the seed, monks.'" > > S: Of course, the reverse is true and pointed out, for one with right view, right thinking, speech, action, living, effort, mindfulness concentration, right knowledge and right release follow. I have no doubt that Right View leads, and I enjoyed the quotes which are informative. I will note that the other path factors also come into play and that in the overall picture they all have to work together. But I would not doubt the importance of Right View in the process. I just don't think it suffices, for most minds anyway, all by itself. If one had a moment of absolute Right View, perhaps that would lead to the fulfillment of the path right then and there. But waiting for such a moment, or thinking that heading for such a moment is the whole of the path, I think is pretty idealistic, and not the intention of the path as a whole. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111172 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep XII epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > Part XII. > ======== > > Robert: > > Well one needs to look and see if they know what that means, not just > > say the words. > > > > Suk: It looks like you believe that for those of us who don't meditate, > > sati can't arise during everyday activities and what we end up with is > > just 'talk'. > > Rob: If it does arise, that is good. I think meditation maximizes such > possibility. If you talk about that, I will certainly accept it. But it > seems that everyone is content to argue doctrine and criticize views > that are not in one's own dogma. > > S: Well, it is your view that "meditation maximizes" the possibility of > sati arising, so you'll need to say something to back this up, otherwise > I'll only continue to judge this as product of wrong view. > > ======== > > But remember, there is only the present moment, and this is > > the background understanding from which direct study can ever arise. > > Rob: That is true, and that is also good. > > S: Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all conform to each other, meaning > they'd all come to the same conclusion about "there being only the > present moment". Do you agree wholeheartedly with this? Of course! But I don't always draw the same conclusions from it that you do. > ======== > > Robert: > > Have you ever seen the present moment as it actually is, or is it just a > > concept? If the latter, what makes you think you know what you are > > talking about? > > > > Suk: And the reason for your questioning my understanding is because I > > don't see the need to meditate....? Just askin'. I just don't think you should judge others' understanding of the moment, and how it may be achieved, based on dogma, that's all. I don't care if you meditate or not. If you have a way of directly discerning the reality of the moment now, I'm all ears. > Rob: No, because I don't accept that doctrine is the same as > understanding. I would love to hear you talk about your own > understanding, rather than make general statements about what is right > and what is wrong on some conceptual level. > > S: I *am* talking about my own understanding, but perhaps you mean > experience? And how would you know if someone is talking from direct > understanding anyway, after all what he'd say would be what the texts > say wouldn't it? Yeah, maybe. But if someone is talking about their own experience they may talk in the first person. > ======== > > Suk: So in your meditation you have yet to come to experience dhammas > > and understand that in fact at any given moment there are only > > paramattha dhammas rising and falling away, each equally fleeting, > > insubstantial and non self, because otherwise you wouldn't have a > > problem with so called 'chatter'. > > Rob: I mean outside chatter, but of course whatever arises is fine. > > S: Yes, because whatever that may be, all are equally fleeting and > insubstantial. Yes, to me, the discerning of anicca at the present time is to see the apparent changes that are constantly taking place. To see anatta at the present time is to see all the things I can't control, all the changes that take place despite my clinging and craving; all the things I am confronted with despite aversion. I experience the moment-to-moment dissatisfaction/suffering of things not going my way, all the time. The teachings are here now. One can let them lead, even now, while we are suffering from delusion. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111173 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: Response to Robert Ep XIII epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > S: Or recognizing that such are instances of attachment and wrong view > and hence not following its dictates. ;-) That is, if you have the kusala to know akusala when you see it. ;-) > Whew. I keep breaking my own records, but at least I'll be remembered > for this. ;-) I'll certainly remember you. Sometimes I wake up in a cold sweat... ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111174 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:24 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert K, > > ----- > <. . .> > RK: > You find calling a stream of arising and ceasing namas and rupas somehow not in accordance with Dhamma? You really can't perceive that this is just a way of designation to facilitate explanation? > ----- > > I find talk about "streams of namas and rupas" mostly results from confused thinking. It attributes permanency or lastingness where no such lastingness exists. > > > > ------------------------ Dear Kenh If I had said "a stream of arising and ceasing namas and rupas (and by arising and ceasing it is to be understood that each nama and rupa only lasts for a billionth of a split second) " would that have been acceptable to you or is that still ascribing permanancy, and shows confused thinking? > RK: > Tell me when in the satipatthana sutta , when it is describing how anatta is perceived and to be understood it states: > > " Thus owing to the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes > down and the upper eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. "" > > ----------------------- > > You have lost me; I don't know what you are asking. > > You know my understanding of the Satipatthana Sutta: Whenever someone cites it in support of formal walking-meditation (for example), I am quick to say, no, it is actually in support of knowing ultimate reality - nama and rupa. > > It is not in support of mindfulness of eyelids, is it? It doesn't suggest eyelids exist in ultimate reality any more than it suggests walking exists in ultimate reality. > > ------------------------------- Robert: The point is is that is talks about eyelids opening and closing, wasn't it a few posts ago you saying that concepts were metaphors? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> <. . .> > KH: >> How would you want science to read, Robert? Would the statement "living creatures are subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka" be any less wrong than "living creatures are not subject to the laws of kamma nad vipakka" or "living creatures are subject to blind chance"? They would all be equally wrong, wouldn't they? In reality there are no living creatures. > In conventional science, however, living creatures are clearly subject to blind chance." That's what the scientific method reveals. > >> > > RK: > In an earlier post in this thread you expressed appreciation of this sutta which has this > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/111062 > """"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he > is reborn<> and Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."endquote > > > Could you break that down for me and show why saying "beings are owners of their kamma" etc is appreciated by you in light of your suggestion that saying "living creatures are subject to the law of kamma and vipaka " is wrong > -------------------------------- >KENH: Yes, I will give it a try, although I would be interested to know your breakdown of it. > > When the word "beings" is used by the Buddha it designates the five khandhas, as distinct from conventionally known beings (atta). Therefore, that sutta is saying the five khandhas own kamma in the same way as conventionally known beings are said to own property. The five khandhas are the heirs to kamma just as sentient beings are heirs to the family fortune. They have kammas in the same way that sentient beings have ancestors. And so on. > > It is not saying that conventionally known entities are the owners (etc) of kamma. Nor is it saying they are *not* the owners of kamma. Nor is is saying they are both - or neither. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert: what prompted your change from 'concepts of humans are metaphors " just a day or two ago, to now concepts are designations for the khandhas? Lets discuss further on this. When the killer of human beings (as in above sutta) dies he is reborn in hell. In paramattha terms the akusala kamma results in patisandhi arising in a hell realm. And what is hell like : MAJJHIMA NIKYA III 3. 10. Devadtasutta (130) The Heavenly Messengers """Then the warders of hell give him the fivefold binding. That is two hot iron spikes are sent through his two palms, and two other hot spikes are sent through his two feet and the fifth hot iron spike is sent through his chest. On account of this he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings. Yet he does not die, until his demerit finishes. Next the warders of hell conduct him and hammer himOn account of this he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings. Yet he does not die, until his demerit finishes. Next the warders of hell take him upside down and cut him with a knifeOn account of this too he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings. Yet he does not die, until his demerit finishes. Next the warders of hell yoke him to a cart and make him go to and fro on a ground that is flaming and ablaze On account of this too he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings. """`` ""Bhikkhus, I say this not hearing from another recluse or brahmin, this is what I have myself known and seen and so I say it."" http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/130-devadu\ ta-e.html Now in paramattha terms we can say the hell realm is simply the arising and passing away of painful feeling. But we see that it is nothing like the minor pains of the human realm and the Buddha's desciption of it in conventional terms helps us to see how painful and unremitting hell is. So we are in complete agreement here right? Lets talk about science, you agree that "KEN:In conventional science, however, living creatures are clearly subject to blind chance." and you further suggest that this is a excellent view and that scientists who promote it are likely having kusala citta based on there wish to educate people . Say we had a hypothetical scientist who wanted to help people eradicate mosquitos and he showed the locals how to apply pesticide which killed them. He has never heard of Buddhism or khandhas. He helps the locals kill the insects. I would assume that even he knows nothing about kamma and vipaka and nothing about khandhas he is still making akusala kamma , both by killing, by encouraging people to kill, and by his wrong view that living creatures are subject to blind chance, or that there is no result in a future life from this killing. Do you think I have explained this correctly? Robert #111175 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:11 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi again > > > >(and only you know who you are, since students of A.S seem to be completely disinclined to share bad behaviour in the confessional way recommended by the Buddha to Rahula) > > I'll take this back. I think all Western Buddhists are disinclined to the confessional aspect because of associations with Christianity, but it is clearly recommmended by the Buddha. Students of A.S would be more likely to preach against doing so, because it would involve clinging to self, remorse, etc etc. I think I am the king of confessional posting, and that's not just becuase I have a loose tongue (fingers) which I do, but I think telling about my bad behaviour helps to condition abstaining from it. The reason I mention using porn so often (which is bad because it can condition sexual misconduct) is because I know that mentionning it will make me less inclined, more ashamed to use it, there is a method to my confessional babbling... I personally think it's a good example as well. It's almost a clinical approach to the personal, which I think is in the direction of acknowledging anatta and just looking at the conditions you're dealing with, even though I know you don't think you're ready for that! :-) It's set a good example for me. If one is embarrassed about their own failings and actions, there's a lot of self-view in that. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = #111176 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:33 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > RE: > If I have a mole on my face, that's a characteristic. If I don't have a mole, however, that is not a characteristic, except by comparison. > -------- > > The main point of Dhamma study is to understand that anatta is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas. So maybe we should continue this thread until you and your cohorts are convinced. :-) Yes, that would be very torturesome. That is good! > It might help if you weren't so determined to prove the Abhidhamma wrong on this. Nope, that's not my intention. My intention is to either get an answer to my question or determine that you don't have one, because what you are talking about is neither actual nor possible. If you give me a decent answer I will be convinced. I tried to imagine how you could give a positive definition of "NO self," but I couldn't do it on my own. You are claiming it is so, despite an absolute lack of any adequate answer to what anatta is as a positive characteristic - not what it would feel like, but what it would appear as for a discerning citta that could identify it. You cannot say, you fail, you can't do it; yet you insist it is there, because your Bible tells you so. Sorry, but that is not convincing, so you should be all rights give up, but you won't because it must be true according to your belief as a true believer. I'm still waiting. If you can answer the question I'll believe you're right, even though it defies all logic. > Your point about "positive and negative" for example, smacks of desperation. Howard, who is on your side in this, has cautioned you that positive and negative are just words we attach to things. A clear skin can be called a positive, and its opposite - a blemished skin - a negative: or a clear skin can be called a negative and a blemished skin a positive. It's not important. The important thing is that all dhammas (as distinct from concepts) are inherently - by their own intrinsic natures! characteristically! substantially! - anatta. Well you can twist it as you like, I don't care about the labels "positive and negative" either. I'm looking for a definition of anatta as an "inherent characteristic," something that is THERE in the appearance of a dhamma out of a *pure negation.* It can't...be...done, by definition. I am not just screwing around, I am saying something important, that this philosophy has a tendency to take assertions and turn them into objects, into features. It's a form of entity-building, and it shouldn't be there. Negatives are not features, they are only asserted by comparison. Instead of addressing any of my points you repeat, "It is such, it is such," with no basis except your faith. When Buddha taught anatta, he did not teach it as a structure, but as an understanding. It is not an existent thing, it is the understanding that what we wish and hope for is *not there.* Instead you have turned it into something you can appreciatively believe *is* there, and that gives you comfort. That is a perversion of the teaching which gives you something to cling to where it should leave you with nothing to hold onto. > How do you feel about anicca and dukkha? Are they mere logical deductions too? Or do you agree they are inherent characteristics that make conditioned dhammas the worthless rubbish that they are? Anicca cannot be observed in a single moment, since anicca is a characteristic of *change.* I hope you will not tell me that *change* exists in the moment before the dhamma has changed, because it is some kind of sign rather than actual change. Anicca is a comparison between a dhamma in condition "a" and condition "b." If you don't observe that the dhamma has changed, you cannot discern or directly see anicca. It exists between moments, not in a single moment. A single citta cannot discern anatta. But yes, it is a real phenomenon, for sure, but not a characteristic of a single moment. If a dhamma arises, degrades and disappears, during the time that it goes through this arising and degradation, it is demonstrating the characteristic of anicca. Dhammas do not *have* dukkha as a characteristic. They *are not* suffering, they *cause* suffering. Suffering is an *experience.* When Buddha says "all dhammas are dukkha," he is saying that they are causes of suffering, not that they suffer or that suffering is an item that is observed on or in a dhamma. Dukkha is a product of clinging to that which is not self and not graspable or controllable. It is a characteristic of the experiencing element, of citta, when it is in a deluded, grasping state. Buddha's message was true to conditions within samsara - that citta clings and craves after changing, non-self objects and states, and this causes suffering, because of delusion. That's my understanding of how and why the three marks exist. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111177 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:35 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > RE: > If I have a mole on my face, that's a characteristic. If I don't have a mole, however, that is not a characteristic, except by comparison. > -------- > > The main point of Dhamma study is to understand that anatta is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas. So maybe we should continue this thread until you and your cohorts are convinced. :-) > > It might help if you weren't so determined to prove the Abhidhamma wrong on this. Your point about "positive and negative" for example, smacks of desperation. Howard, who is on your side in this, has cautioned you that positive and negative are just words we attach to things. A clear skin can be called a positive, and its opposite - a blemished skin - a negative: or a clear skin can be called a negative and a blemished skin a positive. It's not important. The important thing is that all dhammas (as distinct from concepts) are inherently - by their own intrinsic natures! characteristically! substantially! - anatta. > > How do you feel about anicca and dukkha? Are they mere logical deductions too? Or do you agree they are inherent characteristics that make conditioned dhammas the worthless rubbish that they are? > > Ken H Correction: in my last post I meant to say "A single citta cannot discern anicca," ...not "anatta." Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111178 From: "antony272b2" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:34 am Subject: Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Sarah, Here is a sutta about a dying monk longing for the sight of the Buddha as a person. I'm not sure what the Buddha meant by "He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma." The preceding sutta SN22.86 I once posted to dsg which concludes with the insight that the Tathagata can't be pinned down either within or without the five aggregates (or by logic even an ordinary person either). With metta / Antony. Samyutta Nikaya 22.87 Vakkali Sutta: Vakkali (excerpt) translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe Seeing the Dhamma [The Buddha visits the Ven. Vakkali, who is sick] Now the Venerable Vakkali saw the Blessed One coming from a distance, and tried to get up. Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Vakkali: "Enough, Vakkali, do not try to get up.[1] There are these seats made ready. I will sit down there." And he sat down on a seat that was ready. Then he said: "Are you feeling better, Vakkali? Are you bearing up? Are your pains getting better and not worse? Are there signs that they are getting better and not worse?"[2] "No, Lord, I do not feel better, I am not bearing up. I have severe pains, and they are getting worse, not better. There is no sign of improvement, only of worsening." "Have you any doubts, Vakkali? Have you any cause for regret?" "Indeed, Lord, I have many doubts. I have much cause for regret." "Have you nothing to reproach yourself about as regards morals?" "No, Lord, I have nothing to reproach myself about as regards morals." "Well then, Vakkali, if you have nothing to reproach yourself about as regards morals, you must have some worry or scruple that is troubling you." "For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One." "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."[3] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html For Free Distribution, as a gift of Dhamma, from Access to Insight and the Buddhist Publication Society http://www.bps.lk --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Antony, > > Thanks for sharing another good sutta on the topic of useless questions revolving around self-view. > > The more there is an understanding of dhammas, the less concern there is about "me" in the past, future or present. Wouldn't you agree? > > Please share any more you find relevant to our discussion. > > Metta > > Sarah > #111179 From: "antony272b2" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:47 am Subject: Re: Living with self-view antony272b2 Hi Phil! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi all > > It always helps when people talk in the context of a gradual training, being told to get straight to understanding that there is only nama and rupa doesn't really seem to help me at all. Antony: I learned the hard way that you don't view your grandmother as psychophysical phenomena because then you are on an equal footing. With metta / Antony. #111180 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/26/2010 8:39:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard Well, maybe I have that wrong, but I have heard and read people say that the content of thinking is not as important as well, understanding the usual kind of things, you know, is there seeing now, etc. And as we know, Jon and others have been saying that even understandig of the present moment can't be said to change behaviour, so it wouldn't be surprising if they question that the content of thinking changes behaviour. From an A.S point of view, the first verse of DHammpada about the mind leading all wouldn't be referring to content of thinking, would it, it would be about a minute, ephemeral citta... Sorry to A.S students if I have misprepresented you, surely not the first or last time. Please clarify what I wrote, if you care to. Metta, Phil ==================================== I have no idea of the entirety of what KS's students have to say about thinking, but I will say that papa~nca (i.e., proliferation) pertains to content of thinking and emotion. As for the start of the Dhammapada, the following clearly pertains to content of thinking: Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox. Mind is the forerunner of (all good) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with pure mind, AFFECTION follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves. and ``He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'' in those who harbour such thoughts hatred is not appeased. ``He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'' in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred is appeased. To provide a bit more as to what the Buddha had to say as regards the importance of the content of thinking, there is, just as a single sample, the following: The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort. "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to _Unbinding_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html) .' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence. "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence." — _MN 19_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html) My point was that the content of thinking is critical to the matter of our bondage and liberation, and I would be shocked to hear that KS's students have learned a teaching to the contrary. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111181 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:51 am Subject: Re: Living with self-view philofillet Hi Antony How are you? Nice to hear from you. > It always helps when people talk in the context of a gradual training, being told to get straight to understanding that there is only nama and rupa doesn't really seem to help me at all. > > Antony: I learned the hard way that you don't view your grandmother as psychophysical phenomena because then you are on an equal footing. Could you explain a bit more, I don't get it! Metta, Phil #111182 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:00 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob E > I personally think it's a good example as well. It's almost a clinical approach to the personal, which I think is in the direction of acknowledging anatta and just looking at the conditions you're dealing with, even though I know you don't think you're ready for that! :-) Ph: Hmm, I think I'm ready for that *after* the fact, reflection on anatta and the conditioned nature of what propelled me into bad behaviour helps drop remorse sooner than later. What I'm not ready for is insight into the "present reality", my understanding doesn't function so swiftly. > It's set a good example for me. If one is embarrassed about their own failings and actions, there's a lot of self-view in that. Ph: Thanks, yes. Another example of not being embarrassed is the many times I walk to the station with my fly open. I do that quite often, not intentionally. I usually notice after I've gotten on the train, but there is never any dwelling on what a weird screw up I must have appeared to the Japanese people I passed. More interesting vipaka,eh? Is a fly left open by mindlessness vipaka? No. My open fly is a concept. I guess the pleasant body sense from the breeze that blows in through the open fly on to the vicinity of my ding-a-ling is vipaka from wholesome kamma, I wish it wouldn't do that. Metta, Phil #111183 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Howard > My point was that the content of thinking is critical to the matter of > our bondage and liberation, and I would be shocked to hear that KS's > students have learned a teaching to the contrary. Well, I don't remember exactly what I heard, to be honest. But in light of statememnts from A.S such as "what good is it to know akusala from kusala if it is not known that all dhammas are not self" you never know... ...But since I said that without clear memory of the exact words or the context, and since no one has come in to confirm it, let's assume that I was mistaken, shall we? Metta, Phil #111184 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/27/2010 8:06:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard > My point was that the content of thinking is critical to the matter of > our bondage and liberation, and I would be shocked to hear that KS's > students have learned a teaching to the contrary. Well, I don't remember exactly what I heard, to be honest. But in light of statememnts from A.S such as "what good is it to know akusala from kusala if it is not known that all dhammas are not self" you never know... ...But since I said that without clear memory of the exact words or the context, and since no one has come in to confirm it, let's assume that I was mistaken, shall we? ---------------------------------------------------- Sure, though I'm surprised that no one has chimed in on this matter. :-) -------------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111185 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:56 am Subject: What I heard. Nimitta, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, Nimitta, no 3. Nina: How can we ever know the truth? Kh Sujin: You do not have to think of nimitta.The understanding of whatever appears can begin. Nina: When I think of nimitta I think of a concept, such as a meditation subject of Samatha. Kh Sujin: Do not think of anything, there are just realities which are appearing. Otherwise the story comes in. Sankhaara nimitta, the nimitta of conditioned realities, has been spoken of in the Tipi.taka. We have to understand what that means: it is this moment. Direct understanding of realities is the way leading to becoming a sotaapanna who has eliminated the wrong view of taking realities for self. Realities arise and fall away instantly, they never return. If we try to look for them we cannot find them. We cling to what appears very, very briefly and then passes away. Nothing is left. It seems that we understand completely what visible object is, but actually we take it for something. It is there just for a moment. Hearing is just a moment. Realities are arising and falling away continuously and what is left is the nimitta. We just live in our own thinking. Question: When an arahat hears the sound of a whistle, is there also a nimitta for him? Kh Sujin: Why not. He understands what nimitta is. At this moment while we are thinking of nimitta there is no awareness and understanding. When there is a moment of understanding it develops. When we hear about the four Applications of Mindfulness we should know that it is the mindfulness that develops, not I am developing mindfulness. How can mindfulness develop? By being aware of a reality, and then pa~n~naa can understand it. Nina: Can we be aware of a nimitta? Kh Sujin: We do not have to call it anything. Right now we become stuck with the word nimitta, but whatever appears through the eyesense is the object of awareness, and words are not needed. Later on we can see that when there is understanding of realities there can be a beginning of the elimination of clinging to someone or something as permanent. Nina: Can we say that the nimitta is a person or something? Kh Sujin: When we are speaking about sankhaara nimitta, we refer