#111200 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:52 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > 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. Faith in a mystical system that one is convinced is correct, but cannot reality-check, is bound to be seen as delusional from a conventional point of view. It may not be delusional, any more than Pasteur was delusional when he figured out that there must be invisible [to him] microbes causing disease, and everyone agreed he was out of his mind, or at best eccentric and misinformed. Same for many things that become apparent to some but cannot yet be perceived or proven. The question is, what is the faith based on? Is there reason [beyond a reasonable doubt, let's say, or, based on the preponderance of the evidence perhaps] to believe that the unseen analysis of reality is correct? I think that delusion is the inability to make rational choices based on the evidence. So the question is whether the evidence is convincing or not. In that light, one person's delusion is another person's insight. But I agree, it makes it hard to establish any objective measure of what is real. The Theory of Evolution has become accepted more or less as fact by the scientific community, yet it is still called a theory because it can't be *directly* proven. The preponderance of the evidence has been widely agreed to be in its favor, however, by almost all experts in the field. [Though there are many people not in the field, mostly in the U.S., who think the theory is a scam, despite the evidence.] Can the same be said for the dhamma theory within the Abhidhamma community and the Theravadin community at large? And even putting that aside, is the systematic explanation of how dhammas and conditions interact convincing enough in its own right to one who studies them thoroughly? Interesting questions. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111201 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-okt-2010, om 17:18 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Do the different stages of insight have specific types of cittas w/ > cetasikas that realize or experience the insight? ------- They are mahaa-kusala cittas accompanied by pa~n~naa and many sobhana cetasikas, such as saddhaa, confidence in kusala, sati, calm, concentration. At each stage of insight there is a growing detachment. Pa~n~naa sees more and more the disadvantages of conditioned dhammas and turns towards the unconditioned, nibbaana. All described in the Visuddhimagga, the last chapters. ----- Nina. #111202 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? truth_aerator Hi RobertE, Herman, all >RE:You are good at spotting these conflicts. :-) Dependent >origination is the way in which things happen, for sure, There is no conflict. D.O. describes forward development of aggregates in Samsara. DO is not applicable to an Arahant, since Arhanat has no avijja (primary condition in DO). The root bad guys is avijja & tanha. These don't have to occur when making a plan to do this or that. Even Arhats can decide that "now/then is a proper time to go for alms." Even for us, not all actions/decisions have to be under the influence of avijja&tanha (though there is high probability that in most cases they are). One can do the same action (within reasonable limits) with or without wrong views. IMHO. With metta, Alex #111203 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. was: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Nina, On 28 October 2010 00:56, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > 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. > You do not seem to realise that saying that a sound is heard is also already an explanation for sound. Sound is sound, how does it happen, oh, we hear it. Why it is OK for you to run with the simpler science (explanations) from 2000 years ago, and not with the science of today, I do not understand. > Is there not a > danger here of losing out of sight the goal of it all: detachment? > No, just the very opposite. The more accurately we understand how things work, the less room there is for the magical belief that things could be different to how they are. > This morning I heard a Thai recording and I was thinking of the > disadvantage of a scientific approach: > What is anattaa must be anattaa, and it is not just theory, in the > book. What is anattaa: not a person or a thing, only a kind of reality. > When we are seeing we usually think of aperson, or a thing. There is > seeing when one does not think of shape and form or of what something > is. Close your eyes and open them very quickly, again and again. > Nina, Nina, this sounds like a form of practice. I sense danger :-) This > may help you to know that seeing is not thinking. > Mindfulness should be developed of realities so that one learns that > there are only naama and ruupa, no person or thing.> > Cheers Herman #111204 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi KenH, On 27 October 2010 12:21, Ken H wrote: > > 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. > Some questions come to mind. Let's take kamma as intention just for the minute. Intention is one of the five khandas, right? How does intention apply to the other four? Do the five khandas hunt as one pack? Cheers Herman > 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 #111205 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:52 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ------- <. . .> RK: > 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? -------- My point was that only the namas and rupas were real. A stream of them is just a concept. ---------------------------- <. . .> RK: > 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? --------------------------- Concepts can be used as metaphors. I think in that particular case they were being used as metaphors in a description of cetana and its effects on rupa. ------------- <. . .> RK: > what prompted your change from 'concepts of humans are metaphors " just a day or two ago, to now concepts are designations for the khandhas? ------------- There was no change. In Dhamma study, concepts can be used as metaphors to describe realities, or they can be used as names (designations) to directly refer to realities. -------------------- RK: > 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 NIK?YA III 3. 10. Devad?tasutta? (130) The Heavenly Messengers """Then the warders of hell give him the fivefold binding. <. . .>""" > 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? ------------------- Yes, I think so. --------------------------------- RK: > 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. ----------------------------------- I'll admit that does bear some resemblance to what I was saying. Scientists are no different from anybody else, they all have kusala cittas occasionally. -------------------------------- RK: > 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? -------------------------------- I would agree that killing was conditioned by wrong view, but I wouldn't single out any particular kind of wrong view. It could be the view that living creatures were subject to blind chance, or it could be the view that living beings were subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka. Each of those is atta belief (belief in living creatures). The only significant difference between them would be the intensity to which they were held. As I was saying at the beginning, I appreciate evolution-science and Darwinism. However, I don't apply them to ultimate reality. I certainly don't apply religion and Intelligent Design to ultimate reality. If pressed, I would say Darwinism was closer. It gives a sense of disinterestedness and unsatisfactoriness that could, in the right hands, be applied to conditioned dhammas. Ken H #111206 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi Ken H and Rob E, On 26 October 2010 21:12, Ken H wrote: > > > > 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? > > Rob E has already commented. I just wanted to make doubly sure that I have understood you correctly. Are you saying that anicca is a characteristic of a single dhamma? If so, how can any dhamma be known as being single? Cheers Herman #111207 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:28 pm Subject: Science as antidote to misunderstanding egberdina Hi all, It is said that citta can produce rupa. This is said in relation to bodily and speech intimation. Hook up a battery to an organism. Observe the bodily intimation. Therefore, citta is electrical current? Hmmmm Cheers Herman #111208 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:55 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > 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. You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #111209 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:08 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob E This has always interested me, how it is wholesome vipaka, all that pleasant body feeling etc, that is so likely to condition unwholesome response. Well, if not bad behaviour, complacency. When things are going well, when life is pleasant, we become complacent, heedfulness slips and BANG! we do something bad. So certainly a lot of wholesome vipaka (technically speaking, vipaka from wholesome kamma) will lead to complacency and carelessness, so indirectly to unwholesome kamma, yes. I apologize if my last post conditioned the arising of the Chuck Berrry song "My Ding a Ling" in anyone's stream of nama, it should really be left in the 70s. Now I can't get it out of my head. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Phil. > > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? > > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = > #111210 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ruled by citta. was; hot Asian girls... philofillet Hi Nina > 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... Ph: Thank you for your post on citta. Please note that I added a follow up post to the above to clarify, that you and all are right to say that the Dhammapada verse on the deepest level refers to a minute, ephermal citta, but I pointed out that the verse can be understood correctly in a broader way, on different levels, that's the wonderful thing about the Buddha's teaching. So it could also be understood that one's thoughts and the contents of one's unwholesome thinking can lead to unwholesome behaviour etc. I really sometimes regret that some students of A.S are unable or unwilling to celebrate how the Dhamma can be understood by different people in different ways, and correctly. You are not the worst offender in this sense, I think you have a broader view of Dhamma, perhaps because you have spent a lot of time in Asia, and know that people there can appreciate Dhamma in a variety of ways, it is not all straight to nama and rupa and ephemeral cittas. (Of course in Asia there are also the worst corruptions of Dhamma, trying to buy merit with money, etc.) But I acknowledged that you are of course right to say at the deepest level the verse is about ephemeral citta. Metta Phil #111211 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Living with self-view philofillet Hi Nina > To let go of > the self is not exactly for comfort and well being. We like the self > too much. Well, you see my point was that there is not letting go of self, there is just a lot of talk about nama and rupa and letting go of self, and insisting to others that self is involved in what they see as the intentional practice that the Buddha says helps to lead to letting go of self, but in all that talk and in all that insistence there is still self involved, self that gets pleasure in talk of letting go of self, because of course letting go of self is Buddhist liberation. It's nice to think about and talk about and write about liberation! I say this from my experience. There should be no reason that thinking "there is no Phil" is pleasant, but it was pleasant for me, because I was attached to the pleasure of thinking about deep Buddhist wisdom, and felt close to it by just being able to think about it. I'm not saying that's you, but it might be others. Anyways Nina, we can let it go there! Thanks! Metta, Phil #111212 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:52 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? truth_aerator Hi RobertE, all, > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question >for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? According to Orthodox Theravada, no. vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. With metta, Alex #111213 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? egberdina Hi Howard and Sarah, On 26 October 2010 15:29, wrote: > > > 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." > > Exactly so. And right effort can be, and has to be, learnt. And that is what training is all about. It's not rocket science by any means :-) Cheers Herman #111214 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, > It is said that citta can produce rupa. This is said in relation to > bodily and speech intimation. > > Hook up a battery to an organism. Observe the bodily intimation. > > Therefore, citta is electrical current? Citta is not electical current, although I wonder if physical basis for the mind could include electicity & chemistry of some sort. What happens is that the body experiences pain. The emotional reaction is what can cause specific bodily intimations. Random movement due to physical causes probably do not count as bodily intimation caused citta. With metta, Alex #111215 From: Vince Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Science as antidote to misunderstanding cerovzt@... Herman wrote: > Therefore, citta is electrical current? What is an electron? - A mass. What is mass? - Something in the space. What is space? - ask citta. Vince. #111216 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/27/2010 7:52:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi RobertE, all, > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question >for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? According to Orthodox Theravada, no. vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. -------------------------------------------------------- That doesn't seem right to me. The vipaka isn't kamma, but it can still serve as a condition. I see no reason why it could not be a condition for volition. Example: A delicious (or distasteful) odor or an attractive (or unattractive) sight could serve as condition, one among several, for intention of one sort or another. [Kamma is not the only sort of condition.] --------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Alex ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111217 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:18 pm Subject: vipaka truth_aerator Hi Howard, all, >A: According to Orthodox Theravada, no. > > vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. > -------------------------------------------------------- >H:That doesn't seem right to me. The vipaka isn't kamma, but it can > still serve as a condition. It as anything, can be taken as an object of craving or anger (which is kamma). But by itself, in-and-of itself, it is result of previous kamma. With metta, Alex #111218 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:16 pm Subject: Smiling Mountain :-) bhikkhu5 Friends: Neglect Looses All, while Careful Alertness Wins All! At Savatthi the Blessed One once said this: I will teach you, friends, about the one who lives negligent, and about the one who lives alert. Listen cautiously and pay full attention to it! How, friends, does one live Negligent? In him, friends, who lives with an uncontrolled ability to see, the mind is agitated and warped by the objects recognizable by the eye. In him whose mind is agitated and warped, there is no satisfaction! Without satisfaction, there is no joy! Where there is no joy, there is no contentment, no calm, no tranquillity, and no mental peace! Without this calm, one thus lives in sorrow, frustrated, urging, and searching! Such sorrowful person’s mind is neither composed, nor collected, nor confident. When the mind is not composed, one has neither any clarity, nor any certainty! By not having any clear thinking, one is reckoned as one, who lives negligent. One is regarded as confused... So also it is for one who lives without any control over the ability to hear, smell, taste, touch and without any control over the ability to think… And how, friends, does one live Alert? In him, who lives with a fully controlled ability to see, the mind is neither agitated, nor warped by any object recognizable by the eye. In one, whose mind is neither agitated, nor warped, satisfaction is born! In one satisfied, joy is born. When one is joyful, the body is calmed down. He, whose body is calmed, feels at ease. Composed is mind of one, who is at ease. When mind is composed, one’s ideas are clear. One gains certainty & assured confidence! By having clear ideas and thinking, one is reckoned as one who lives alert, & as one, who is alert! So also it is for any one, who lives with full control over the ability to hear, smell, taste, touch or controlling the ability to think. Thus, friends, is one, who lives ready and aware in alertness. Comments: Not seduced by the mere glitter of sensation of any kind, not running after fancy dreams, driven by hopes or compelled longing. By not yearning after pleasant sensations, satisfied by whatever there is, thus at ease, stilled, one remains just calm, cleared and cooled... Like a Smiling Mountain :-) <...> Source: Samyutta Nikaya: On the 6 Senses. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net <...> #111219 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:54 pm Subject: Doors and Omnipresence: Non-Locality is verified Science... bhikkhu5 Some Non-Local Responses: It was recently correctly noted that: ā€œAll material objects (and thus also ā€˜doorsā€™) are not finite, but infiniteā€¦ā€ Whereto a friend objected and asked: ā€œAccording to the science we have been taught, a door is a finite thing. But, again what does he mean by this?ā€ Answer: No so friend. Modern Science (Physics=Quantum-Mechanics) does not teach locality any more! To say so is naive realism . And gross materialism . (Both are philosophical viewsā€¦ & not science!) Microscopically science would say, that matter (and thus doors) is made of molecules, which again consist of atoms, which again consists of various quarks, which consist of??? (Not yet knownā€¦) This zooming in into deeper and deeper parts of matter is endless and thus infiniteā€¦ There is no ā€œindivisibleā€ lower level of this analysisā€¦ Whatever is found, can be further divided into even ever smaller partsā€¦ Basically these are not ā€œentities=thingsā€, but ā€œactivities=processesā€ā€¦! Secondly: All matter is mass. All mass is Energy: E=Mass x C(Speed of light)2 (Einstein-equivalence ). All forms of energy have TWO aspects (Particle-Wave-Duality ): One aspect is local and particular: As an Atom, Photon, Electron, Positron, Gluon, Graviton, etc. The Other Aspect is non-local: As a Waveā€¦ A wave is not located at any particular place! = it is non-local = it is not-finite ā€¦! It is Everywhere as a FIELDā€¦ (Like gravity and magnetism). Thus is an aspect of ā€˜the doorā€™ (causally speaking) also Everywhere at the same timeā€¦ And so is everything else (both all material and all mental phenomena) too! Existing Everywhere at the same momentary timeā€¦ Dig this sweeping truth. It is wonderful! Niels Bohr very early (1935) coined this crucial, yet enigmatic aspect ā€œWholenessā€ā€¦ Today it is designated as Non-Locality or Entanglement ! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #111220 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 27-okt-2010, om 17:18 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > Do the different stages of insight have specific types of cittas w/ > > cetasikas that realize or experience the insight? > ------- > They are mahaa-kusala cittas accompanied by pa~n~naa and many sobhana > cetasikas, such as saddhaa, confidence in kusala, sati, calm, > concentration. At each stage of insight there is a growing > detachment. Pa~n~naa sees more and more the disadvantages of > conditioned dhammas and turns towards the unconditioned, nibbaana. > All described in the Visuddhimagga, the last chapters. Thank you, that is a good summary, and I will check in to the Vism as well. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111221 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, Herman, all > > >RE:You are good at spotting these conflicts. :-) Dependent >origination is the way in which things happen, for sure, > > There is no conflict. D.O. describes forward development of aggregates in Samsara. DO is not applicable to an Arahant, since Arhanat has no avijja (primary condition in DO). > > > The root bad guys is avijja & tanha. These don't have to occur when making a plan to do this or that. Even Arhats can decide that "now/then is a proper time to go for alms." > > > Even for us, not all actions/decisions have to be under the influence of avijja&tanha (though there is high probability that in most cases they are). > > One can do the same action (within reasonable limits) with or without wrong views. Thanks, Alex, that is helpful. I guess at this point we all agree that hot Kung Fu movies are not included... Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #111222 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:09 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I would agree that killing was conditioned by wrong view, but I wouldn't single out any particular kind of wrong view. It could be the view that living creatures were subject to blind chance, or it could be the view that living beings were subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka. Each of those is atta belief (belief in living creatures). The only significant difference between them would be the intensity to which they were held. I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #111223 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:13 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I apologize if my last post conditioned the arising of the Chuck Berrry song "My Ding a Ling" in anyone's stream of nama, it should really be left in the 70s. Now I can't get it out of my head. It may not be a positive tendency in terms of Dhamma - I'm not really sure - but I thrive on humor and appreciate it in almost all of its forms. I try not to overdo it around here, other than continual sarcasm towards my dear penpal Sukin, but I am now tempted to tell a couple of jokes... Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #111224 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:15 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question >for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? > > > According to Orthodox Theravada, no. > > vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. But in the chain of DO, there is a next phase of reaction to vipaka that does lead to the next kamma, is that not so? Care to give me a review? :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #111225 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 28 October 2010 02:43, Robert E wrote: > > > 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. > > You are very brave to represent the community :-) I am not sure how to understand "what is actually happening" in this context. What is actually happening is that the wall is an obstacle to me, I cannot walk through it. I, my body, the means whereby these observations are being made, are part and parcel of the equation of what is actually happening. I am not an electron microscope, and how a wall is to an electron microscope doesn't get one closer to "what is actually happening", it only tells us what a wall is like to an electron microscope. In other words, there is no ultimate viewpoint from which "what is actually happening" can be observed. Cheers Herman #111226 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:23 pm Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > You are very brave to represent the community :-) I like taking reckless chances every now and then - to keep my blood circulating. > I am not sure how to understand "what is actually happening" in this > context. What is actually happening is that the wall is an obstacle to me, I > cannot walk through it. I, my body, the means whereby these observations are > being made, are part and parcel of the equation of what is actually > happening. I am not an electron microscope, and how a wall is to an electron > microscope doesn't get one closer to "what is actually happening", it only > tells us what a wall is like to an electron microscope. > > In other words, there is no ultimate viewpoint from which "what is actually > happening" can be observed. That is a superb defense of native experience as the only reality; although I would suggest that even though I am not an electron microscope, if I look through one that changes the standpoint of my experience during that time. Still you are right, the reality I experience from my personal standpoint is that the wall is solid and that is that. I fear that somewhere in your rock-solid explanation you have blocked any possibility of coming to realize or understand what we do not already know. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #111227 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:55 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > --------------------------------- > RK: > 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. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> ----------------------------------- KENHOWARD: I'll admit that does bear some resemblance to what I was saying. Scientists are no different from anybody else, they all have kusala cittas occasionally. > I would agree that killing was conditioned by wrong view, but I wouldn't single out any particular kind of wrong view. ++++++++ Robert: But a few posts back you said that it was not possible for someone not involved in religion to have ditthi? Here is what was said: {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. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++ Going back to kamma and vipaka and how this relates to daily life in another post you wrote that http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/44808 ---------------------------------- RK: > What if the doctor who is scheduled to perform the abortion refuses because he believes it is bad kamma, is he also misguided? ---------------------------------- KENHOWARD: I think he is misguided in thinking of kamma as a medical procedure rather than as a paramattha dhamma. In fact, he doesn't know which kamma is present at any one moment, and there is no efficacy in favouring one conventional story over another. The doctor's livelihood is to perform operations as [legally] directed by the hospital. He should carry on that way, confident in his understanding of kamma and vipaka. ++++ Is that still a reasonable summary of your thinking? Appreciate your replies and sorry to ask so many questions , just trying to discern your views so we can discuss effectively. robert #111228 From: "antony272b2" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:54 pm Subject: Re: Living with self-view antony272b2 Hi Phil, Isn't it nice to believe that Phil & Antony are owners of their correspondence kamma at the same time that the suffering aggregates are not-self. More below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > 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! > Antony: Even Mahasi Sayadaw, who wrote so much about nama and rupa, talked about when not to view people as khandhas. See the chapter "Pannatta and Paramattha" in this pdf: http://www.dhammaweb.net/mahasi/book/Mahasi_Sayadaw_Bhara_Sutta.pdf > > Metta, > > Phil With metta / Antony. #111229 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:25 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >Just focusing on this one point - since samatha itself is not an invention of the Buddha's but along with jhanas was practiced for many centuries, why would one doubt that yoga and other disciplines develop samatha? I would think that understanding-based qualities such as sati, panna, vipassana, satipatthana, might be more in doubt, but samatha is not that mysterious. Do we not accept the possibility of genuine calm and peacefulness being developed from psychophysical disciplines? <....> > I'd be interested in what others think about this. S: You asked for other comments... Now, we're reflecting on the Dhamma. Are the cittas kusala, is there "genuine calm and peacefulness", "genuine samatha" at this moment? Is there any doubt, any "probably" or "maybe" involved? If there is insufficient sati and panna right now to know just what kind of citta is arising - directly, not by speculating on what it should be - how can we be sure what kind of cittas arose in the past or will arise in the future whilst doing our yoga, sitting in a quiet room or any other activity? Genuine samatha, genuine calm develops only when the cittas are kusala and the distinction between moments of kusala and moments of akusala are known. So is there (kusala) calm now? Metta Sarah ======= #111230 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:57 pm Subject: Re: Living with self-view philofillet Hi Antony > Isn't it nice to believe that Phil & Antony are owners of their correspondence kamma at the same time that the suffering aggregates are not-self. Ph: Hmmm. I certainly like to think a lot about ownership of kamma because since I've put a lot of emphasis on sila and my behaviour has good, I don't feel I'm carrying a lot of bad kamma with me. Of course the texts say that it is kamma from any past life that can decide the rebirth citta, but we have such an emphasis from the Buddha about importance of doing good deeds and avoiding bad deeds in this one lifetime that I don't let that distract me. > > > 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! Ph: Oh, today I get it! Yes, that's an excellent point, we are told that paying back our debt of gratitude to our parents is a duty for all of us, if we don't believe that there really are mothers and fathers in reality, what are we paying our debt back to? To concepts? Why would we have a debt of gratitude to a concept? But the deepest understanding does reveal something akin to "no Phil", you know the chariot simile from Visudhimagga (?) or perhaps its from a sutta. But I am not going to try to force that kind of deep, liberating understanding where it doesn'T belong yet. > > > Antony: Even Mahasi Sayadaw, who wrote so much about nama and rupa, talked about when not to view people as khandhas. See the chapter "Pannatta and Paramattha" in this pdf: > http://www.dhammaweb.net/mahasi/book/Mahasi_Sayadaw_Bhara_Sutta.pdf Thanks Antony. Metta, Phil #111231 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Tue, 26/10/10, philip wrote: >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. .... S: So, if there are conditions for akusala to arise at this moment, then it is only at this moment that it can truly be understood. Yes, we can have good intentions to avoid bad behaviour, and the intentions can also be understood. In the end, it's the understanding of the real harm of akusala states, from the most gross to the most subtle, that will lead to their 'wearing away' and eventual eradication. We can tell a child not to tell lies and the child may have good intentions not to tell lies, but unless that child really understands the harm of telling lies and the complete lack of consideration for others at such times, he'll continue to tell lies. ... > 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: ...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. ... S: There may have been some wise reflection, but not firm enough understanding of the dhammas involved to have enough effect. If there was a real understanding of the harm of the gross lobha at such a time, then it would have its effect and there wouldn't be conditions for such gross deeds, I believe. You often mention that some of us don't understand such accumulations, but I think this is wrong. A couple of days ago, Jon had to have a conference with a wretched man who'd hacked at his wife with an an axe. They were divorced but still sharing a small apartment. You wouldn't behave like this, but you can still understand how someone might behave in this way, given sufficient provocation and accumulations for anger. Similarly, we might not take drugs, but can still sympathise with those who do. The arahat has no more kilesa at all, but can still understand and commiserate with the kilesa of a lesser ariyan. In fact, the less kilesa, the more understanding of the harm, I'd say. ... >Well, Sarah, we will never agree on this point, and that's fine. .... S: :-) I'm interested to hear about your live discussions you're arranging in Tokyo. Of course, I'd still love you to join us somewhere, sometime! We'll be in Bangkok at the end of next week for a few days if there's any chance of you or anyone else joining us there! Metta Sarah ===== #111232 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:14 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, (from a Thai recording) A monk asked Kh Sujin how he can know the difference between naama and ruupa when he is aware, for example, of the ruupa which is cold. Kh Sujin: The development of understanding of realities is not easy; it must develop from listening to the Dhamma and being aware of what appears all the time. When there is awareness of cold, there is no thought of a hand which is cold, of the body which is cold. When one investigates the characteristic of cold one will know that it is only a kind of reality. Knowing that there is only the characteristic of cold at that moment is the way to realize it as not self. There is personality belief, sakkaya di.t.thi, with regard to each of the five khandhas; one takes ruupas for self, feeling for self, sa~n~naa, remembrance, for self, the other cetasikas which are the formations-khandha for self, vi~n~naa.na for self. When there is awareness of the characteristic of cold, which is ruupa, one learns that it is not self. But if one does not develop understanding of the characteristic of the reality that experiences cold there is still the idea of ‘I’ who experiences cold. Through the understanding of the characteristics of naama and ruupa there will gradually be less inclination to take the five khandhas for self. But one should consider and be aware of the characteristics of the five khandhas. Sometimes one may consider the characteristic of the reality that experiences something, of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, the experience of tangibles and thinking. Sound appears because there is a reality that experiences sound. However, if there is no awareness of feeling, one may still take feeling for self. The Buddha classified realities as five khandhas so that we can consider them, develop understanding of them and become detached from the idea of self or person. We should not select a particular time and place in order to be aware. When there is seeing, sati can be aware of it; when here is hearing, sati can be aware of it.Sati can be aware of whatever appears through one of the six doorways. When will pa~n~naa know that the characteristic that appears is non- self? By developing understanding time and again, by considering the naama and ruupa that appear again and again. This is right effort, sammaa vayaama. We should not be discouraged. A long time is needed for the development of understanding. Naama arises and falls away all the time, but we know naama only by name. We can learn that ruupa is different from naama, but there should be awareness of their characteristics when seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, experiencing tangibles and experiencing objects through the mind-door. Is there any other way? This is the only way: being aware of the characteristics that appear, investigate them and consider them, so that they will be clearly understood. ********* Nina #111233 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:14 am Subject: Reminders of awareness, to Lukas. nilovg Dear Lukas, You asked Sarah and me now and then for reminders of awareness. I thought of you this morining when listening to a Thia recording. It is under the heading of: What I heard. It is useful to discuss this with you, if you like. Nina. #111234 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting sarahprocter... Hi Pt, Thx for all your helpful summaries and "mediating" messages:-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > So what is it that makes meditation on breath (or any other kasina) as object actually kusala? For example, meditation on the object of the Buddha, Dhamma or Sangha could be kusala when there's appreciation of good qualities of the Buddha at that moment for example? But what appreciation is there for breath as object or any other kasina? .... S: I think that's the point and the reason Jon has been encouraging you to reflect on this topic. In the beginning, like for us now, there can be calm whilst reflecting on any topic at all, if the cittas are kusala and there's some wise consideration. As soon as there's some selection or attempt to have calm, or just focussing on a topic because one has read about it in a text, then it's unlikely that there will be any true calm. ... > Sarah mentioned something to the effect that it could be the appreciation that breath is basically what keeps us alive and gives us the chance to develop the path. But I don't think that's what the majority of meditators have in mind when meditating on breath. .... S: My point was that calm develops through an understanding of wise reflection, of kusala, no matter the object, not a concentration on breath or any other object without any understanding. ... > My current take on Jon's question is that what's appreciated during kusala moments of samatha on breath (and other kasinas) is the appreciation of kusala calm itself. (Which is why one can be a jhana master but not necessarily a noble one. I.e. his samatha panna knows the benefit of kusala calm, but that's not necessarily enough panna for awakening, i.e. for developing the path.) So, it's kind of similar to when one knows the benefit of kusala of metta, then metta is developed. ... S: And just as metta develops through showing kindness and friendliness to others without discrimination, and by understanding the characteristic of such metta when it arises, so too with other objects. One doesn't set out to have metta in order to develop samatha, but through understanding of its nature, it develops. .... > > But, I guess this still doesn't quite explain why breath (or another kasina) as object of samatha exactly. I can't think of anything else other than because breath and kasinas are essentially mind-produced concepts, so they are more conducive for the mind to settle on them and experience the calm (as in kusala calm because it knows the value of it, though not necessarily with panna of the satipatthana level), unlike when compared to sense-consciousness. I mean, using a candle-light (or staring at the sea for example that Sarah mentioned) as the object would mean that there's reliance on rupa, and thus sense-consciosuness has to arise, so there's no possibility of absorption ever happening. Though, I guess both can be used initially as the preparation for a particular fire or water kasina... Hm, I don't think I'm getting any closer to the answer... ... S: Yes, for absorption, only particular objects can be the objects of such. However, now, we have to understand more about the development of samatha at a beginning level, otherwise it will never develop. If there's any idea now of "using" breath, candle-light or any other object initially or as preparation for anything without any real understanding now of moments of kusala and akusala, it indicates a lack of samatha and its development to me. Is there calm now? Metta Sarah ====== #111235 From: "antony272b2" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:19 am Subject: Re: Living with self-view antony272b2 Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Antony > Ph: Oh, today I get it! Yes, that's an excellent point, we are told that paying back our debt of gratitude to our parents is a duty for all of us, if we don't believe that there really are mothers and fathers in reality, what are we paying our debt back to? To concepts? Why would we have a debt of gratitude to a concept? But the deepest understanding does reveal something akin to "no Phil", you know the chariot simile from Visudhimagga (?) or perhaps its from a sutta. But I am not going to try to force that kind of deep, liberating understanding where it doesn'T belong yet. > Antony: I found this sutta quote: "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#s1 and Mahasi Sayadaw elsewhere: "The scriptures say only that the kammic potential of dana depends on the spiritual level of the recipient and this is the only teaching that we should consider in alms-giving. If the donor and the recipient were to be regarded as mere nama-rupa subject to anicca, etc., they would be on equal footing. The act of dana would then lack inspiration and much kammic potential." http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/mahasi-paticca/paticca-01.htm > Metta, > > Phil With metta / Antony. #111236 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:19 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Azita: mayb you were a goldfish in yr last existence, they are supposed to have an attention span of 3 seconds !!!! :) > > Yes, I started swimming again seriously for the first time in about 20 years, and I find that I am unable to stay in one lane when doing lengths, I'm always darting this way and that with my mouth gaping open, hoping for something edible to come my way. It's making me unpopular in the pool. .... S: I laughed a lot at this - always the writer:-) ... > Seriously, yes, for some reason I am unwilling to apply myself in a concentrated way to deep teachings. I'm especially challenged to read, for example, Sarah's explanation, because I can't place full confidence in her teacher, the "one moment of sati in a lifetime, wealthy man" kind of thinking seems wrong to me, .... S: Just for the record, the only real teacher is the Buddha. All this stuff about what "KS's students say" and so on doesn't help much does it? After all, as you'll have seen from the discussion between Ken H and Rob K, we all have our own ways of thinking and reflecting on the teachings, no matter the sources. And while on the record, you often refer to that one-liner from something Alan Driver/Phra D said a very long time ago, assuming it's something we all agree on. Like you, it's never had much appeal to me either, especially without elaboration and I'm not at all sure it's something he would have said in later years. I think we are very fortunate to have heard and considered what the path is, what satipatthana is, however. .... >but it may be more right than some corrupted understandings of mindfulness, so I should keep listening. I wish I could join you all for a Dhamma talk, live, in person, I have a real struggle with the internet, a real ambivalence about it, so it is difficult to read long posts and concentrate. ... S: Just come and join us anytime at all! .... > I put an ad in a free magazine seeking Theravada friends to discuss Dhamma with, that would be nice, there are of course some South East Asians, Sri Lankans in Japan, let's hope some come my way... ... S: As I said, looking forward to the reports.. ... > p.s thanks to Tadao's recommendation, I just received 4 books of the Pali Canon in Japanese from Amazon! Amazing, I can't believe it. I'd only seen Mahayana stuff in Japanese before. Now I'm starting the Sutta Nipata. Happy, happy, I hope I can share Dhamma with some Japanese people... .... S: Good to hear! You know, I was also thinking about you and your Dhp reciting and concerns about Alzheimers. For what it's worth, I was chatting to our excellent acupuncturist here in HK and he highly recommending reading out loud/reciting, in a rather dramatic fashion, as a preventative for the disease. Before, Jon used to read all the DSG posts out loud, but now we're alternating, so I get my share of the medicine too, trying to make the posts sound dramatic:-)) Metta Sarah ======= #111237 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:34 am Subject: Re: We all want more pleasure in our lives (an apology) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I'd just like to post a quick apology/clarification re something I posted the other day. I wrote that it seemed to me Nina and Sarah were > people who have comfortable lives and just want more pleasure out of Dhamma. I think that goes for almost everybody in the West, so I shouldn't have singled out those two wonderful people. .... S: Very touching, but we take all such comments in our stride:-)Thx anyway. Of course, the only real "comfort" in life is that which comes with kusala cittas, and whenever we're craving for the lobha-driven comfort, i.e. pleasant sense experiences, there's no real comfort at all. As for the pleasure in the Dhamma, I'm very glad to admit to taking a lot of joy, a lot of pleasure "out of Dhamma". Of course, this is bound to be kusala and akusala. When we're inspired or driven to read more, to listen more, to discuss more, there's bound to be a lot of lobha in between the wise reflections. Even when I hear about "no Sarah", "no Nina", "no Jonothan", for me it's always been joyful, like the lifting of a burden. The same applies to when I hear about seeing visible object or hearing sound, no atta involved. So, I'll be the first to admit that I take a lot of pleasure out of the Dhamma, though if "I want more pleasure", it's not usually the Dhamma I think of or look to. .... >I just don't > believe there are people here who aren't using the Dhamma to add more pleasant mental factors into their lives. I just don't see it. ... S: Well, again different accumulations and what does it matter? What's important is knowing those accumulations when they arise, rather than having long stories about ourselves and other people. .... >...So when I am tired or unhappy, I will not grope for understanding that doesn't truly belong to me, I will not appropriate insight into elements, I will think in terms of conventional behaviour, I will reflect, perhaps, on my virtues, and feel gratitude that I have done no one harm that day, and that conventional reflection will probably condition continued vigilance and energy. That's just one example. ... S: Again, different accumulations, changing from moment to moment. .... > Anyways, I apologize for singling out Nina and Sarah, who have been so helfpul to me. I should have pointed the finger at all of us (including me, cuz I do it too sometimes) who use paramattha teachings for pleasant pablum in daily life. Pariyatti? Pablumattti! :) ... S: Sounds like a good new Italian dish....ymmy pablumatti.... Glad to see you're still hangin' in there, Phil.... Metta Sarah p.s I'm working backwards - part of the artistic approach to replying which you taught me... ======== #111238 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:38 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, Enjoying all your writings as usual... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > ...For instance, if I get drunk alone I may not behave improperly in public, but the drunkenness is still akusala in its own right, isn't it? ... S: Not necessarily. Drinking itself doesn't constitute akusala kamma patha. The harm is in what it leads to and in the accumulated tendency for such. Metta Sarah ===== #111239 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:41 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! sarahprocter... Hi Pt, (Rob E & Lukas), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > As to the sa.mvara mentioned in 'the bhikkhu is tolerant/stoic in the face of cold and heat' (M.i,10), it is called khantisa.mvara [restraint through tolerance/forebearance]. > > And the sa.mvara that is mentioned in 'the bhikkhu does not accept/receive/take the kaamavitakka [pleasurable preoccupation] that has arisen' is called viiriyasa.mvaro [the restraint through diligence/effort]. ... S: Rob E and Lukas were having a helpful discussion (#110622) and this was relevant to our discussion on patience, khanti and viriya. Metta Sarah ====== #111240 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > S: Who denies the importance of "experiential practice"? But what is the "experiential practice" as taught by the Buddha which leads to the eradication of defilements? Isn't it the development of satipatthana? > >R: Nice to hear from you! I think what you say above is correct, but I guess the questions are: what is satipatthana? There is some disagreement about that; and: what is the "experiential practice" that develops it? There is some disagreement about that as well. .... S: So can there be the development of satipatthana right now and if so, what do you understand it to be? What is the distinction between satipatthana and "experiential practice" which you refer to? If there is understanding now of hardness now (with no idea of one's body), of feeling now, of consciousness now or of a mental factor, such as greed, now, would that be satipatthana or "experiential practice"? ... > It seems clear to me that Buddha advised both dhamma study and meditation practice in order to develop insight and understanding. .... S: I think he advised the direct "study" (as in 'sikkhati')of dhammas. Surely this is "meditation practice" or bhavana and the sotapanna is the sekkha, the trainee, the one who studies correctly? ... > > In my understanding, Dhamma and meditation work together. Dhamma teaches what is to be understood and what is important for realization, and meditation is the field in which it is discovered and developed. .... S: Yes. Here by meditation, I like to think of bhavana, mental development/meditation. ... >Those qualities are also developed in everyday life, but more effectively by going back and forth between meditation and everyday life, rather than just observing dhammas in the midst of everyday life. .... S: For me, whatever the activity, whatever the dhammas arising, it's "daily life". The "meditation" can only ever be now, the meditation or development of understanding of what appears through one of the six doorways, one at a time. So, I don't "compartmentalise" different times and activities during the day with regard to dhamma study or opportunities for bhavana. A friend recently referred to a knowledge of Abhidhamma detail as showing an understanding of Abhidhamma or Dhamma. I don't see it that way - I only see the "expertise" or "study" in terms of the understanding of realities appearing now. .... > I agree that any "prescribed activity" can potentially come from self-view, but it can also come from a correct understanding of the process given by Buddha. To only meditate, or to only observe in life, or to only study dhamma, seems to me to be short-changing the process of its necessary ingredients. ... S: No matter what words we used, whether or not there are any 'shoulds' or 'prescribed activity', all these activities are only dhammas, all conditioned, without anyone to decide which dhamma will arise next. So, again, the meditation, the wise attention, can only ever be now. Metta Sarah ======== #111241 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:04 am Subject: Re: metta, sarahprocter... Hi Pt, Just to say I agreed with all your conclusions in #110507 and enjoyed the last para:-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > But then there might be also the case that for immesurable brahma viharas - jhana and maybe divine eye are needed so that metta can actually pervade the whole universe and all beings in it and that sort of thing. I mean, I don't really know how devas, nagas and petas look like, so without divine eye I'm not sure how I can even have a concept of them in my mind as object of metta. Or perhaps it's really just down to imagination. I don't know. Sometimes I end up thinking, hm, it looks like I'm imagining devas as they are on hindu pictures, but what if they really look more like ancient egyptian gods? They might get offended that I'm imagining them all plump and almost naked :) And by the time my train of thought is there, that's pretty far off from metta already... ... S: :-)) yes, lots of imagination. Metta Sarah ========= #111242 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:13 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet HI again Sarah > S: Just for the record, the only real teacher is the Buddha. All this stuff about what "KS's students say" and so on doesn't help much does it? After all, as you'll have seen from the discussion between Ken H and Rob K, we all have our own ways of thinking and reflecting on the teachings, no matter the sources. Ph: Hmm, I remain unconvinced. I still sometimes wonder if you don't all believe that just by listening to A.S special understanding develops. I used to think so. I remember Nina saying in a talk, as they were leaving, that as soon as she left Bangkok everything she had understood during the talks would be lost. Sorry, that sort of thing strikes me as too much reliance on a teacher. I remain unconvinced. But at least I don't use "Sujinists" anymore. I will do my best to refrain from "students of A.S" but there is such a uniformity to what you say despite what exceptions you point out in this post, and such a distance from what other teachers say. I'm glad actually, as I often say there is a corner of my mind which says that A.S is right, and so I keep listening to what you and other say, waiting for it to click... > > And while on the record, you often refer to that one-liner from something Alan Driver/Phra D said a very long time ago, assuming it's something we all agree on. Like you, it's never had much appeal to me either, especially without elaboration and I'm not at all sure it's something he would have said in later years. I think we are very fortunate to have heard and considered what the path is, what satipatthana is, however. Ph: Ok, I shouldn't sit so heavily on one line from someone, such as A.S's terrible "what good does it do to know kusala from akusala if it is not known that all dhammas are not self." > > p.s thanks to Tadao's recommendation, I just received 4 books of the Pali Canon in Japanese from Amazon! Amazing, I can't believe it. I'd only seen Mahayana stuff in Japanese before. Now I'm starting the Sutta Nipata. Happy, happy, I hope I can share Dhamma with some Japanese people... > .... > S: Good to hear! You know, I was also thinking about you and your Dhp reciting and concerns about Alzheimers. For what it's worth, I was chatting to our excellent acupuncturist here in HK and he highly recommending reading out loud/reciting, in a rather dramatic fashion, as a preventative for the disease. Before, Jon used to read all the DSG posts out loud, but now we're alternating, so I get my share of the medicine too, trying to make the posts sound dramatic:-)) Ph: Yes, it really is a horrible disease, terrible things going on with my mother back home now. I was curious about why in meditation it seems that the front of my brain kind of lights up (perception of light?) and google "meditation/Alzheimers" and found a study had been done with people where they did a kind of kundalini yoga meditation called kirtan kriya which at first glance seems really wonky to most (involves patterned finger movements, chanting syllables, and visualition of chakra energy going through the third eye) but before and after MRI's showed clear difference in the front of the brain of the group that did and the group that didn't and difference in congnition tests. I started doing it to start my morning meditation, and inevitably it results in a very bright sense in the brain. I don't consider it Buddhist, but very interesting for anyone concerned about mainting cognitive power as long as possible... Metta, Phil #111243 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:54 am Subject: Re: We all want more pleasure in our lives (an apology) philofillet Hi Sarah > As for the pleasure in the Dhamma, I'm very glad to admit to taking a lot of joy, a lot of pleasure "out of Dhamma". Ph: Yes, it's a very reliable form of joy and pleasure, isn't it? I wonder why I have badgered you and others so much about getting pleasure out of it? > > Of course, this is bound to be kusala and akusala. When we're inspired or driven to read more, to listen more, to discuss more, there's bound to be a lot of lobha in between the wise reflections. Even when I hear about "no Sarah", "no Nina", "no Jonothan", for me it's always been joyful, like the lifting of a burden. The same applies to when I hear about seeing visible object or hearing sound, no atta involved. Ph; Well, this feels like an appropriation to me. If there was real insight into "No Sarah" or "No Jonathan" I think it would be very shocking for the unprepared (through gradual development of understanding) mind. If you were to say that the liberated mind understands "No Sarah" and say that you were inpsired to no that for the liberated mind that is a truth, that it is possible to reach liberation because others have, and gratitude to the Buddha for leading the way, etc, I wouldn't protest. But for you to have "lifting of a burden" because of reflecting on a deep, penetrative understanding that I'm sure you'd agree you don't have, well, fine. But I contend that there is more forcing of things, more application of self wanting something, more desire for control to have kusala panna arise here than when one is sitting watching things come and go while meditating. I guess that's what I'm always pointing at, a kind of double standard. But I think you and others don't agree that what you are doing is forcing panna to get deeper than the depths to which it has developed, ok, that' fine, but please reflect now and then on whether what I say might be true. So if you did find it were true, what would you do? Stop thinking "no Jonathan" with pleasure at having the burden lifted? Would you have to revert to being like me, always evaluating kusala/akusala through conventional behaviour only. That wouldn't be fair, and won't happen. You are firmly established in your way of approaching Dhamma, and that's great, lots of pasada for you, I'm sure, as there is for me these days. We are all gaining confidence in the Dhamma in different ways. > > Glad to see you're still hangin' in there, Phil.... Ph: I would say thriving. I'm reading the Theregata (? poetry of the arahants) in Japanese and it is incredibly inspiring. And I have made a big and very cool step in my personal life that involves letting go of a lot of intense craving and social entanglements. I would love to confess about it. Ok, what the heck. I have become a castrato!!!!! Ok, no. But a kind of cutting off of a very distracting social behaviour has come to be, the hunter has been put to bed. I think I will write my own verse a la Theragata: Outside the cold rain is pounding In my room I sit wrapped in confidence Lust lies outside the door astonished at its banishment. Violent anger has left town Delusion is packing its bags. Come on rain! Piss down on my head! I am bald, do you think I care? Metta, Phil #111244 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 28 October 2010 02:32, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > 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. :-) > Thanks for any compliments. They are always welcome :-) > 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. > Yes, agreed. And just to cross the i's and dot the t's :-), that search for an exit also arises only as a consequence of conditions. The existential crisis, also known as samvega, is based in wisdom, not ignorance. It is not the sorry tale of an ill-construed attempt to rescue one's substantial and miserable ass, it is a realisation of the predicament of not-being. Anatta is not the solution, it is the problem. Helpless - Patti Smith, comes to mind. > If there were not exit door, the 3rd and 4th noble truths would be lies, > and there would be no possibility of nibbana. > I see no possibility of not-being (anatta, the reality of experience) somehow becoming being (the reality of nibbana). The key word in that is "becoming", IMO. > 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. > > Liberation from what? Anatta is known, nibbana just is. How can there be liberation from anatta? The reality of anatta and the reality of nibbana cannot and do not overlap. > 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. > > This space intentionally left blank :-) Cheers Herman #111245 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] vipaka upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/27/2010 10:18:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, all, >A: According to Orthodox Theravada, no. > > vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. > -------------------------------------------------------- >H:That doesn't seem right to me. The vipaka isn't kamma, but it can > still serve as a condition. It as anything, can be taken as an object of craving or anger (which is kamma). But by itself, in-and-of itself, it is result of previous kamma. ------------------------------------------------------ Yes, of course, it is a direct effect of prior kamma (along with other conditions). A phenomenon is vipaka in case 1) It is not, itself intention, and 2) It has kamma among it's direct preconditions. (By "direct" I mean causally direct, without causal intermediary, but not necessarily immediate in time. So, an intention ages old might have its direct effect only now that the other requisite conditions have finally occured.) You are correct that vipaka cannot BY ITSELF cause other kamma, but it CAN be one among several requisite conditions leading to further kamma. That last was my point. It seemed to me that you were "suggesting" that vipaka could not serve at all as a condition for kamma, and that would be untrue. All you said, of course, was that vipaka would not be the sole condition for kamma, but that is always so in general phenomena of all sorts, and does not just pertain to kamma and vipaka: For any phenomenon of any sort to occur, a multiplicity of conditions is needed, with no single condition of any sort sufficing. ------------------------------------------------------ With metta, Alex ================================ With metta, Howard Conditionality /"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that."/ (From the Bodhi Sutta, Udana 1.1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /"Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could."/ (From "The Sound of Music") #111246 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Ken) - In a message dated 10/28/2010 12:09:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I would agree that killing was conditioned by wrong view, but I wouldn't single out any particular kind of wrong view. It could be the view that living creatures were subject to blind chance, or it could be the view that living beings were subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka. Each of those is atta belief (belief in living creatures). The only significant difference between them would be the intensity to which they were held. I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? Best, Robert E. ================================= IMO, belief in "living creatures" is not always synonymous with atta belief. Atta belief (as regards beings) is the belief in a core of discernible and lasting identity in beings, as opposed to understanding that they are merely dynamic conglomerates of interrelated psychophysical phenomena conventionally referred to as single entities. If one believes that such an assemblage is an actual single phenomenon and something more than a merely conventional entity, but somehow has associated with it a substantial, self-existent, and unchanging core of existence (i.e., an identity or self), THAT is an atta view. So-called "beings" can, as we well know, include all sorts of sufferings, and actions that we take that lead to sufferings, killings for example, are morally wrong precisely because they engender suffering, and consequently they result in akusala vipaka. This is simply fact, and there being no self to be found in beings has no bearing on that, as far as I can see. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111247 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Regret about what is lost? was:Topics from Manly (1) nilovg Hi Phil and Sarah, Op 28-okt-2010, om 12:13 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I remember Nina saying in a talk, as they were leaving, that as > soon as she left Bangkok everything she had understood during the > talks would be lost. Sorry, that sort of thing strikes me as too > much reliance on a teacher. I remain unconvinced. ------- N: That was long ago, not now. I am very satisfied now to just listen to recordings, Thai and English. Listening is good. Trying to share also with others what I heard. I find it so excellent what I hear, it should not be gone with the wind. Actually I have no time to think much about talks over there in Bgk I would miss. I know that another journey may not be possible for us, that is O.K. A friend, Kh Unnop, sent me some DVD's where Kh Sujin is giving talks at a house at sea, very lively. Sarah, you remember the group from Sabah, we met in India, near Bamboo Grove? One of them wrote to me, wanted me to come to Malaysia for an abh. course. I explained that we do not travel anymore. It was nice to have some contact. **** Nina. #111248 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:29 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? truth_aerator Hello Robert, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > > > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question >for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? > > > > > > According to Orthodox Theravada, no. > > > > vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. > > But in the chain of DO, there is a next phase of reaction to vipaka that does lead to the next kamma, is that not so? Care to give me a review? :-) > > Best, > Robert E. If there is avijja (and other relevant unwholesome factors) then craving can come toward this or that feeling. If there is wisdom (and other relevant wholesome factors), then at the moment of feeling, craving does not have to occur. In any case, avijja has to be cut in D.O. IMHO. With metta, Alex #111249 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/28/2010 11:29:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Robert, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > > > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question >for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? > > > > > > According to Orthodox Theravada, no. > > > > vipaka cannot by itself cause any kamma. It is end result of kamma. > > But in the chain of DO, there is a next phase of reaction to vipaka that does lead to the next kamma, is that not so? Care to give me a review? :-) > > Best, > Robert E. If there is avijja (and other relevant unwholesome factors) then craving can come toward this or that feeling. If there is wisdom (and other relevant wholesome factors), then at the moment of feeling, craving does not have to occur. In any case, avijja has to be cut in D.O. IMHO. With metta, Alex ================================= Not only can vipaka be a condition for kamma, but, more dramatically, wholesome vipaka can be a condition for unwholesome vipaka: Imagine wholesome kamma resulting in the wholesome vipaka that is a pleasant body-door feeling. That pleasant feeling (or the mind state including it), i.e., the wholesome vipaka, can be a direct condition, one among several, including the inclination to crave what is pleasant, for taking delight and craving for more of the same, which is dukkha, and these can also lead to further unwholesome vipaka of various sorts. In general, when unwholesome vipaka, i.e., any kamma-resultant, unpleasant mental state, arises, among its requisite conditions *could* be states that are/were themselves wholesome vipaka. This, in fact, is a frequent situation. We normally crave what is pleasant, and thus, usually, the pleasant feeling, itself a wholesome resultant, is a condition for unwholesome vipaka. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111250 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:42 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >Just focusing on this one point - since samatha itself is not an invention of the Buddha's but along with jhanas was practiced for many centuries, why would one doubt that yoga and other disciplines develop samatha? I would think that understanding-based qualities such as sati, panna, vipassana, satipatthana, might be more in doubt, but samatha is not that mysterious. Do we not accept the possibility of genuine calm and peacefulness being developed from psychophysical disciplines? <....> > > I'd be interested in what others think about this. > > S: You asked for other comments... > > Now, we're reflecting on the Dhamma. Are the cittas kusala, is there "genuine calm and peacefulness", "genuine samatha" at this moment? Is there any doubt, any "probably" or "maybe" involved? > > If there is insufficient sati and panna right now to know just what kind of citta is arising - directly, not by speculating on what it should be - how can we be sure what kind of cittas arose in the past or will arise in the future whilst doing our yoga, sitting in a quiet room or any other activity? Well, I take your point, but I would think that samatha might be kusala, or might not be. Still, I think there is a tendency to think that there is no sense whether something is kusala or not until we are semi-enlightened, and I think we can have an instinct for it before that, even if our discernment is not 100% refined. It is sort of an absolute standard, whereas I am happy to have "partial" kusala along the way. :-) If I am not in a fit of anger or sadness, and feel somewhat balanced, I think that is pretty good. > Genuine samatha, genuine calm develops only when the cittas are kusala and the distinction between moments of kusala and moments of akusala are known. > > So is there (kusala) calm now? Uh....not really.... ;-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #111251 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:02 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, Being on opposite sides of politics, you and I are never going to agree on concepts of good and evil. I don't know if we can constructively discuss any concepts at all. Even science, which is supposed to be based on purely empirical evidence, seems to be beyond us. However, we can agree on the reality of those things. At all times and in all cases, the reality is just a fleeting dhamma that is beyond control. ----------- RK: > Appreciate your replies and sorry to ask so many questions, just trying to discern your views so we can discuss effectively. ----------- The discussion in question is whether there is an *objective* conventional reality. That is, is there something beyond the presently arisen namas and rupas that is inherently good or evil, right or wrong, true or false, etc? I say there isn't. But going back to old posts (from April 2005!), and holding a Spanish Inquisition style interrogation over them, is not going to prove anything. It didn't prove anything in the 17th century, and it won't now. :-) Ken H > Going back to kamma and vipaka and how this relates to daily life in another post you wrote that > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/44808 > > > ---------------------------------- > RK: > What if the doctor who is scheduled to perform the abortion > refuses because he believes it is bad kamma, is he also misguided? > ---------------------------------- > > KENHOWARD: I think he is misguided in thinking of kamma as a medical procedure > rather than as a paramattha dhamma. In fact, he doesn't know which > kamma is present at any one moment, and there is no efficacy in > favouring one conventional story over another. > > The doctor's livelihood is to perform operations as [legally] > directed by the hospital. He should carry on that way, confident in > his understanding of kamma and vipaka. > ++++ > Is that still a reasonable summary of your thinking? > #111252 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Alex and Jon, On 28 October 2010 06:34, truth_aerator wrote: > > Thanks for your further thoughts. > >RE:You are good at spotting these conflicts. :-) Dependent >origination is > the way in which things happen, for sure, > > There is no conflict. D.O. describes forward development of aggregates in > Samsara. DO is not applicable to an Arahant, since Arhanat has no avijja > (primary condition in DO). > > The root bad guys is avijja & tanha. These don't have to occur when making > a plan to do this or that. Even Arhats can decide that "now/then is a proper > time to go for alms." > > Even for us, not all actions/decisions have to be under the influence of > avijja&tanha (though there is high probability that in most cases they are). > > > This is something I do not understand. I asked a question about something similar in Manly. If there is no craving, why do anything? Actions / decisions are always geared towards making things to be other than how they are. They are all motivated by craving. Wanting things to be different is craving. Jon had an answer which I accept and understand: he said (if I remember correctly) that the arahant does not conceive of him/her self as acting/deciding - phenomena simply happen (for him/her). The arahant is free of intention. And while I understood and accepted Jon's answer, I do not believe that such a being could survive for very long on this planet. Cheers Herman > One can do the same action (within reasonable limits) with or without wrong > views. > > IMHO. > #111253 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding egberdina Hi Alex, On 28 October 2010 11:20, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all, > > > > It is said that citta can produce rupa. This is said in relation to > > bodily and speech intimation. > > > > Hook up a battery to an organism. Observe the bodily intimation. > > > > Therefore, citta is electrical current? > > Citta is not electical current, although I wonder if physical basis for the > mind could include electicity & chemistry of some sort. > What sort of understanding of how things work could we realistically expect from times when there were only four great elements? Electricity / magnetism, chemical reaction and signalling, the role of DNA in reproduction etc etc were simply unknown, and the brain was nothing more than an air-conditioner for the body. > What happens is that the body experiences pain. The emotional reaction is > what can cause specific bodily intimations. > > The question is : how does the body experience pain? Saying that hardness impinges on a body door is an answer, of sorts. As to mind states like feelings causing bodily intimations, you will have to give some evidence for that. I would first observe that an emotional reaction IS bodily intimation. Random movement due to physical causes probably do not count as bodily > intimation caused citta. > > OK. But that would just be a matter of arbitrary definition. Rest assured, though, that all bodily movement is caused by electrical and chemical signals interacting with muscle tissue. And that applies equally to the amputated leg of a frog, and the smile of an arahant :-) Cheers Herman #111254 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 28 October 2010 02:52, Robert E wrote: > > The Theory of Evolution has become accepted more or less as fact by the > scientific community, yet it is still called a theory because it can't be > *directly* proven. The preponderance of the evidence has been widely agreed > to be in its favor, however, by almost all experts in the field. [Though > there are many people not in the field, mostly in the U.S., who think the > theory is a scam, despite the evidence.] > I have seen some very scary attempts at rebutting the theory of evolution by creationists :-) <.....> > Can the same be said for the dhamma theory within the Abhidhamma community > and the Theravadin community at large? And even putting that aside, is the > systematic explanation of how dhammas and conditions interact convincing > enough in its own right to one who studies them thoroughly? > > Interesting questions. > > Yes, they are indeed. I would say that anything that presents itself as science, that is not also open for review, addition, modification or rejection, is not science, but faith. Cheers Herman #111255 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 28 October 2010 15:23, Robert E wrote: > > > I am not sure how to understand "what is actually happening" in this > > context. What is actually happening is that the wall is an obstacle to > me, I > > cannot walk through it. I, my body, the means whereby these observations > are > > being made, are part and parcel of the equation of what is actually > > happening. I am not an electron microscope, and how a wall is to an > electron > > microscope doesn't get one closer to "what is actually happening", it > only > > tells us what a wall is like to an electron microscope. > > > > In other words, there is no ultimate viewpoint from which "what is > actually > > happening" can be observed. > > That is a superb defense of native experience as the only reality; although > I would suggest that even though I am not an electron microscope, if I look > through one that changes the standpoint of my experience during that time. > Still you are right, the reality I experience from my personal standpoint is > that the wall is solid and that is that. > > I fear that somewhere in your rock-solid explanation you have blocked any > possibility of coming to realize or understand what we do not already know. > > That would indeed be something to be fearful of. As Socrates would say about a mind firmly closed : the uninvestigated life is not worth living. Still, I see no harm in being accompanied by the thought that whatever is being experienced is a function of what is being done to experience that. Cheers Herman #111256 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Sarah, (and sorry to Rob E for butting in) On 28 October 2010 19:01, sarah wrote: > > .... > S: For me, whatever the activity, whatever the dhammas arising, it's "daily > life". > I'm not saying that you should compartmentalise (what a great word :-), but I think the dhamma does distinguish between different loka. I find such distinction to be very useful, and I would not call any meditation "daily life", simply because it occurs in a different loka. For the unwary, the value of the distinction is that it avoids the trap of believing that "daily life" and meditation have any overlap. Cheers Herman #111257 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Good to hear! You know, I was also thinking about you and your Dhp reciting and concerns about Alzheimers. For what it's worth, I was chatting to our excellent acupuncturist here in HK and he highly recommending reading out loud/reciting, in a rather dramatic fashion, as a preventative for the disease. Before, Jon used to read all the DSG posts out loud, but now we're alternating, so I get my share of the medicine too, trying to make the posts sound dramatic:-)) This is good to know! Oh please please record some of your and Jon's dramatic recitations and post them in the "Files" section. I would find it an inspiring way to go through the posts! :-) [It might also improve my Pali pronunciation.] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111258 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Ken H, On 28 October 2010 08:52, Ken H wrote: > > > My point was that only the namas and rupas were real. A stream of them is > just a concept. > > What, then, is a concept? Is it something other than namas and rupas? I am not being nitpicky, I am trying to understand what you are saying. Cheers Herman #111259 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > Enjoying all your writings as usual... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > ...For instance, if I get drunk alone I may not behave improperly in public, but the drunkenness is still akusala in its own right, isn't it? > ... > S: Not necessarily. Drinking itself doesn't constitute akusala kamma patha. The harm is in what it leads to and in the accumulated tendency for such. Fantastic! Seriously, though, that is good to know. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111260 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Rob E, On 28 October 2010 15:09, Robert E wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "Ken H" wrote: > > > I would agree that killing was conditioned by wrong view, but I wouldn't > single out any particular kind of wrong view. It could be the view that > living creatures were subject to blind chance, or it could be the view that > living beings were subject to the laws of kamma and vipakka. Each of those > is atta belief (belief in living creatures). The only significant difference > between them would be the intensity to which they were held. > > I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you > explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, > why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for > such terrible vipaka? > > Ohhh, you are naughty :-) But I like it, a lot :-) Cheers Herman #111261 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Science as antidote to misunderstanding egberdina Hi Vince, On 28 October 2010 13:00, Vince wrote: > > > Herman wrote: > > > Therefore, citta is electrical current? > > What is an electron? > - A mass. > > What is mass? > - Something in the space. > > What is space? > - ask citta. > > What is a question? :-) Cheers Herman #111262 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? egberdina Hi Howard and Sarah, On 26 October 2010 15:29, wrote: > > > 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." > > And that can be extended even further: it is possible to intentionally discontinue all thought ie initiate a line of thoughtlessness. MN43 "There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release." Cheers Herman #111263 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:49 pm Subject: if no craving, then why do anything? truth_aerator Hello Herman, all, >If there is no craving, why do anything? Interesting question. Why do arhats eat? They don't crave to live. On the other hand, maybe it is possible to plan things because they are good (for the benefit of others) to do, not because "I want it". By accepting almsfood, Arhats give a lot of merit to the laity. An alive Arhat can teach other people and set a good example. > And while I understood and accepted Jon's answer, I do not believe >that such a being could survive for very long on this planet. Maybe this is the reason why a layperson HAS to ordain if he becomes an Arahat, or die within a short while. As a monk, he is helped by others. All, IMHO. With metta, Alex #111264 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:04 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? truth_aerator Hello Herman, all, > > 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." > > > > > And that can be extended even further: it is possible to intentionally discontinue all thought ie initiate a line of thoughtlessness. > > MN43 > "There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less > awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the > theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three >conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release." Interesting idea, Herman. However, what are you trying to say? That when unwholesome thought/intention ("I want to see brave young Kung Fu girls kick butt") one shouldn't at least try to restraint it, or to counter act it? It seems to me that no-control teachings appears to teach indulgence and giving in to desires. I understand that understanding is important and ultimately it will do everything... However, is it wise not to counteract unwholesome tendencies (under the excuse of anatta?)? Why is doing one thing (indulging in akusala when it arises) more preferable than trying to restraint akusala and bring forth more kusala. With metta, Alex #111265 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:05 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------- <. . .> RE: > I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? -------- I think this is a good way of discussing Dhamma: "given that there is no self, in what way is [XYZ] possible? In what way can it be said that [A] is good and [B] is bad?" However, there must be some provisos. I think, for example, that the basis for our questions - anatta - needs to be properly understood. There needs to be an understanding of the world as just the presently arisen namas and rupas. Any other basis for Dhamma-consideration will inevitably lead to wrong understanding. Anyway, one possible way of answering your question might be that wrong understanding and akusala kammas are conditioned dhammas. The stronger the wrong understanding the more likelihood there is for all kinds of akusala kamma-pathas, even killing. Weak wrong understanding, on the other hand, is unlikely to condition killing. Ken H #111266 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? egberdina Hi Alex, On 29 October 2010 11:04, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hello Herman, all, > > > > > 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." > > > > > > > > And that can be extended even further: it is possible to intentionally > discontinue all thought ie initiate a line of thoughtlessness. > > > > MN43 > > "There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less > > awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the > > theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three > >conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release." > > Interesting idea, Herman. However, what are you trying to say? That when > unwholesome thought/intention ("I want to see brave young Kung Fu girls kick > butt") one shouldn't at least try to restraint it, or to counter act it? > > It seems to me that no-control teachings appears to teach indulgence and > giving in to desires. > > I understand that understanding is important and ultimately it will do > everything... However, is it wise not to counteract unwholesome tendencies > (under the excuse of anatta?)? > > Why is doing one thing (indulging in akusala when it arises) more > preferable than trying to restraint akusala and bring forth more kusala. > > I think you have misunderstood me. I agree with you, an act of will is necessary. That is also in the quote I provided. An act of will to do kusala is a sign of understanding. Cheers Herman #111267 From: Vince Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Science as antidote to misunderstanding cerovzt@... Hi Herman, you wrote: > What is a question? > :-) ignorance. Without ignorance, no questions. Although the matter can be if answers can eradicate ignorance. Kleenex cannot eradicate a flu and probably questions are like sneezes :) best, #111268 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Regret about what is lost? was:Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Nina > N: That was long ago, not now. I am very satisfied now to just listen > to recordings, Thai and English. Listening is good. Trying to share > also with others what I heard. I find it so excellent what I hear, it > should not be gone with the wind. That's true. So many of my reflections that I think are valuable at the time are lost with the wind, but of course we know they aren't, understanding is accumulated. Sometimes I miss the days when I listened to A.S and the gang so often, I can still remember exactly where I was when I heard certain things, like climbing steep steps near my house when Sarah talked about how there is sila with every moment of understanding a present reality, or on top of a hill looking towards Mt. Fuji when I heard you respond with surprise to what seemed like a new way of A.S talking about nimitta. (I was surprised too.) Anyways, it was a good and important time for me and developing understanding of Dhamma. Metta, Phil #111269 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:34 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) glenjohnann Hello Sarah (and Phil) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Good to hear! You know, I was also thinking about you and your Dhp reciting and concerns about Alzheimers. For what it's worth, I was chatting to our excellent acupuncturist here in HK and he highly recommending reading out loud/reciting, in a rather dramatic fashion, as a preventative for the disease. Before, Jon used to read all the DSG posts out loud, but now we're alternating, so I get my share of the medicine too, trying to make the posts sound dramatic:-)) > A: I shall start reading aloud and reciting immediately - with or without audience! I can see how it would help. Memory seems to be noticeably more sluggish and sometimes out and out gone - is it sanna weakening or what? Concerns re dementia or other mind ailments, I find, can be an impetus for listening to Dhamma recordings etc while one is still able to appreciate them, at some level. Ann #111270 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:27 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) philofillet Hi Ann and all I think learning new languages at our relatively advanced age is great too, and what better language than Pali? It's *very* helpful for bargaining in the tea markets of Sri Lanka. Haha, no, but this site is great. You can get the Dhammapada verses read in Pali if you go to pronunciation, sentence. And downloaded into one's i-pod, what great valuable listening material. And it's very interesting how if one relaxes and just listens, one gets to know the grammar of Pali (e.g recgonizing the perfect tense by the -tva suffix) and before one knows it, one knows the Dhammapada in Pali! Of course using an English text for comparison at first. I think it is great mind stretching and obviously great for Dhamma understanding and inpsiration (and bargaining in the tea markets of Sri Lanka.) http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/en/lesson/pali/lesson_pali3.htm Metta Phil #111271 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > On 28 October 2010 08:52, Ken H wrote: > > > > > > > My point was that only the namas and rupas were real. A stream of them is > > just a concept. > > > > What, then, is a concept? Is it something other than namas and rupas? > Hi Herman, Do you know what people mean by a stream of namas and rupas? They mean the present dhammas plus the immediately preceding ones that conditioned them, plus the ones that conditioned them, and so on. Sometimes it is a stream that reaches back to the infinitely distant past, other times not so far back. But it is always just a concept used as a helpful device for describing conditioned dhammas. It is not so helpful, however, when people start to see it as a sentient being. Perhaps then it is just a Claytons sentient being, I don't know, but it is certainly not a reality, and any belief in its efficacy is atta-ditthi. Ken H #111272 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:25 pm Subject: The 11 Advantages! bhikkhu5 Friends: The 11 Advantages of Infinite Friendliness: When one cultivates regular meditation on Infinite Friendliness (Mett a), then these 11 advantages are produced, can be expected and observed: 1: One sleeps in comfort. 2: One wakes in comfort. 3: One dreams no evil dreams. 4: One is dear to human beings. 5: One is dear to non-human beings. 6: Deities guard and protect one. 7: Fire, poison and weapons cannot affect one. 8: One's mind is easily concentrated. 9: The expression of one's face is serene. 10: One dies unconfused and without panic. 11: If one penetrates no higher, then one is reborn in the Brahma-world. These 11 advantages emerges and hold insofar as goodwill is maintained! Vism I 312-314, AN V 342 RADIATING PEACE The Noble Friend, who dwells in friendly good-will, Who has faith in the Teaching of the Buddhas, Will reach the place of Peace, the mode of ease, The stilling of all formation, The calming of all construction, Purest Happiness itself ... Dhammapada Illustration 368 Background Story 368-376 Universal Friendliness, which cures all aversion <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #111273 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:36 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > S: Who denies the importance of "experiential practice"? But what is the "experiential practice" as taught by the Buddha which leads to the eradication of defilements? Isn't it the development of satipatthana? Can we start by defining satipatthana? I think my definition is more mundane than yours. :-) I would say the experiential practice is the development of sati and samatha through anapanasati and satipatthana leading to insight, panna and awakening. That would include discerning nama and rupa with increasing refinement. > >R: Nice to hear from you! I think what you say above is correct, but I guess the questions are: what is satipatthana? There is some disagreement about that; and: what is the "experiential practice" that develops it? There is some disagreement about that as well. > .... > S: So can there be the development of satipatthana right now and if so, what do you understand it to be? What is the distinction between satipatthana and "experiential practice" which you refer to? There's no distinction, except that I think there is benefit from sitting meditation as a setting for satipatthana. Satipatthana would be both the method and result of "experiential practice." > If there is understanding now of hardness now (with no idea of one's body), of feeling now, of consciousness now or of a mental factor, such as greed, now, would that be satipatthana or "experiential practice"? I'm not really distinguishing them, but it would be helpful to get a good technical definition of satipatthana from the Abhidhamma point of view. When you say "the development of sati to the level of satipatthana," can you tell me what that means in technical terms? What is the "level" of satipatthana? What does it represent. I understand it as a practice model. You seem to see it as an attainment. > > It seems clear to me that Buddha advised both dhamma study and meditation practice in order to develop insight and understanding. > .... > S: I think he advised the direct "study" (as in 'sikkhati')of dhammas. Surely this is "meditation practice" or bhavana and the sotapanna is the sekkha, the trainee, the one who studies correctly? The last part implies that only the sotapanna can engage in bhavana? Since bhavana is "development" of enlightened qualities and enlightenment factors, I would think it would have stages of development, from someone just practicing without much discernment, to the fulfillment of the practice. > > In my understanding, Dhamma and meditation work together. Dhamma teaches what is to be understood and what is important for realization, and meditation is the field in which it is discovered and developed. > .... > S: Yes. Here by meditation, I like to think of bhavana, mental development/meditation. I like putting all those together, but I still think the specific practice of sitting has a particular effect. It's still just namas and rupas but the psychophysical setting seems to generate certain things... > >Those qualities are also developed in everyday life, but more effectively by going back and forth between meditation and everyday life, rather than just observing dhammas in the midst of everyday life. > .... > S: For me, whatever the activity, whatever the dhammas arising, it's "daily life". The "meditation" can only ever be now, the meditation or development of understanding of what appears through one of the six doorways, one at a time. So, I don't "compartmentalise" different times and activities during the day with regard to dhamma study or opportunities for bhavana. A friend recently referred to a knowledge of Abhidhamma detail as showing an understanding of Abhidhamma or Dhamma. I don't see it that way - I only see the "expertise" or "study" in terms of the understanding of realities appearing now. That is true, but it doesn't mean that there is no effect of particular settings or activities. For instance, Buddha advises the meditator to find a quiet, insect-free, dust-free isolated place with certain qualities, such as the root of a tree, etc., so there is some influence of setting and type of activity. > > I agree that any "prescribed activity" can potentially come from self-view, but it can also come from a correct understanding of the process given by Buddha. To only meditate, or to only observe in life, or to only study dhamma, seems to me to be short-changing the process of its necessary ingredients. > ... > S: No matter what words we used, whether or not there are any 'shoulds' or 'prescribed activity', all these activities are only dhammas, all conditioned, without anyone to decide which dhamma will arise next. So, again, the meditation, the wise attention, can only ever be now. That is true no matter what. Still, it is not a reason to refrain from helpful or recommended practices. :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #111274 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 28 October 2010 02:32, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. :-) > > > > Thanks for any compliments. They are always welcome :-) > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, agreed. And just to cross the i's and dot the t's :-), that search for > an exit also arises only as a consequence of conditions. The existential > crisis, also known as samvega, is based in wisdom, not ignorance. It is not > the sorry tale of an ill-construed attempt to rescue one's substantial and > miserable ass, it is a realisation of the predicament of not-being. Anatta > is not the solution, it is the problem. Helpless - Patti Smith, comes to > mind. > > > > > If there were not exit door, the 3rd and 4th noble truths would be lies, > > and there would be no possibility of nibbana. > > > > I see no possibility of not-being (anatta, the reality of experience) > somehow becoming being (the reality of nibbana). The key word in that is > "becoming", IMO. > > > > > 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. > > > > > Liberation from what? Anatta is known, nibbana just is. How can there be > liberation from anatta? The reality of anatta and the reality of nibbana > cannot and do not overlap. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > This space intentionally left blank :-) Did not Buddha say that nibbana [via the N8fP] was the end of suffering and the goal of the path? How do you interpret the 4th noble truth? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - #111275 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > IMO, belief in "living creatures" is not always synonymous with atta > belief. Atta belief (as regards beings) is the belief in a core of > discernible and lasting identity in beings, as opposed to understanding that they > are merely dynamic conglomerates of interrelated psychophysical phenomena > conventionally referred to as single entities. If one believes that such an > assemblage is an actual single phenomenon and something more than a merely > conventional entity, but somehow has associated with it a substantial, > self-existent, and unchanging core of existence (i.e., an identity or self), THAT > is an atta view. > So-called "beings" can, as we well know, include all sorts of > sufferings, and actions that we take that lead to sufferings, killings for example, > are morally wrong precisely because they engender suffering, and > consequently they result in akusala vipaka. This is simply fact, and there being no > self to be found in beings has no bearing on that, as far as I can see. Thanks, Howard, that's a great explanation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111276 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Ann, Rob E & all, Yes, memory losses are a concern for many of us. I like Phil's suggestions of reciting the Dhp. and Rob, I can assure you that your posts roll very easily of the tongue (as Herman would say), when read out loud. I'll try to add a dramatic reading of them onto the files one day or you could - you're the actor after all! (For the Pali pronunciation, you could listen to a little of Phil's Dhp verses first or listen to some of our edited discussions with K.Sujin on www.dhammastudygroup.org .) ... > A: I shall start reading aloud and reciting immediately - with or without audience! I can see how it would help. Memory seems to be noticeably more sluggish and sometimes out and out gone - is it sanna weakening or what? Concerns re dementia or other mind ailments, I find, can be an impetus for listening to Dhamma recordings etc while one is still able to appreciate them, at some level. .... S: Yes, no need for an audience - we often nod off when the other is reading anyway! Seriously, you can select what you read out loud - all the suttas or all the comments and none of the suttas, whatever is of interest at the time. I used to be concerned about sluggish memory issues until I taught teenagers and found they couldn't even recall the names of characters in a book they'd just read! Seriously, I do think I was a lot less tongue-tied and seemed sharper when teaching, reading out loud and so on, so I think it does help. Of course, sanna goes on marking its object regardless of whether, conventionally speaking, our memories seem weaker or we feel jet-lagged,spaced out or forgetful, for example. Yes, all this is an impetus for listening to the Dhamma, carefully considering it and appreciating the importance of understanding at this moment. Again, we put labels, such as "dementia" on a condition, but there's only one citta at a time - not "dementia" or anything else all the time. Even for those who are very forgetful, there's no reason why there cannot be understanding of realities, if there are the accumulations for it. And now is the time for such development. I'm sure we all have areas in our life where we're forgetful - even K.Sujin does! I can't cook at all as I always forget I've left something on the stove and I'm just a danger there. I don't see any of this as having any bearing on the understanding of realities, but I know that Herman and others will be ready to pounce:-) Let me finish with the rest of the "recipe" that my acupuncturist here gave me for our friends in Thailand who have concers about Alzheimers and memory disorders. This is what I wrote to them after asking his advice: "He said that (from the perspective of Chinese medicine), such disorders are caused by mucus in the speech centre of the brain, insulating the speech nerve, with the conductor working on and off. He referred to energy congestion in that area. His recommendations are: - avoid citrus and citrus juices - no dairy products - lots of exercise - and to help 'defrost the speech centre', reading out loud in a 'dramatic manner' - eat less - two meals only a day - eat more bitter melon and celery - chew on it **** S: Food for thought! The "no dairy" could be difficult for Canadians! Maybe, just in moderation. More dhammas..... Metta Sarah ======== #111277 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Phil), #111012 was a great reply (mo) on whether behaviour is modified or not and the latent tendencies: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > 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 samatha should be discouraged? Certainly not. Rather, understanding should be encouraged, and the other two will follow I think. .... S: The rest was good too... you've summarised the points we discussed nicely. Metta Sarah ===== #111278 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:58 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > 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. .... S: Hmm... Temperature is a reality, experienced as temperature(heat/cold). Anatta is a characteristic of a reality - no atta in that reality at all. In other words there can be the experience of the anattaness of temperature, but not just of anatta, "like looking into the abyss"! ... > What about that feeling of utter insignificance that people can get from gazing at a starry sky? Wouldn't that be similar to anatta? .... S: Hmm again.... Metta Sarah ====== #111279 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:06 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Rob K (& Ken H), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Do these stories from the Buddha help you to understand the results of akusala , are they not exceedlingly beautiful demonstrations of kamma and vipaka? ... S: Like you, I've always enjoyed reading such accounts. However, I think the value depends on the understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta when one reads them. We've discussed this point in Bkk a few times - how if there isn't an understanding of the conditioned reality at this moment, they're just stories of no special value for those who read them with ideas of people and events. "Useless" was the way K.Sujin described the interest in kamma and its result for those of other religions, for example, because of the clinging to ideas of people committing deeds and receiving results. An interesting topic... Metta Sarah ======= #111280 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:30 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Jon, RobE, > > 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? ;-)) > RobE: 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. pt: I'd like to take a stab at this too: 1. what's meditation/bhavana? - Development of kusala. 2. how kusala develops? - By the arising of kusala and recognising of it as kusala when it arises. 3. how kusala arises? - Conditioned by kusala in the past. 4. how is kusala recognised as kusala when it arises? - Based on developed right intellectual understanding. 5. how is right intellectual understanding developed? - Hearing and considering the Dhamma. Best wishes pt #111281 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thanks: > > 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. pt: Ok, but then how is memory loss at rebirth explained? I would think that memories too would accumulate somehow in relation to sanna and sankharakhanda, kind of like it was recently explained that intellectual understanding develops as accumulations in sankharkhanda (or something like that)? Best wishes pt #111282 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thanks very much for the explanation. Best wishes pt > 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. #111283 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bongā€™s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi Herman, Thanks for your reply. > H: 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. pt: Hm, I think a/kusala refers to something a bit different than vipaka. Firstly, it's about what are the roots of the citta - if citta is accompanied with adosa, alobha, and possibly amoha (panna), then it is a kusala citta. If it's accompanied with moha and possibly dosa or lobha, then it is akusala citta. Now, sure, these cittas will have certain vipaka in the future, but that's not the important bit for a buddhist I guess - the important bit is whether there's wisdom or ignorance now - because if there is wisdom now, then this citta with wisdom (panna) will act as a condition for magga citta arising in the future - supramundane citta when awakening occurs - which is not vipaka at all, but a kusala citta. So, vipaka is not really the main story here. > H: 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. pt: I think this question is of utmost importance, especially if we relate it to anapanasati and the usual meditation methods employed today. Firstly, I think abhidhamma explanation is that kusala can be known/recognised presently as kusala if there's panna accompanying that kusala citta. This is because citta can also be kusala, but not be accompanied by panna as the third root (so only rooted in alobha and adosa, but not amoha), in which case kusala is not known/recognised as kusala. In practical terms, I think one knows/recognises kusala as kusala because there's understanding, mindfulness, etc, arising at the time. Secondly, think of the key phrase in anapanasati sutta for example which says in the beginning "with mindfulness established in front of him". Now, imo if I don't know what's kusala when it arises, then how can there ever be "established" mindfulness?(!) My cittas could be jumping from kusala to akusala, and I would have no clue that was happening simply because I can't know/recognise when a/kusala arises. So, no way my mindfulness can actually be "established" for a moment or any length of time. So, automatically, I'm disqualified from anapanasati, and pretty much any other "intentional" kind of meditation, since I don't really know when there's a/kusala - so when the intention (to develop samatha or insight) is kusala or not - a/kusala intention there of course depending on the presence or absence of understanding: > > pt: ...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. > > > > H: I would think that the problem of identifying a/kusala does not vanish through lack of intentionality. pt: As I mentioned in another post before, intention is always there, so I don't think this whole issue is about intention really, but more about right understanding. If there's understanding, then intention is automatically right as well. > H: I think the notion of control is a particular dsg red herring. pt: I think some on dsg use "control" to indicate akusala that arises as a consequence of wrong understanding - i.e. lack of understanding anatta relating to the present moment. > H: If you feel your meditation does not deliver, it may be because your > expectations are unrealistic? Or your method? pt: I think just lack of understanding in general. > H: From my own experience, though, sati and calm are the antithesis of > discursive thinking. pt: Hm, I think there can be thinking accompanied with understanding and calm. Maybe not the ultra-calm of jhana, but still, sati and calm and other kusala qualities. Usually though, thinking is akusala - driven by cravings. > H: 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. pt: Yes, I think Vsm says that one of the impediments for developing jhana is books. But that's for developing jhana, not insight. Best wishes pt #111284 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:26 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I would say that anything that presents itself as science, that is not also > open for review, addition, modification or rejection, is not science, but > faith. What if the area in question can only be verified by internal experience and confirmed by outward agreement and comparing notes? I guess it wouldn't then qualify as "science" in the usual sense, but might still qualify as part of psychological or spiritual science. After all, there is much in psychology that can't be objectively confirmed, but that has been studied well enough that it is considered to be true, even by scientists. In some fields, review and falsification is done not by direct evidence but by indirect evidence, induction, comparison and compilation of data in multiple subjective reports and analyses. It is like my favorite analogy that I can't actually do at all in life - that is, tacking against the wind on a sail boat to get in a direction that is the opposite of the wind's direction. You can't get the facts by looking at them, induction and analysis is necessary. The problem with this approach - albeit necessary - in spiritual "science," is that it is very difficult to separate the agreement regarding subjective phenomena and its analysis thereof from the common frame of reference adopted by all the practitioners, so in some ways you are always back to square one. If everyone agrees that ghosts exist, and they all show genuine physiological reactions when the subject is brought up, this doesn't prove the existence of ghosts, but only that the belief [the faith] is genuine. One will respond as if something is real if it is believed strongly enough. No one we know claims to be at the level of panna at which they directly experience momentary dhammas arising and falling away, even in the minimal experience of this phenomenon, let alone to the extent of verifying the lists of conditions and cetasikas, nimitas and accumulating mechanisms that are claimed by the dhamma theory, so it is a matter of faith and belief by definition. What is claimed instead is that: a/ this is the Dhamma taught by the Buddha [assuming he was the author of the Abhidhamma] and one may be secure in having faith in him and his teaching; and b/ that the system is logical and explains human experience and liberation in a way that is flawless and unassailable, combining all the elements of the Dhamma as explained in the sutta pitaka [another flawless source in its own right in which one may be secure in having faith] in a way that includes and makes sense of its disparate important elements; and c/ that the works of later masters of the Buddha's system, such as Buddhaghosa and other commentators, confirms the system and explains it in even greater logical detail. So it is a matter of faith, but one that is backed up by an unassailable logic, and by a system so dramatically well organized, extensive and elegant in its scope, that only an enlightened one could have devised it. So we are back to square one, but I think that framing it this way may leave some room for a solution, as has been found workable in some areas of the "subjective" science of psychology. What would be considered an adequate "proof" of the dhamma theory, given the inability of almost any one of its adherents to experience it, and given its extensive logical formulation and proof. A final question would be whether a survey of dhamma theory adherents over a number of years or decades would show them happier, more equanimitous and with greater ability to navigate samsara with understanding. The Buddha I believe advertised greater peace and happiness for those who followed the path. Perhaps we could take a survey of pariyatti practitioners and also meditators and see whose self-reports show the impact of the Buddha's teachings most extensively in their lives? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #111285 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ruled by citta. was; hot Asian girls... nilovg Dear Phil, Op 28-okt-2010, om 1:18 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... > > Ph: Thank you for your post on citta. Please note that I added a > follow up post to the above to clarify, that you and all are right > to say that the Dhammapada verse on the deepest level refers to a > minute, ephermal citta, but I pointed out that the verse can be > understood correctly in a broader way, on different levels, that's > the wonderful thing about the Buddha's teaching. So it could also > be understood that one's thoughts and the contents of one's > unwholesome thinking can lead to unwholesome behaviour etc. ------ N: Of course, akusala citta can motivate unwholesome behaviour. See the quote:< The world of each person is ruled by his citta. The cittas of some people have accumulated a great deal of wholesomeness (kusala). Even when they meet someone who is full of defilements they can still have loving kindness, compassion or equanimity because of their accumulations of wholesomeness. Whereas the world of someone else may be a world of hatred, annoyance, anger and displeasure, according to his accumulations. Thus, in reality, each person is all the time his own world.> Note the meaning of world: -------- When we read suttas we may think: this is simple, easy to understand for all people, and you call this the < broader way> one can understand the Dhamma. Then we may be unable to understand that the Buddha indeed pointed to the deeper meaning. He wanted to help people to follow the right Path leading to liberation. Seeing things as they really are. But it depends on the listeners what they can get or want to get from sutta reading. Sutta reading is not easy, it just may seem to be simple. -------- Nina. #111286 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:32 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 28 October 2010 15:23, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > I am not sure how to understand "what is actually happening" in this > > > context. What is actually happening is that the wall is an obstacle to > > me, I > > > cannot walk through it. I, my body, the means whereby these observations > > are > > > being made, are part and parcel of the equation of what is actually > > > happening. I am not an electron microscope, and how a wall is to an > > electron > > > microscope doesn't get one closer to "what is actually happening", it > > only > > > tells us what a wall is like to an electron microscope. > > > > > > In other words, there is no ultimate viewpoint from which "what is > > actually > > > happening" can be observed. > > > > That is a superb defense of native experience as the only reality; although > > I would suggest that even though I am not an electron microscope, if I look > > through one that changes the standpoint of my experience during that time. > > Still you are right, the reality I experience from my personal standpoint is > > that the wall is solid and that is that. > > > > I fear that somewhere in your rock-solid explanation you have blocked any > > possibility of coming to realize or understand what we do not already know. > > > > > That would indeed be something to be fearful of. As Socrates would say about > a mind firmly closed : the uninvestigated life is not worth living. > > Still, I see no harm in being accompanied by the thought that whatever is > being experienced is a function of what is being done to experience that. No harm? This statement further confirms the idea that we are permanently trapped in a space bubble of our own devising. Only a great Buddha who is not confined to experiencing what is a function of "what is done to experience it," who is free from the All, can save us! Well, maybe he already did... We can hope... Let me ask you, going along with Socrates: How do you examine a life which can only be examined in the form that is chosen with which to examine it? Won't you only confirm what you already intended to discover? Consider your answer carefully. I am poised on the precipice... :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111287 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > (and sorry to Rob E for butting in) > > On 28 October 2010 19:01, sarah wrote: > > > > > .... > > S: For me, whatever the activity, whatever the dhammas arising, it's "daily > > life". > > > > I'm not saying that you should compartmentalise (what a great word :-), but > I think the dhamma does distinguish between different loka. I find such > distinction to be very useful, and I would not call any meditation "daily > life", simply because it occurs in a different loka. For the unwary, the > value of the distinction is that it avoids the trap of believing that "daily > life" and meditation have any overlap. I think Sarah is saying that they do overlap, completely, and that daily life is the ruler, meditation merely occurring within it as an equivalent constituent to anything else. In what way and to what extent do you consider meditation to be separate or distinct from "daily life?" I am inviting you to stick your neck out, with a promise to join you there. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #111288 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Howard and Sarah, > > On 26 October 2010 15:29, wrote: > > > > > > > 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." > > > > > And that can be extended even further: it is possible to intentionally > discontinue all thought ie initiate a line of thoughtlessness. > > MN43 > "There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less > awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the > theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three conditions > for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release." Well I like *this* a lot. What an unusual discovery. I hate to say this, especially here, but you may have found a basis for zen within the Theravadin body of sutta. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #111289 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. nilovg Dear pt, Op 29-okt-2010, om 13:39 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > pt: Ok, but then how is memory loss at rebirth explained? I would > think that memories too would accumulate somehow in relation to > sanna and sankharakhanda, kind of like it was recently explained > that intellectual understanding develops as accumulations in > sankharkhanda (or something like that)? ------- N: Sa~n~naa is not exactly the same as the word memory used in conventional language. At rebirth we do not remember the languages we learnt in a former life, or whether we had parents or not, depending on what plane we lived. When speaking about accumulations we have to think of kusala and akusala, not memory of stories. When we have understood the Dhamma then what we learnt will not be forgotten. Understanding is accumulated and so more understanding can be developed during future lives as well. It can develop from life to life. That is the sa"nkhaarakkhandha that accumulates. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is kusala sa~n~naa, not memory of stories or situations. Even now you can notice that when you have really understood Dhamma you will not forget it. ------- Nina. #111290 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:47 am Subject: Re: if no craving, then why do anything? epsteinrob Hi Alex, and Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Herman, all, > > >If there is no craving, why do anything? > > Interesting question. Why do arhats eat? They don't crave to live. My recollection [from the Parinibbana sutta?] is that Buddha distinguished between being free of clinging and craving, which he was even while teaching all those years, and releasing the "will to live," which he kept, along with the concomitant life-energies, until the time of Ananda's failure to ask him to stay alive, in which he then gave up the will to live and the attachment to the life-energies. After that point, as I recall, there was no going back and he was slated to die within a given period of time. I would think that the Arahat would release all personal attachments except the "will-to-live" until such time as it was appropriate for him to let go and release the life-energies, when his death was decided upon. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #111291 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:52 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > RE: > I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? > -------- > > I think this is a good way of discussing Dhamma: "given that there is no self, in what way is [XYZ] possible? In what way can it be said that [A] is good and [B] is bad?" > > However, there must be some provisos. I think, for example, that the basis for our questions - anatta - needs to be properly understood. There needs to be an understanding of the world as just the presently arisen namas and rupas. Any other basis for Dhamma-consideration will inevitably lead to wrong understanding. > > Anyway, one possible way of answering your question might be that wrong understanding and akusala kammas are conditioned dhammas. The stronger the wrong understanding the more likelihood there is for all kinds of akusala kamma-pathas, even killing. Weak wrong understanding, on the other hand, is unlikely to condition killing. I think your general framework here is fine; but you have still side-stepped the question. Not whether wrong understanding will condition akusala actions, but why killing is akusala at all, if there are no living beings in fact? Is there a lack of merit in killing something which does not exist? Would I be sent to hell for killing a unicorn? I think there is an answer to this question that provides a sort of sneaky way out, but I'd like to see how you confront this question directly, in light of the existence of "dhammas only," and "no persons in existence except as concepts." Again, if someone does not exist, why is it wrong to kill him? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111292 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:31 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma/no value stories from dhammapada rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Do these stories from the Buddha help you to understand the results of akusala , are they not exceedlingly beautiful demonstrations of kamma and vipaka? > ...________________________________________________ > S: Like you, I've always enjoyed reading such accounts. However, I think the value depends on the understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta when one reads them. > >if there isn't an understanding of the conditioned reality at this moment, they're just stories of no special value for those who read them with ideas of people and events. "Useless" was the way K.Sujin described the interest in kamma ...... ___________ Dear Sarah At least Khun Sujin and you don't think reading parts of the Tipitaka is dangerous, just no value. I wonder why she seemed impressed when she asked Alex at age six about kamma and he was able to explain how bad deeds would bring bad results in this life or future lives and v.v. for good deeds : maybe she was just humoring his father? You (and even Khun Sujin???) don't seem to see that to build up understanding of conditionality and its corollary, anatta , one has to understand at every level that conditions bring results. Any fool can say "everything is just nama and rupa" and repeat it a million times. But if they still think anything happens by blind chance then what understanding is there?. Sure Alex couldn't understand anatta at six years old but at least he was building up confidence in one of the main conditions that cause nama and rupa to arise - kamma - this is a powerful root for accepting and gradually accumulating interest in anatta. How many people do you see have an interest in Buddhism but then when they find out it teaches about kamma and future lives they have resistance..or they develop silly ideas about anatta. I better go out and gaze at the night sky, get a handle on what anatta really is. robert #111293 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:10 am Subject: Re: if no craving, then why do anything? truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, > My recollection [from the Parinibbana sutta?] is that Buddha >distinguished between being free of clinging and craving, which he >was >even while teaching all those years, and releasing the "will to >live," >which he kept, along with the concomitant life-energies, >until the >time of Ananda's failure to ask him to stay alive, in >which he then >gave up the will to live and the attachment to the >life-energies. >After that point, as I recall, there was no going >back and he was >slated to die within a given period of time. I >would think that the >Arahat would release all personal attachments >except the >"will->to-live" until such time as it was appropriate >for him to let >go >and release the life-energies, when his death was >decided upon. Very interesting. In any case, I think there is a difference between impersonal decision and personal desire ("*I* want this/that"). Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but they have 0% of self view and craving. IMHO on some occasions it may be possible for a good worldling familiar with Dhamma to make decisions that are not based on craving or self-views - and meditate. With metta, Alex #111294 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, Ann, Rob E & all, > > Yes, memory losses are a concern for many of us. I like Phil's suggestions of reciting the Dhp. and Rob, I can assure you that your posts roll very easily of the tongue (as Herman would say), when read out loud. I'll try to add a dramatic reading of them onto the files one day or you could - you're the actor after all! (For the Pali pronunciation, you could listen to a little of Phil's Dhp verses first or listen to some of our edited discussions with K.Sujin on www.dhammastudygroup.org .) Oh, I didn't know there were taped discussions to listen to. I will definitely check them out! Will be fun to hear you all talking, and some of what you are saying may even penetrate my consciousness! :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #111295 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:07 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Ken H & Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > 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. > .... > S: Hmm... Temperature is a reality, experienced as temperature(heat/cold). Anatta is a characteristic of a reality - no atta in that reality at all. In other words there can be the experience of the anattaness of temperature, but not just of anatta, "like looking into the abyss"! This starts to make some sense of the dispute. Anatta is a "characteristic of X" rather than a "thing" that can be apprehended in its own right. Still, it seems like an observation of what X does *not* have, rather than something "about" X itself. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #111296 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:09 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob K (& Ken H), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Do these stories from the Buddha help you to understand the results of akusala , are they not exceedlingly beautiful demonstrations of kamma and vipaka? > ... > S: Like you, I've always enjoyed reading such accounts. However, I think the value depends on the understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta when one reads them. > > We've discussed this point in Bkk a few times - how if there isn't an understanding of the conditioned reality at this moment, they're just stories of no special value for those who read them with ideas of people and events. "Useless" was the way K.Sujin described the interest in kamma and its result for those of other religions, for example, because of the clinging to ideas of people committing deeds and receiving results. If that is the case, why does Buddha talk that way about it? Even if the audience was not up to hearing about self-less namas and rupas creating these kammas, he could have gently insinuated the idea. Instead he leaves the impression that it is most definitely about a person committing an evil act and being "punished" [Buddha's own word] by being sent to hell and suffering in return. If Buddha is thinking "namas and rupas" at this time, he is being quite misleading, isn't he? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111297 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:37 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Sarah (and Robert E), > 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. .... S: Hmm... Temperature is a reality, experienced as temperature(heat/cold). Anatta is a characteristic of a reality - no atta in that reality at all. ---------------- As usual, I am being slow on the uptake. There is a difference between how you put it and how I put it, but I can't quite see it. ------------------------- S: > In other words there can be the experience of the anattaness of temperature, but not just of anatta, "like looking into the abyss"! ------------------------- I'm fine with the "looking into the abyss" part :-) but the first part is new to me. I take it the experience of the anattaness of temperature is somehow different from the experience of the anattaness of hardness etc. I think that must be an important point to understand. Can you say anything more that might help? ---------------------------------- KH: > What about that feeling of utter insignificance that people can get from gazing at a starry sky? Wouldn't that be similar to anatta? S: Hmm again.... ---------------------------------- OK, that was probably a silly thing to say, although I don't know why. I had already described anatta as looking into an abyss, and for my sins, I was asked to give another definition (at least I think that was what RE was asking). I can't find the post now, but if I remember correctly, I was being asked to describe the experience of looking into an abyss. If so, where did I go wrong? Ken H #111298 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: Re: if no craving, then why do anything? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but they have 0% of self view and craving. I'm not sure if it's relevant to us now, but it would be fascinating to look at the mechanism by which the arahat makes such impersonal decisions. It must be a whole different system, without self-view bending the direction of conditionality towards craving and clinging. > IMHO on some occasions it may be possible for a good worldling familiar with Dhamma to make decisions that are not based on craving or self-views - and meditate. I would agree. I think there must definitely be times when conditions are right for this, and there is no reason why meditation would be ruled out. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #111299 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:46 pm Subject: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" truth_aerator Hi RobertE, all, >A: Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but >they have 0% of self view and craving. > >RE:I'm not sure if it's relevant to us now, but it would be >fascinating to look at the mechanism by which the arahat makes such >impersonal decisions. It must be a whole different system, without >self-view bending the direction of conditionality towards craving and >clinging. Decisions are probably made without self view and without attachment to the outcome. The suttas are full of stories of Arahants and most often, the Buddha, making decisions. After attaining Buddhahood, the Buddha did do a lot. He established the Dhamma and made it widespread. However, there is an interesting thing. In MN26, right after Awakening, and realizing the profundity of Dhamma, He didn't want to teach because "And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html The punch line is "tiresome for me, troublesome for me." How can anything be "tiresome & troublesome *for me*", for an Arahant? The Buddha had to be begged by the Brahma to teach the Dhamma to all. With metta, Alex #111300 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:22 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- <. . .> KH: >> Anyway, one possible way of answering your question might be that wrong understanding and akusala kammas are conditioned dhammas. The stronger the wrong understanding the more likelihood there is for all kinds of akusala kamma-pathas, even killing. Weak wrong understanding, on the other hand, is unlikely to condition killing. >> RE: > I think your general framework here is fine; but you have still side-stepped the question. Not whether wrong understanding will condition akusala actions, ------ I could suggest one of my own [notorious] theories, but I am reluctant to. I am reluctant to because I have already heard someone express the same theory in front of a very knowledgeable audience and receive no support whatsoever. (Except from me, but I wasn't one of the knowledgeable ones.) :-) Anyway, the theory was that no one, who knew there were ultimately no people, could be motivated to kill and rob "people." It wouldn't make sense! That hypothetical stream-winner might be motivated to commit lesser misdeeds against people (purely out of desire and aversion) but not major misdeeds. Major misdeeds against people would require actual belief in the existence of those people. (So much for that theory; take it with a grain of salt.) ---------------------------------- RE: > but why killing is akusala at all, if there are no living beings in fact? ---------------------------------- I think killing is just a name we give to strong akuala cetana in certain circumstances. It does not depend on the rightness of wrong view. It (the name) just depends on the circumstances. The main thing to understand is that it is a dhamma that has been conditioned to arise. The only question is, what are the conditions? ----------------------------------------- RE: > Is there a lack of merit in killing something which does not exist? Would I be sent to hell for killing a unicorn? ----------------------------------------- If you thought you were killing something but it turned out to be an illusion then there would be akusala cetana, but not the type called killing. That mistaken type of killing can be done by low levels of akusala. The same applies when you try to kill a real person but fail. The level of akusala was not high enough. And again, it depends on the victim. Killing an ant requires a lot less akusala than killing a human being. It even requires a lot less akusala than trying to kill a human being and failing. ------------------------------- RE: > I think there is an answer to this question that provides a sort of sneaky way out, but I'd like to see how you confront this question directly, in light of the existence of "dhammas only," and "no persons in existence except as concepts." Again, if someone does not exist, why is it wrong to kill him? -------------------------------- Maybe, as you say, it is not wrong to kill a non-existent being. But the dhamma that arises at the time (of thinking there is a being and intending to kill it) *is* strongly akusala. Ken H #111301 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:23 pm Subject: Clear Comprehension! bhikkhu5 Friends: A Simple Way to Establish True Awareness: Friends, this highly advantageous praxis can be undertaken by anyone, at any time, all day long, in all situations, and at all locations! Therefore Do it!, Repeat it!, and Remember it!: When walking, one understands: "I am walking.." When standing, one knows: "I am standing.." If sitting, one notes: "I am sitting down now.." While lying down, one reflects: "I am lying down.." When moving forward or returning, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When looking forward or away, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When bending or extending a limb, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When dressing or carrying things, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When eating, drinking, or chewing, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When defecating or urinating, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When walking, standing or sitting, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When falling asleep or waking up, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. When talking or dwelling in silence, one clearly comprehends exactly that.. Rational and alert attention is thus a cause of ultra clear comprehension! When continuous Awareness is established, it can prevent all mistakes, and their painful after-effects... In this way do clear comprehension lead reduced frustration and gain of new satisfaction! If correctly cultivated, and made much of, this praxis will be for all beings welfare and happiness for a long, long time... Why so? Clear comprehension purifies the purpose, the suitability, the domain, and the unconfused focus of any activity! <...> Source: The Exhaustive Speeches by the Buddha. Digha Nikaya 22 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.htm http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25103 l Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #111302 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Ken H, On 29 October 2010 13:46, Ken H wrote: > > > > -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Ken H, > > > > On 28 October 2010 08:52, Ken H wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My point was that only the namas and rupas were real. A stream of them > is > > > just a concept. > > > > > > What, then, is a concept? Is it something other than namas and rupas? > > > > Hi Herman, > > Do you know what people mean by a stream of namas and rupas? They mean the > present dhammas plus the immediately preceding ones that conditioned them, > plus the ones that conditioned them, and so on. Sometimes it is a stream > that reaches back to the infinitely distant past, other times not so far > back. But it is always just a concept used as a helpful device for > describing conditioned dhammas. > > It is not so helpful, however, when people start to see it as a sentient > being. Perhaps then it is just a Claytons sentient being, I don't know, but > it is certainly not a reality, and any belief in its efficacy is > atta-ditthi. > > Thanks for your reply. I didn't put my question very clearly. You say there are only namas and rupas. To make my question clearer, I will rephrase this as there are only x's and y's. Then you refer to concepts. Let's call that z. So, you say there are only x's and y's, and this is a z. So, my conclusion was that therefore z had to be x and / or y. Am I right or am I wrong? If I am wrong, then surely the statement there are only namas and rupas is wrong, and should be changed to there are namas and rupas and concepts? Cheers Herman #111303 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Robert E, On 29 October 2010 15:44, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > Liberation from what? Anatta is known, nibbana just is. How can there be > > liberation from anatta? The reality of anatta and the reality of nibbana > > cannot and do not overlap. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > This space intentionally left blank :-) > > Did not Buddha say that nibbana [via the N8fP] was the end of suffering and > the goal of the path? How do you interpret the 4th noble truth? > > The end of suffering for Buddhists is death without rebirth. The 4th noble truth is the way that leads to that extinction. I have no doubts about the reality of nibbana, but I left the space intentionally blank because liberation from samsara is a moot point while I am still alive. Cheers Herman #111304 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bongā€™s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi pt, On 30 October 2010 00:40, ptaus1 wrote: > > Sorry for replying at the top, rather than at the bottom of your post. I have snipped most of your post, for the sake of brevity only. Thank you for explaining your predicament so very clearly. If you can accept that an intention to develop insight is fanciful wishful thinking :-), and if you do accept that the jhanas are kusala, then your dilemma will be solved with the firm resolution to develop them. There is no akusala in that. Cheers Herman > > Hi Herman, > > Thanks for your reply. > > > H: 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. > > pt: Hm, I think a/kusala refers to something a bit different than vipaka. > Firstly, it's about what are the roots of the citta - if citta is > accompanied with adosa, alobha, and possibly amoha (panna), then it is a > kusala citta. If it's accompanied with moha and possibly dosa or lobha, then > it is akusala citta. > > Now, sure, these cittas will have certain vipaka in the future, but that's > not the important bit for a buddhist I guess - the important bit is whether > there's wisdom or ignorance now - because if there is wisdom now, then this > citta with wisdom (panna) will act as a condition for magga citta arising in > the future - supramundane citta when awakening occurs - which is not vipaka > at all, but a kusala citta. So, vipaka is not really the main story here. > > Best wishes > pt > > > #111305 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Robert E, On 30 October 2010 01:26, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > I would say that anything that presents itself as science, that is not > also > > open for review, addition, modification or rejection, is not science, but > > faith. > > What if the area in question can only be verified by internal experience > and confirmed by outward agreement and comparing notes? I guess it wouldn't > then qualify as "science" in the usual sense, but might still qualify as > part of psychological or spiritual science. After all, there is much in > psychology that can't be objectively confirmed, but that has been studied > well enough that it is considered to be true, even by scientists. In some > fields, review and falsification is done not by direct evidence but by > indirect evidence, induction, comparison and compilation of data in multiple > subjective reports and analyses. It is like my favorite analogy that I can't > actually do at all in life - that is, tacking against the wind on a sail > boat to get in a direction that is the opposite of the wind's direction. You > can't get the facts by looking at them, induction and analysis is necessary. > > The problem with this approach - albeit necessary - in spiritual "science," > is that it is very difficult to separate the agreement regarding subjective > phenomena and its analysis thereof from the common frame of reference > adopted by all the practitioners, so in some ways you are always back to > square one. If everyone agrees that ghosts exist, and they all show genuine > physiological reactions when the subject is brought up, this doesn't prove > the existence of ghosts, but only that the belief [the faith] is genuine. > One will respond as if something is real if it is believed strongly enough. > > I do not doubt anything you are saying, but if we have a representational theory of reality, ie that there is a real world out there, that is somehow being represented in here, then we cannot escape the dilemma of uncertainty regarding the fidelity of this representation. At best, the nature of the world out there is known in terms of probability. > No one we know claims to be at the level of panna at which they directly > experience momentary dhammas arising and falling away, even in the minimal > experience of this phenomenon, let alone to the extent of verifying the > lists of conditions and cetasikas, nimitas and accumulating mechanisms that > are claimed by the dhamma theory, so it is a matter of faith and belief by > definition. What is claimed instead is that: > > a/ this is the Dhamma taught by the Buddha [assuming he was the author of > the Abhidhamma] and one may be secure in having faith in him and his > teaching; > > and > > b/ that the system is logical and explains human experience and liberation > in a way that is flawless and unassailable, combining all the elements of > the Dhamma as explained in the sutta pitaka [another flawless source in its > own right in which one may be secure in having faith] in a way that includes > and makes sense of its disparate important elements; > > and > > c/ that the works of later masters of the Buddha's system, such as > Buddhaghosa and other commentators, confirms the system and explains it in > even greater logical detail. > > So it is a matter of faith, but one that is backed up by an unassailable > logic, and by a system so dramatically well organized, extensive and elegant > in its scope, that only an enlightened one could have devised it. > > That is a very good rendition of an appeal to authority. Nothing wrong with that at all, but such appeals are equally available to Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Muslims et al. > So we are back to square one, but I think that framing it this way may > leave some room for a solution, as has been found workable in some areas of > the "subjective" science of psychology. What would be considered an adequate > "proof" of the dhamma theory, given the inability of almost any one of its > adherents to experience it, and given its extensive logical formulation and > proof. > > A final question would be whether a survey of dhamma theory adherents over > a number of years or decades would show them happier, more equanimitous and > with greater ability to navigate samsara with understanding. The Buddha I > believe advertised greater peace and happiness for those who followed the > path. Perhaps we could take a survey of pariyatti practitioners and also > meditators and see whose self-reports show the impact of the Buddha's > teachings most extensively in their lives? > > I think that the degree of suffering / well-being, here and now, of practitioners of any spiritual system would be a very worthwhile indicator, and that the degree of faith in "what the world is really like" or what happens hereafter would be completely useless. Cheers Herman #111306 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 30 October 2010 01:32, Robert E wrote: > > > > Still, I see no harm in being accompanied by the thought that whatever is > > being experienced is a function of what is being done to experience that. > > No harm? This statement further confirms the idea that we are permanently > trapped in a space bubble of our own devising. Only a great Buddha who is > not confined to experiencing what is a function of "what is done to > experience it," who is free from the All, can save us! > > Well, maybe he already did... We can hope... > > Let me ask you, going along with Socrates: How do you examine a life which > can only be examined in the form that is chosen with which to examine it? > A very good question. If the method and intent is to discover what the world is really like, then one will only observe what results when looking through a telescope inserted up one's own bottom :-) Won't you only confirm what you already intended to discover? > Yes, indeed, if looking for a positive knowledge of oneself in the world. > Consider your answer carefully. I am poised on the precipice... :-) > > However, such is not the Buddhist path. The method and intent is not to acquire views, but to abandon them. Sutta Nipata 4.5 Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world? -- Success with this sort of method leads to the discovery of emptiness. Discoveries like that make it rather easy for the likes of Socrates to drink the hemlock when the time comes. Cheers Herman #111307 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Rob E and Sarah, On 30 October 2010 01:35, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > (and sorry to Rob E for butting in) > > > > On 28 October 2010 19:01, sarah wrote: > > > > > > > > .... > > > S: For me, whatever the activity, whatever the dhammas arising, it's > "daily > > > life". > > > > > > > I'm not saying that you should compartmentalise (what a great word :-), > but > > I think the dhamma does distinguish between different loka. I find such > > distinction to be very useful, and I would not call any meditation "daily > > life", simply because it occurs in a different loka. For the unwary, the > > value of the distinction is that it avoids the trap of believing that > "daily > > life" and meditation have any overlap. > > I think Sarah is saying that they do overlap, completely, and that daily > life is the ruler, meditation merely occurring within it as an equivalent > constituent to anything else. > > In what way and to what extent do you consider meditation to be separate or > distinct from "daily life?" I am inviting you to stick your neck out, with a > promise to join you there. > :-) When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are firmly planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when engaged in meditation. Cheers Herman #111308 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Rob E), --- On Sat, 30/10/10, Ken H wrote: >S: Hmm... Temperature is a reality, experienced as temperature(heat/cold). Anatta is a characteristic of a reality - no atta in that reality at all. ---------------- ------------------------- S: > In other words there can be the experience of the anattaness of temperature, but not just of anatta, "like looking into the abyss"! ------------------------- >K: I'm fine with the "looking into the abyss" part :-) but the first part is new to me. I take it the experience of the anattaness of temperature is somehow different from the experience of the anattaness of hardness etc. .... S: Just because the characteristic of temperature is different from that of hardness. Both equally anatta, both equally just elements. I expect we're just using different words here. .... >K:I think that must be an important point to understand. Can you say anything more that might help? .... S: Not sure! As with the characteristics of dukkha and anicca, it comes down to a more and more precise understanding of the nature of the realities themselves. For example, the more precisely 'heat' is known when it's experienced, the clearer becomes its nature as being anatta - just the element which is experienced, no thing in it at all. And later, the nature of that element as anicca and thereby dukkha too. ... ---------------------------------- KH: > What about that feeling of utter insignificance that people can get from gazing at a starry sky? Wouldn't that be similar to anatta? >S: Hmm again.... ---------------------------------- K:> OK, that was probably a silly thing to say, although I don't know why. I had already described anatta as looking into an abyss, and for my sins, I was asked to give another definition (at least I think that was what RE was asking). >I can't find the post now, but if I remember correctly, I was being asked to describe the experience of looking into an abyss. If so, where did I go wrong? .... S: To me, the "looking into an abyss" suggests nothing experienced at all, whereas in this case, there is the reality, the temperature or hardness experienced. Also, isn't "the feeling of utter insignificance" when looking into the starry sky, just a thought? I may well be missing your point. You're always the first one to stress the dhammas appearing at this moment, so I imagine this is just a minor quibble on the descriptions chosen:-) Metta Sarah ====== #111309 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Rob K, Thanks for your comments and feedback. --- On Sat, 30/10/10, Robert E wrote: > We've discussed this point in Bkk a few times - how if there isn't an understanding of the conditioned reality at this moment, they're just stories of no special value for those who read them with ideas of people and events..... .... RE:>If that is the case, why does Buddha talk that way about it? Even if the audience was not up to hearing about self-less namas and rupas creating these kammas, he could have gently insinuated the idea. Instead he leaves the impression that it is most definitely about a person committing an evil act and being "punished" [Buddha's own word] by being sent to hell and suffering in return. >If Buddha is thinking "namas and rupas" at this time, he is being quite misleading, isn't he? .... S: As Nina discussed recently with Herman, sometimes conventional terms are used and sometimes ultimate realities, esp. in the Abhidhamma. She wrote: "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 anattaaĀ. He knew the dispositions of different beings and which kind of teaching was most suitable for them." S: In other words, whatever the Buddha taught, he was pointing to the truth about realities as anatta. He knew that when he taught about the details of kamma and its result in terms of people and situations that many of his listeners would be able to appreciate the truths about the various realities, the various namas and rupas involved, because they had already heard other suttas about seeing, visible object, greed, hatred and so on. It's good to encourage children (or anyone) in all kinds of kusala and I think it's much better to read Jataka stories to children (as Rob K used to do) than other kinds of stories which have no "moral" whatsoever. I've also done the same and would always encourage any child with dana, metta or sila. However, in terms of removing the bricks of samsara, as we know, it is only the understanding of present dhammas as anatta that actually leads in this direction. I'll post a few comments from our recent visit to Bangkok which I had in mind and found interesting at the time. Metta Sarah ===== #111310 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:50 am Subject: What I heard on kamma [1] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, From Kaeng Krajan, Aug 2010. [Sarita, the daughter of our friends Ivan & Ell had mentioned about how she had heard quite a lot about Buddhism as a child, such as about kamma and why this and that happened to a person. She was wondering why some people hear the Dhamma and have a chance to learn, but not others.] K.Sujin: "Do you think you can understand this by not knowing or understanding reality right now? Like the conditions and kamma and result? It's only the story about what we take for oneself, but actually if there is the understanding of a reality, just a reality, right now, it will bring more understanding about everything. "For example, there is seeing right now, but no understanding of that which sees and that which is seen. So if we talk about the cause and the result, the kamma and the result, where is it? But now, there is a reality which arises by conditions. Everything which appears has conditions to arise, even just seeing, just a moment of seeing is conditioned. What about each dot of samsara, see? All are conditioned to arise. Just arise and pass away, unknown all the time. The previous moment, gone completely. What was the person now? Gone away and that which we think is the future has come to be the present and then passes away all the time. Who knows this? "So among all realities, panna is the best of all, because it can understand that which appears as it is." ***** Metta Sarah ===== #111311 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [2] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, From Bangkok, Aug 2010. K.Sujin: "It seems like when we read anything, like the Visuddhimagga, we try to understand the text or the words, but what about the reality? If it doesn't lead to the understanding of reality, it's useless, because we just think in terms of stories about realities only." **** K.Kao: What is the benefit of hearing about conditions, understanding conditions? K.Sujin: That there is no self at all. No self now! **** Metta Sarah ======== #111312 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [3] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, [There had been some discussion about how other teachings or philosophies might seem close (as sometimes mentioned here) in some regards to Buddhism and Sukin had just mentioned his experience in a Sikh religion internet group. As Sikhism talks about kamma, he had wanted to encourage them along these lines.] K.Sujin: As long as they don't understand realities at all, how can they understand kamma and vipaka? Because it's still "him" who has kamma and vipaka. *** Sukin: So it's all connected, understanding kamma and understanding realities. You cannot separate the two. K.Sujin: Because, you see, many people think they understand and they believe in kamma and the result, vipaka, but it's still "him", so what's the use, talking about kamma? Because it's still that person that has kamma and vipaka. **** Sukin: If one considers as Self, it's not going to get better... K.Sujin: Who can stop clinging to the self to do ill deeds? As long as there is clinging to Self, there must be ill deeds. Sarah: So if any Teaching or Teacher doesn't teach about realities as anatta, it's not close.... K.Sujin: The Self is not close to Dhamma. Opposite. *** Metta Sarah ======= #111313 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [1] nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 30-okt-2010, om 11:50 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > For example, there is seeing right now, but no understanding of > that which sees and that which is seen. So if we talk about the > cause and the result, the kamma and the result, where is it? But > now, there is a reality which arises by conditions. Everything > which appears has conditions to arise, even just seeing, just a > moment of seeing is conditioned. What about each dot of samsara, > see? All are conditioned to arise. Just arise and pass away, > unknown all the time. The previous moment, gone completely. What > was the person now? Gone away and that which we think is the future > has come to be the present and then passes away all the time. Who > knows this? ------- N: Very good material here. We tend to think of the stories: I who receive result. That is why she also said that from the first stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na on it is understood what kamma is, what vipaaka. As to questions for Bgk, nimitta is always a good topic to learn more. I was wondering about a point, but after considering more it became a little clearer. The following: realities arise and fall away very fast and therefore only nimtta is appearing. As I transcribed: < 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. > I thought of the fourth principal insight: the realisation of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. Possible? It must be. But then, it does not matter that only a nimitta is known. Which moment of seeing is arising and falling away, it does not matter. Then there is a next one, but we need not point to: this moment of seeing exactly is arising and falling away. There is always a next moment of seeing arising very closely. ------ Another transcription about nimitta and the four great elements I found not easy: I like to learn more about the four great elements and the colours of shape and form appearing through the eyes. You once asked whether only one colour appears thjrough the eyes, and the answer was: no. Very good. some people think: only one colour like red or green. I am looking forward to more transcriptions, even if they are short. Nina. #111314 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:03 pm Subject: We tend to think of the stories: truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, > N: We tend to think of the stories: I who receive result. Are all "stories" wrong? Are all "stories" bad? Isn't all the talk about "1 billion of dhammas per second each with its own characteristic, and no living beings" a sort of a "story" that is still beyond our reach? With metta, Alex #111315 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:07 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----------- <. . .> H: > Thanks for your reply. I didn't put my question very clearly. > You say there are only namas and rupas. To make my question clearer, I will rephrase this as there are only x's and y's. Then you refer to concepts. Let's call that z. > So, you say there are only x's and y's, and this is a z. ---------- I'm not sure if it applies in your example; you might not be talking about two realities - an ultimate one and an illusory one. In ultimate reality there are only namas and rupas. Concepts are neither of those things, therefore they don't exist in ultimate reality. ----------------- H: > So, my conclusion was that therefore z had to be x and / or y. Am I right or am I wrong? ---------------- You're right in a way. If it exists in ultimate reality it must be either a nama or a rupa (x or y). ---------------------- H: > If I am wrong, then surely the statement there are only namas and rupas is wrong, and should be changed to there are namas and rupas and concepts? ----------------------- At the risk of repeating myself, I would say it all depended on which kind of reality you were referring to. :-) Ken H #111316 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Ken H, On 31 October 2010 07:07, Ken H wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > ----------- > <. . .> > H: > Thanks for your reply. I didn't put my question very clearly. > > > > You say there are only namas and rupas. To make my question clearer, I > will rephrase this as there are only x's and y's. Then you refer to > concepts. > Let's call that z. > > > So, you say there are only x's and y's, and this is a z. > ---------- > > I'm not sure if it applies in your example; you might not be talking about > two realities - an ultimate one and an illusory one. > Thanks for clarifying. I guess I don't know how the word reality applies to illusory and ultimate. The only reality I know is the one I live, and it changes according to what I am doing. If I see a snake, I see a snake. If I move closer and it turns out to be a rope, it turns out to be a rope. I lived both moments, they were both real experiences. It seems to me that ultimate reality cannot be lived, it cannot even be known, it can only be believed. Thanks again for clarifying. Cheers Herman #111317 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 30 October 2010 01:39, Robert E wrote: > > > > =================================== > > > It is possible to intentionally discontinue a line of thought, and > > > doing so is part of what the Buddha called "right effort." > > > > > > > > And that can be extended even further: it is possible to intentionally > > discontinue all thought ie initiate a line of thoughtlessness. > > > > MN43 > > "There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less > > awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the > > theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three > conditions > > for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release." > > Well I like *this* a lot. What an unusual discovery. I hate to say this, > especially here, but you may have found a basis for zen within the > Theravadin body of sutta. > > Brace yourself for some more :-) SN 12:38 Staying at Savatthi... [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." Notes1 .The seven obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, and the obsession of ignorance. See AN 7.12 . Cheers Herman #111318 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" egberdina Hi Alex, On 30 October 2010 09:46, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi RobertE, all, > > >A: Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but >they > have 0% of self view and craving. > > > >RE:I'm not sure if it's relevant to us now, but it would be >fascinating > to look at the mechanism by which the arahat makes such >impersonal > decisions. It must be a whole different system, without >self-view bending > the direction of conditionality towards craving and >clinging. > > Decisions are probably made without self view and without attachment to the > outcome. > When there is no attachment to outcomes, one does not value outcomes. That totally contradicts the notion of sila. Arahats do have values. What is the case, IMO, for one who has perfected sila, decisions are no longer necessary. eg AN 11:2 "For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue. So, I don't think the arahat decides anything with regards to sila, but still values sila. > The suttas are full of stories of Arahants and most often, the Buddha, > making decisions. After attaining Buddhahood, the Buddha did do a lot. He > established the Dhamma and made it widespread. > The question is about whether they were decisions for the Buddha, not how it appears to third parties. > > However, there is an interesting thing. In MN26, right after Awakening, and > realizing the profundity of Dhamma, He didn't want to teach because > > "And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that > would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html > > The punch line is "tiresome for me, troublesome for me." > > How can anything be "tiresome & troublesome *for me*", for an Arahant? > > Why should that be a problem? Just like in DN33 ( I think), the Buddha has a bad back, and doesn't want to do the teaching. The Buddha has no duty of care to anyone else, only to himself. Cheers Herman The Buddha had to be begged by the Brahma to teach the Dhamma to all. > #111319 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: if no craving, then why do anything? egberdina Hi Alex, On 30 October 2010 03:10, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hello RobertE, all, > > Very interesting. In any case, I think there is a difference between > impersonal decision and personal desire ("*I* want this/that"). > > Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but they have > 0% of self view and craving. > > I doubt this very much. One who has perfected sila has a perfect attachment to their values, and a perfect aversion to anything contrary, IMO. Cheers Herman > IMHO on some occasions it may be possible for a good worldling familiar > with Dhamma to make decisions that are not based on craving or self-views - > and meditate. > #111320 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, > > >A: Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but >they > > have 0% of self view and craving. > > > > > >RE:I'm not sure if it's relevant to us now, but it would be >fascinating > > to look at the mechanism by which the arahat makes such >impersonal > > decisions. It must be a whole different system, without >self-view bending > > the direction of conditionality towards craving and >clinging. > > > > Decisions are probably made without self view and without attachment to the > > outcome. > > >H: When there is no attachment to outcomes, one does not value >outcomes. A: It sounds right, but what about Buddha didn't wanting to teach because it would be troublesome for Him (an undesirable outcome)? >H: What is the case, IMO, for one who has perfected sila, decisions >are no longer necessary. eg AN 11:2 "For a person endowed with >virtue, consummate in> virtue, there is no need for an act of will, >'May freedom from remorse arise > in me.' It is in the nature of >things that freedom from remorse arises in a > person endowed with >virtue, consummate in virtue. > A: The Above was regarding the progression of the path. Not about everyday choices. > A: The suttas are full of stories of Arahants and most often, the >Buddha, making decisions. After attaining Buddhahood, the Buddha did >do a lot. He established the Dhamma and made it widespread. > >H: The question is about whether they were decisions for the Buddha, >not how it appears to third parties. A: Did Buddha make decisions? The suttas say so. With metta, Alex #111321 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ruled by citta. was; hot Asian girls... philofillet Hi Nina > When we read suttas we may think: this is simple, easy to understand > for all people, and you call this the < broader way> one can > understand the Dhamma. Then we may be unable to understand that the > Buddha indeed pointed to the deeper meaning. He wanted to help people > to follow the right Path leading to liberation.> > Yes, but the Buddha didn't teach the deeper way to listeners until he determined their minds were ready for it, you know, the white cloth that can absorb dye versus the stained cloth. My impression is that we in the West are too ready to decide for ourselves that our clothes are white enough, if you will. We plunge straight into the deepest teachings we can find. I feel A.S is the clearest offender in this sense, but it is found everywhere. But yes, gradually we must understand the deeper layers that lie beneath the surface of the suttas. Your philosophy is that if we don't understand the deepest layers first, we won't understand the surface, good in theory, but we can't understand the deepest layers, though we think we do when we listen. That is my philsophy now, though I do brush against the deepest teachings on occasion when I come across them in my notebooks. I remember I discussed this sort of thing when I met Robert K. He referred to the analogy of the heartwood, said we must get to the heartwood. I am more of a peel off the leaves and the bark first person. I tend to feel that I am following the way the Buddha used, but that may be my opinion. Metta, Phil #111322 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:32 pm Subject: Goodness Galore _/\_ :-) bhikkhu5 Friends: Compassion is the Good Core of Buddhism! Overcome the angry by friendliness, overcome the wicked by goodness, overcome the miser by generosity, overcome the liar by truth... Dhammapada 223 He who neither punishes, nor makes others punish, He who neither steals, nor makes others steal, who in friendly goodwill shares with all that lives, such kind gentle one meets no enmity anywhere... Itivuttaka 27 Train yourself in doing only what is good, that will last and bring great happiness! Cultivate generosity, a peaceful living, and a mentality of infinite friendliness... Itivuttaka 16 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #111323 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" egberdina Hi Alex, On 31 October 2010 09:06, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all, > > > > > >A: Arahant definitely can make decisions (the suttas tell so), but > >they > > > have 0% of self view and craving. > > > > > > > >RE:I'm not sure if it's relevant to us now, but it would be > >fascinating > > > to look at the mechanism by which the arahat makes such >impersonal > > > decisions. It must be a whole different system, without >self-view > bending > > > the direction of conditionality towards craving and >clinging. > > > > > > Decisions are probably made without self view and without attachment to > the > > > outcome. > > > > > >H: When there is no attachment to outcomes, one does not value >outcomes. > > A: It sounds right, but what about Buddha didn't wanting to teach because > it would be troublesome for Him (an undesirable outcome)? > > Do you think that the Buddha had no values ? Cheers Herman #111324 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:04 pm Subject: Re: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > "And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html > > The punch line is "tiresome for me, troublesome for me." > > How can anything be "tiresome & troublesome *for me*", for an Arahant? Yes, that is an intriguing mystery. Either he may have had feeling-reactions left over from prior to enlightenment which eventually burned off as he integrated his prior kammas. Is it not so that vipaka will continue to arise from past kammas for some period of time, and that vedana continues too? Some of these reactions may also be like this, but he would quickly detach from them...? It is quite interesting. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111325 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:14 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > KH: >> Anyway, one possible way of answering your question might be that wrong understanding and akusala kammas are conditioned dhammas. The stronger the wrong understanding the more likelihood there is for all kinds of akusala kamma-pathas, even killing. Weak wrong understanding, on the other hand, is unlikely to condition killing. > >> > > RE: > I think your general framework here is fine; but you have still side-stepped the question. Not whether wrong understanding will condition akusala actions, > ------ > > I could suggest one of my own [notorious] theories, but I am reluctant to. I am reluctant to because I have already heard someone express the same theory in front of a very knowledgeable audience and receive no support whatsoever. (Except from me, but I wasn't one of the knowledgeable ones.) :-) > > Anyway, the theory was that no one, who knew there were ultimately no people, could be motivated to kill and rob "people." It wouldn't make sense! > > That hypothetical stream-winner might be motivated to commit lesser misdeeds against people (purely out of desire and aversion) but not major misdeeds. Major misdeeds against people would require actual belief in the existence of those people. > > (So much for that theory; take it with a grain of salt.) That is at least a sensible possibility, but it still doesn't answer the question why the doing of such deeds is akusala, since in truth there is no person to kill or harm. How can you commit a misdeed against a concept? Is that even possible? For anyone? It's interesting how it's hard to even focus on the question as such, let alone answer it. You answer interesting possibilities around the question, but sidestep the question itself. > ---------------------------------- > RE: > but why killing is akusala at all, if there are no living beings in fact? > ---------------------------------- > > I think killing is just a name we give to strong akusala cetana in certain circumstances. It does not depend on the rightness of wrong view. It (the name) just depends on the circumstances. But what I am asking is what is akusala about it, not whether the name is accurate or what are the conditions. > The main thing to understand is that it is a dhamma that has been conditioned to arise. The only question is, what are the conditions? Except that it's not my question in this case. Why is it akusala to kill or harm a concept? > ----------------------------------------- > RE: > Is there a lack of merit in killing something which does not exist? Would I be sent to hell for killing a unicorn? > ----------------------------------------- > > If you thought you were killing something but it turned out to be an illusion then there would be akusala cetana, but not the type called killing. That mistaken type of killing can be done by low levels of akusala. The same applies when you try to kill a real person but fail. The level of akusala was not high enough. Well in the story, the level of akusala for burning an ox to death was extremely harsh - being killed by fire for however many lifetimes, so I guess the akusala was pretty high! So why is the vipaka so intense for killing a concept of an ox? > And again, it depends on the victim. Killing an ant requires a lot less akusala than killing a human being. It even requires a lot less akusala than trying to kill a human being and failing. See above. > ------------------------------- > RE: > I think there is an answer to this question that provides a sort of sneaky way out, but I'd like to see how you confront this question directly, in light of the existence of "dhammas only," and "no persons in existence except as concepts." Again, if someone does not exist, why is it wrong to kill him? > -------------------------------- > > Maybe, as you say, it is not wrong to kill a non-existent being. But the dhamma that arises at the time (of thinking there is a being and intending to kill it) *is* strongly akusala. Okay, well that *is* an answer to the question. If that is the case though, then the 'internal' state of the person, so to speak, is what is important, and not the action taken. One would say that the anger that culminates in the killing is the real culprit. However, I don't think that's the actual case. As I read the stories, it is the act of killing - the physical action of taking life and causing suffering - that creates the kamma for all this punishment, and the person is said explicitly by the Buddha to be *punished* for taking life. That is retribution. Retribution not for the intention, but for the action. That suggests that to the Buddha in this context, the being killed is real, and there is consequence for taking life. Something to ponder over when regarding the negative consequences of action and the existence of beings, whether ultimately what they are or not. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #111326 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > My point was that only the namas and rupas were real. A stream of them > > is > > > > just a concept. > > > > > > > > What, then, is a concept? Is it something other than namas and rupas? > > > > > > > Hi Herman, > > > > Do you know what people mean by a stream of namas and rupas? They mean the > > present dhammas plus the immediately preceding ones that conditioned them, > > plus the ones that conditioned them, and so on. Sometimes it is a stream > > that reaches back to the infinitely distant past, other times not so far > > back. But it is always just a concept used as a helpful device for > > describing conditioned dhammas. > > > > It is not so helpful, however, when people start to see it as a sentient > > being. Perhaps then it is just a Claytons sentient being, I don't know, but > > it is certainly not a reality, and any belief in its efficacy is > > atta-ditthi. > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I didn't put my question very clearly. > > You say there are only namas and rupas. To make my question clearer, I will > rephrase this as there are only x's and y's. Then you refer to concepts. > Let's call that z. > > So, you say there are only x's and y's, and this is a z. > > So, my conclusion was that therefore z had to be x and / or y. Am I right or > am I wrong? If I am wrong, then surely the statement there are only namas > and rupas is wrong, and should be changed to there are namas and rupas and > concepts? If x ≠ z, but *appears* to = z, does z exist or not? If I can see or imagine something that doesn't exist, that makes it experienceable, but doesn't make it actual. Therefore one would say it does *not* exist, but I *think* it exists. If I think unicorns exist, that doesn't make them exist, that only makes thought exist, which is a nama. The concept of unicorn is the object of the thought, which thought does exist, but the concept which is the object of the thought does not exist. Anything can be the object of a thought, including many concepts which don't exist. Still, the thought is a nama, and so only namas and rupas are actually there. By the way, I disagree with Ken H. that since only namas and rupas exist, a stream of namas and rupas cannot exist, and is a concept. That is not logical. A stream of namas and rupas refers to how the namas and rupas are organized, not to another existent other than namas and rupas. No one is saying there are namas and rupas and streams, just that namas and rupas are organized in different streams, which is the only way to explain why you and I experience a different set of namas and rupas. Each of us is like a separate portal through which come certain experiences. We don't experience the same ones. If I "stream" video to you over the internet, the only thing that exists in the stream is video, there is not a "stream" on the one hand, and a "video" on the other hand; streaming is just the method of delivery of the video, not another object that contains the video. So a stream of namas and rupas would just be composed of namas and rupas, nothing else. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111327 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > The end of suffering for Buddhists is death without rebirth. The 4th noble > truth is the way that leads to that extinction. Hm. I don't see permanent extinction as the end of the path. I see extinction of the kandhas as the end of the path, but nibbana is not included in the kandhas, and no one achieves extinction of the kandhas without experiencing nibbana. And so, one's awareness is transformed by experiencing nibbana before the kandhas stop arising. That is a little different than simple extinction - well, a lot different. > I have no doubts about the reality of nibbana, but I left the space > intentionally blank because liberation from samsara is a moot point while I > am still alive. Hm. I don't see it as a totally moot point. I may know nothing about California, but if I'm planning to drive there, I would not leave the "California" part of the map "intentionally blank," I'd want to at least have a diagram of where I am heading, in order to get there accurately. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111328 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > The problem with this approach - albeit necessary - in spiritual "science," > > is that it is very difficult to separate the agreement regarding subjective > > phenomena and its analysis thereof from the common frame of reference > > adopted by all the practitioners, so in some ways you are always back to > > square one. If everyone agrees that ghosts exist, and they all show genuine > > physiological reactions when the subject is brought up, this doesn't prove > > the existence of ghosts, but only that the belief [the faith] is genuine. > > One will respond as if something is real if it is believed strongly enough. > > > > > I do not doubt anything you are saying, but if we have a representational > theory of reality, ie that there is a real world out there, that is somehow > being represented in here, then we cannot escape the dilemma of uncertainty > regarding the fidelity of this representation. At best, the nature of the > world out there is known in terms of probability. Barring some form of factual proof, which I cannot imagine at the moment prior to direct seeing/insight, also currently an unknown, I would say you are right. However, I wouldn't rule out probability out of hand as a possible method of verification, esp. if the probability is shown to be "high." [Not saying it has been, however.] > > No one we know claims to be at the level of panna at which they directly > > experience momentary dhammas arising and falling away, even in the minimal > > experience of this phenomenon, let alone to the extent of verifying the > > lists of conditions and cetasikas, nimitas and accumulating mechanisms that > > are claimed by the dhamma theory, so it is a matter of faith and belief by > > definition. What is claimed instead is that: > > > > a/ this is the Dhamma taught by the Buddha [assuming he was the author of > > the Abhidhamma] and one may be secure in having faith in him and his > > teaching; > > > > and > > > > b/ that the system is logical and explains human experience and liberation > > in a way that is flawless and unassailable, combining all the elements of > > the Dhamma as explained in the sutta pitaka [another flawless source in its > > own right in which one may be secure in having faith] in a way that includes > > and makes sense of its disparate important elements; > > > > and > > > > c/ that the works of later masters of the Buddha's system, such as > > Buddhaghosa and other commentators, confirms the system and explains it in > > even greater logical detail. > > > > So it is a matter of faith, but one that is backed up by an unassailable > > logic, and by a system so dramatically well organized, extensive and elegant > > in its scope, that only an enlightened one could have devised it. > > > > > That is a very good rendition of an appeal to authority. Nothing wrong with > that at all, but such appeals are equally available to Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, > Muslims et al. Of course they are - one is convicted by one's own conviction in any case. No one can force anyone to become a Buddhist or anything else, unless they are willingly led. It is chosen because it appeals to the individual's temperament and sense of truth. I personally do not rule out the benefit of some other spiritual schools. There is great benefit, in my view, in Advaita Vedanta and Taoism, for instance. But I think, from my point of view, that Buddhism has the most complete understanding and path. But it's just an opinion, I think, no matter how fully one believes it. > > So we are back to square one, but I think that framing it this way may > > leave some room for a solution, as has been found workable in some areas of > > the "subjective" science of psychology. What would be considered an adequate > > "proof" of the dhamma theory, given the inability of almost any one of its > > adherents to experience it, and given its extensive logical formulation and > > proof. > > > > A final question would be whether a survey of dhamma theory adherents over > > a number of years or decades would show them happier, more equanimitous and > > with greater ability to navigate samsara with understanding. The Buddha I > > believe advertised greater peace and happiness for those who followed the > > path. Perhaps we could take a survey of pariyatti practitioners and also > > meditators and see whose self-reports show the impact of the Buddha's > > teachings most extensively in their lives? > > > > > > I think that the degree of suffering / well-being, here and now, of > practitioners of any spiritual system would be a very worthwhile indicator, > and that the degree of faith in "what the world is really like" or what > happens hereafter would be completely useless. Well, whether it has a use or not to have a systematic model for reality that is apart from what we are able to experience, we can agree that the degree of suffering/well-being is a more direct indicator of the effect a practice has on the psychospiritual state of the practitioner, and that in the case of Buddhism, it is paramount, since Buddha said that he taught "the end of suffering, and only the end of suffering." If one's suffering increases or stays constant, one may not be applying the teaching correctly. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111329 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:44 pm Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > However, such is not the Buddhist path. The method and intent is not to > acquire views, but to abandon them. > > Sutta Nipata 4.5 > Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), > he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is > certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at > all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or > non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a > fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). > Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least > notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be > identified in the world? I think the sticking point here is that people believe that they are to develop Right View, which the Buddha said leads all the other factors in the path, and that No View is not Right View. So what would you say to such folks to reconcile these two ideas? > Success with this sort of method leads to the discovery of emptiness. Yes, I can see the logic, and also, letting go of views, which all tend to be self-based and delusion-based, seems the right direction to head in. > Discoveries like that make it rather easy for the likes of Socrates to drink > the hemlock when the time comes. Ha ha, well here in the U.S. that is a very nice ominous message to consider the day before Halloween! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111330 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are firmly > planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when engaged > in meditation. I take it, given this comment, that your understanding of meditation is to head in the direction of the jhanas. Do you consider sense-based insight meditation to be valid as well, or only that which is rooted in a skillful mastery of samadhi, with the senses cut off? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111331 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:35 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 1. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 1. We are repeating ourselves most of the time, so perhaps this will be my last set of posts. And this will save us both from the cold sweats. ;-) ======= > ...But can't you appreciate that the Buddha > was enlightened to the N8FP and taught this as `The Way'? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: Doesn't it make sense that the Dhamma is all about the development of wisdom from beginning to end? Isn't this that differentiates the Dhamma from all other teachings which encourage to a greater or lesser degree, blind acceptance of doctrine? And isn't this because the Dhamma is about dhammas whereas everything else is bound by concepts? People coming from all religions and teachings claim to be on a quest for "Truth", but what I've seen is that when the truth is in fact pointed out to them, namely the reality of the present moment, they shrivel and rush back into their shell of pre-conceived set of beliefs and the company of those who agree with them. I think what we do is not too different each time when faced with some Dhamma concept, and instead of understanding what these are in the ultimate sense, we go by a conventional understanding of our own. Most Buddhists are happy with an interpretation of the N8FP which suggests that each of these factors is to be separately developed. But if in fact what the Buddha taught requires "right understanding", should we then talk about developing each of these factors namely, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, concentration and mindfulness as though this could happen without Right View? If not, then why can't we see that when say, Right Speech arises, that this must be accompanied by mindfulness, effort, thought and concentration that must also be right and all by virtue of Right View? And this is why it is so much stressed here that this latter is the forerunner of the Path? Nothing happens suddenly; causes and conditions are stressed between, pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha the development of which takes place over countless lifetimes, not just one life path! Metta, Sukinder #111332 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:37 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 2. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 2. ========== > That he practiced Jhana prior to this and judged this as *not* the way? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: I don't know the official explanation. But I'd point out to you that it is "insight" which is the common factor between those who attain enlightenment by way of Jhana together with insight, jhana before, jhana after and the dry insighters. So clearly it is the development of insight which is how enlightenment is ever reached. That these four are differentiated is not a suggestion to follow the one which suits oneself, but that if anyone ever attains enlightenment, one of these four would have been how that person attained it. And why is jhana even mentioned in this context? I guess that it is because jhana cittas are not sense sphere cittas the attainment of which also depends on development of understanding, although of a kind different from that of the N8FP..... None of this should be read as suggesting Jhana is an obstacle, it obviously is not. Only wrong view is and here the one that suggests Jhana *is* needed for the development of insight. ========= > This being the case, why would you think then that calm is needed? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: But why can't the development of panna be such that it begins with weak and gradually becomes strong all by virtue of the particular kind of development, which would require of it at each step, to perform its duty as the forerunner of the Path? ======== > 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'? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: The development of samatha right up to Jhana attainments does not at any time involve seeing the danger of ignorance. On the other hand pariyatti understanding leading to patipatti is about coming to better understand the Four Noble Truths, which means that "ignorance" is being directly addressed. Why should it be then that the former is said to help insight and the latter to be lacking something? Metta, Sukinder #111333 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:47 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 3. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 3. ========= Robert Ep: 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. Suk: I wouldn't characterize Jhana as 'trance-like', and yes, progress through the Jhanas involves ever greater levels of awareness. However the awareness and understanding has as object not a characteristic of a reality, but a concept. So why would you think to make this particular connection between these two? The Buddha did talk about the different Jhana levels and how insight could come in at any time to have any of the realities involved as object. But he never drew the conclusion you make, instead you have made it up yourself. ========= Robert Ep: 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. Suk: Yes, and perhaps instead of all this, we should be discussing your reason for not accepting the dhamma theory...? Metta, Sukinder #111334 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:49 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 4. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 4. ========== ...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. Robert Ep: More useful than what? Suk: Anything else. ======= Robert Ep: Don't you think Dhamma study is "more useful" than doing something else? Confess! ;-) Suk: I confess! ;-) But of course the actual reference is to the arising of panna, a conditioned reality, beyond control. And while in the case of Dhamma study there is no claim to such things as 'setting up conditions' or that panna is more likely to arise at such times than any other time, meditation on the other hand, would not be followed if such thoughts were not entertained. In the case of study, the motivation is basically the same as that towards any other subject, namely an interest. One does not need to be convinced each time that it is the valuable thing to do. Indeed, while there, one does even think about it, given especially that what is being encouraged is to understand present moment realities and distinguishing this from concept. But the same cannot be said about meditation, which as you will confess, involves the idea of trying to make sati and panna arise all while thinking in terms of time, place, posture and particular object to anchor upon, and is not reference to the actual arising of sati and panna. ======== > 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. Robert Ep: 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! Suk: How could I forget something I don't believe in? ;-) ======= Robert Ep: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. Suk: I should have elaborated or at least said it differently. It is not just any initial wrong view, but one which conditions wrong practice. It is the wrong practice which is the problem here. It is like expecting right practice to arise while engaged in wrong practice, and is why this is not to be expected.But of course if patipatti did arise, this would be in spite of the wrong practice, resulting in seeing through and hence disinclination to following it. Metta, Sukinder #111335 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:50 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 5. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 5. ======= > What according to you is the causal relationship between the activity of > meditation and the arising of patipatti? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: This I believe is what *all* meditators go by. I hope however that conditions will allow you to see through all this. But I realize that in the meantime, the antagonistic stance I take is not helpful. :-/ ======== Robert Ep: 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. Suk: But samsara is *real*. It is not just the idea of us being in the world having been born, who then experiences old age, sickness and death. Samsara is the dependent origination, it is kamma-vipaka, it is the arising of citta and associated cetasikas experiencing and object. So indeed the object of study from beginning to end are these moment to moment realties and not the concepts which we would continue to take for real were it not for the Buddha teaching us the Dhamma. Conventional reality is the object of thinking, studying them would only be more thinking, so there is really no seeing through them without panna arising to in fact make this reality -- concept distinction. Metta, Sukinder #111336 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:51 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 6. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 6. ========== > 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? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: What I was asking was for an explanation in terms of causal relationship between pariyatti and Jhana practice, but you don't seem interested. Instead you want simply to believe your 'story' about what monks during the Buddha's time did. But know that you would then simply be projecting your own theory into the situation. ========= > 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. Robert Ep: 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? Suk: There may be an order in how jhana from one stage moves to a higher stage and this is the case with anapanasati as a samatha practice. But the Buddha's point as with all the other Jhana practices was to show the possibility of insight arising with regard to any and every reality arisen while engaged in these practices. The description of the different stages was not therefore about how "insight is developed", but rather about how "developed insight" can know *any reality*. I am guessing this that the difference between anapanasati and the other Jhana practices however, is that here there are also rupas that are experienced and therefore insight development from the first level, namely nama-rupa paricchedannana can happen and lead right up to the last stage. And yes, this would be an 'order' as well, but not the kind that you are alluding to, and certainly not one suggesting a need to then practice anapanasati for the purpose. Metta, Sukinder #111337 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:51 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 7. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 7. ========= > 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? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: No Rob, think about it. What you are suggesting is that on one hand the only option is delusion, yet that one is to "see" using this delusion. How does this work? ======== Robert Ep: 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: This is the misunderstanding that you and many here have. The reference point of our study is just these experiences through the five senses and the mind about which we think and talk about all day, whether or not we have heard the Dhamma. The difference after hearing the Dhamma is that before we would take the concepts / conventional realities for real, and project cause and effect not in line with what the Dhamma teaches us. After hearing the Dhamma what we go through is what is called "straightening of view" and this takes place at different levels beginning with pariyatti understanding. So we keep thinking and talking about things as we did, but little by little in between, there may be understanding of say, the reality -- concept distinction. You wouldn't consider this as projecting an ariyan's understanding would you? Likewise, there can also be some understanding about how the present moment has arisen and fallen away already, and this would impress upon as being either anicca or anatta, and must this also be a projection? At other times, when there is mere thinking about the Dhamma, what is always encouraged is to know it as just this, namely 'thinking'. And is this wrong? It is strange that