to realities right now, not to concepts. ********** Nina. #111186 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 26 October 2010 14:26, sarah wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > you both have my sympathies with regards to daily life :-) > .... > S: It's just the dust - the lobha, dosa and moha - that cause the daily > life difficulties. Without that, it'd all be plain sailing without any need > for any sympathy:-) > > Sure, agreed. Still, no amount of vacuum cleaning eliminates the creation of dust, and no amount of imagining a dustless world leads to one. Here we are you and me quite dustee :-) Cheers Herman #111187 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? nilovg Hi Phil and Howard, shall I try to chime in? Op 27-okt-2010, om 14:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Well, I don't remember exactly what I heard, to be honest. But in > light of > statememnts from A.S such as "what good is it to know akusala from > kusala > if it is not known that all dhammas are not self" you never know... > > ...But since I said that without clear memory of the exact words or > the > context, and since no one has come in to confirm it, let's assume > that I was > mistaken, shall we? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Sure, though I'm surprised that no one has chimed in on this matter. > :-) --------- N: Yes, the context matters. When developing satipa.t.thaana with the aim to understand the truth of anattaa, the beginning is this: learning that whatever appears is just a reality. Before the first stage of insight is reached it is not known precisely what naama is what ruupa is. Akusala and kusala are naama, but they are not yet clearly understood as a reality, as naama. We know them by name, we can say: that is lobha. But the characteristic of lobha is not known precisely yet. It is not known as just a conditioned reality. It is difficult to know kusala and akusala since they alternate all the time, and they arise and fall away extremely rapidly. We cannot try to catch them. This does not mean that it is useless to develop all kinds of wholesome deeds and to abstain from what is akusala. This is beneficial, and at the same time it is good to also develop more understanding of realities. This is included in bhaavana and this is also among the bases of meritorious deeds. One way of kusala does not exclude another way. No contradiction at all. Nina. #111188 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ruled by citta. was; hot Asian girls... nilovg Dear Phil, Op 27-okt-2010, om 2:39 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > From an A.S point of view, the first verse of DHammpada about the > mind leading all wouldn't be referring to content of thinking, > would it, it would be about a minute, ephemeral citta... ------- N: I quote from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Ch 7: --------- Nina. #111189 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/27/2010 9:11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Phil and Howard, shall I try to chime in? Op 27-okt-2010, om 14:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Well, I don't remember exactly what I heard, to be honest. But in > light of > statememnts from A.S such as "what good is it to know akusala from > kusala > if it is not known that all dhammas are not self" you never know... > > ...But since I said that without clear memory of the exact words or > the > context, and since no one has come in to confirm it, let's assume > that I was > mistaken, shall we? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Sure, though I'm surprised that no one has chimed in on this matter. > :-) --------- N: Yes, the context matters. When developing satipa.t.thaana with the aim to understand the truth of anattaa, the beginning is this: learning that whatever appears is just a reality. Before the first stage of insight is reached it is not known precisely what naama is what ruupa is. Akusala and kusala are naama, but they are not yet clearly understood as a reality, as naama. We know them by name, we can say: that is lobha. But the characteristic of lobha is not known precisely yet. It is not known as just a conditioned reality. It is difficult to know kusala and akusala since they alternate all the time, and they arise and fall away extremely rapidly. We cannot try to catch them. This does not mean that it is useless to develop all kinds of wholesome deeds and to abstain from what is akusala. This is beneficial, and at the same time it is good to also develop more understanding of realities. This is included in bhaavana and this is also among the bases of meritorious deeds. One way of kusala does not exclude another way. No contradiction at all. Nina. ================================= Nina, I thank you for your participation, but I don't quite see how this addresses the issue Phil and I hyave been discussing, and, in particular, the points about thinking made by the Buddha in the sutta portions I quoted. Phil was under the impression that some students of Ajahn Sujin believe that the content of thinking is unimportant. I believe that the Buddha taught the diametric opposite of that. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111190 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Living with self-view nilovg Dear Phil, Op 27-okt-2010, om 4:24 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > "The unpleasant feeling that arises is a good reminder that we are > valuing self. Then we can remember that there are only namas and > rupas arising." (I added a note "this seems like intentionally > using panna to escape from unpleasant feeling.) > > Now, I think we can all agree that "the unpleasant feeling that > arises is a good reminder that we are valuing self." I don't know > the full context of the passage, but it was surely not talking > about a brief moment of vipaka, but some kind of unpleasant mental > feelings related to something in daily life. It is true, anxiety, > for example, is a sign of valuing self, so much of our aversion > comes from valuing self, I'm sure we can all agree on that. It is > the second sentence I have trouble with. "Then we can remember that > there are only namas and rupas arising." I know I have said this > many times, but isn't it as clear to use as it is to me that this > is an invitation to appropriate deep understanding for the purpose > of mental well being. ------- N: It is hard to see that there are only naama and ruupa. We cling to self, and take unpleasant feeling immediately for self. To let go of the self is not exactly for comfort and well being. We like the self too much. Detachment does not come easily with us, since we are always attached. Anyway I cannot think so much of having comfort when developing right understanding. I know that it is just a long way to go, that is all. True, nibbaana is true peace, it is the only peace, but it is best to attend to this moment and nothing else, not to some peace in the future. Nina. #111191 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:43 am Subject: Sangiitisutta and commentary, to Rob E. nilovg Dear Rob E, you wrote: When this understanding has become firmer it can condition the > arising of direct awareness and understanding. Only when sati of the > level of satipa.t.thaana arises can there be a deeper understanding > of the characteristics of aniccaa, dukkha and anattaa. I like this review of the 5 [or 6] perceptions very much. I know you won't be able to answer until after the weekend, but how would you describe the difference between ordinary sati and sati of the level of satipatthana? ------- N: Sati accompanies each kusala citta, it accompanies kusala citta with daana, siila and bhaavana. Sati is non-forgetful of what is kusala. When sati arises you do not let the opportunity go by to perform kusala. For example, someone else needs our help, but sometimes there is laziness and we do not move to help. At other times we see the benefit of helping and sati remembers to take care of someone else, even if it means that we tire ourselves. There are many levels of sati. Sati of the level of satipa.t.thaana is aware of the naama and ruupa that appears now. Often we are forgetful of the realities appearing through the six doors, but when sati arises it is non-forgetful of one reality appearing through one of these doorways. The whole day we touch things but we are forgetful. Sometimes sati can arise and be aware of hardness, just the ruupa that is hardness. At that moment we do not think of a cup or table that is hard, there is only hardness appearing. When we know the difference between forgetfulness and mindfulness, mindfulness can develop. At the moment of mindfulness of a reality pa~n~naa can investigate its true nature, it can know it as just a dhamma. In this way pa~n~naa can grow so that naama and ruupa can be realized as non-self. Nina. #111192 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. was: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear pt and Rob E, Op 27-okt-2010, om 6:02 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > the cone just moves back and forth in response to the complex wave > that represents the sum-total of 100 instruments together. But all > these 100 instruments in one instance are basically summed to a > single position of the cone along one axis (positive-negative > voltage variation basically). -------- N: I have been thinking again of this scientific approach. One is thinking of the different causes for hearing a sound. Is there not a danger here of losing out of sight the goal of it all: detachment? This morning I heard a Thai recording and I was thinking of the disadvantage of a scientific approach: ------ Nina. #111193 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: memories of the late Ven. Dhammadharo, to Lukas. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 25-okt-2010, om 23:27 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: Does akusala dhammma can condition kusala dhamma? Or only > akusala dhamma can be an object for kusala(such as satipatthana)? > > Once I killed a fish, and next moment there was kusala reflection > on dhamma and calm. It seems like akusala dhamma conditioned kusala > dhamma. Is it still possible? -------- N: I do not know what kind of reflexion you had. But the following may happen: You realise that you committed wrong and then, seeing the danger of accumulating akusala kamma, you want to accumulate kusala kamma. Or you see that killing is wrong, that it is defilement, and seeing this is in itself kusala. Or you may be aware of akusala as only a conditioned reality, as not self. That is right understanding, it is kusala. ------- > L: Does pakkatupanissaya paccaya includes akusala dhamma > conditioning kusala dhamma or only akusala brings more akusala, and > kusala brings more kusala. In my opinion even akusala dhamma can > condition kusala, not the same as akusala dhamma is an object for > futher reflection to kusala citta. -------- N: I quote: < Akusala can also be a natural decisive support-condition for kusala. Because of aversion towards akusala vipka or attachment to kusala vipka someone may perform good deeds. He may regret the akusala he performed in the past and then, in order to counteract it, he performs kusala. We read in the Pahna (same section, 423, V): After having killed, (one) offers the offering, undertakes the precept, fulfils the duty of observance, develops jhna, develops insight, develops Path, develops superknowledge, develops attainment, to counteract it. The same is said with regard to other kinds of evil deeds, they can be a natural decisive support-condition for kusala. > ------- Nina. #111194 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 27-okt-2010, om 15:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Phil was under the impression that some students of Ajahn Sujin > believe > that the content of thinking is unimportant. ------ N: I could not follow all the threads in all posts, too overwhelming. Sorry. Nina. #111195 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/27/2010 10:37:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 27-okt-2010, om 15:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Phil was under the impression that some students of Ajahn Sujin > believe > that the content of thinking is unimportant. ------ N: I could not follow all the threads in all posts, too overwhelming. ---------------------------------------------- Very easy to believe. You are an incredibly busy person!! I couldn't accomplish a tiny fraction of what you do. -------------------------------------------- Sorry. ------------------------------------------- Not at all, Nina. Thank you for including me. :-) ------------------------------------------ Nina. ============================= With much metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111196 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > pt: - how are abandoning and dispassion classed? Also as general > > charactersitics of dhammas, like anicca, dukkha and anatta? > ------ > N: No, they are stages of insight leading to the realisation of > nibbaana. Do the different stages of insight have specific types of cittas w/cetasikas that realize or experience the insight? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - #111197 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:28 am Subject: Re: science vs dhammakammavipaka epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert K, > > ---- > <. . .> > RK: > I think you haven't understood these stories at all. What makes you say that anyone - I mean someone who is not a monk with well-developed panna- "might even think that some animals deserve to be burnt to death and some women deserved to be thrown overboard" > > Here is the translation of the Pali again: > > <. . .> > > > Is not this story showing the terrible consequences of akusala: the farmer had akusala citta, he then killed the ox and was reborn in hell and then in later existences was burned to death. These painful feelings and being born as animal and in hell were the vipaka of killing. > > I really don't see how even the most uniformed person could get the idea from that story that it is ok to burn animals. > ----- > > I don't see how anyone could have got the idea I was talking about the ox. The story explains why a crow was burnt to death. > > Isn't it quite conceivable that some people would think "Good, the crow deserved it! In a previous lifetime it was a farmer who burnt a poor ox to death. Now the crow is getting its just deserts, hooray!" Well, I am sorry, but the Buddha explicitly said in this sutta that those who had committed evil deeds in the past, including the crow, were experiencing their "punishment" for their evil deeds. It goes well beyond the simple cause-effect of kamma, to make a specific statement that the beings in question were being punished. I don't know, Ken, how you can reconcile this with the view that conditions causing dhammas to arise is a purely objective process that has no implications for beings who commit acts. There is no way that, even if the Buddha was communicating to people of lesser understanding, that this is not an outright lie from your point of view. I think you may need to rethink the relationship between conventional reality and the way the Buddha thought of it, and ultimate realities and how they correspond to each other. Buddha made these direct correspondences between deed and result and it seems to have been quite personal. It may be that ultimately this is just a process of cause and effect, but the Buddha called it "punishment" and that has to be taken into account. There is a sense of personal responsibility there, based on conventional akusala acts. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111198 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > On 26 October 2010 02:06, truth_aerator wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman, all, > > > > > What is "the path"? > > > > Process of development where the fetters and underlying tendencies are > > being completely eradicated stage by stage. > > > > > Thanks for this. It sounds like the path is some kind of goal-oriented > evolution. I see that as contradicting dependent origination which, like > Darwinian evolution, is not goal directed, but simply conditions adapting to > conditions. You are good at spotting these conflicts. :-) Dependent origination is the way in which things happen, for sure, but there is no doubt that "the path" is an attempt at finding an exit door from dependent origination, which perpetuates the cycle of suffering endlessly. If there were not exit door, the 3rd and 4th noble truths would be lies, and there would be no possibility of nibbana. Although the path and realization of nibbana also arise according to conditions, the factors of the Noble 8-fold path are conditions that begin to direct consciousness towards liberation. It doesn't really contradict the real, but is a special set within the rule. Lastly, if nibbana did not exist as an *unconditioned* reality, not subject to dependent origination and anicca, liberation from samsara would most likely be impossible. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111199 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:43 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > At least you also acknowledge the reality of labeling here. So, as I > understand it, there is for you the reality of whatever is sensed, and then > a different reality which is comprised of thinking, proliferating, labeling > and the like. But we are just not allowed to refer to this latter reality as > reality. Thinking, proliferating and labeling happen, but they are not real. > Is that right? Speaking on behalf of the community here, :-))), I would say that the above all happen, but we misidentify what is happening when they happen. It's like seeing a wall and banging into it and assuming it is all solid mass. Get out your electron microscope and you can see that it is really mostly empty space with a few things whizzing around. But you will still bang into the wall and experience it as a solid object. So the dhamma view of thinking, proliferating and labelling breaks those processes down into what is actually happening, but you will still experience them as before. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = =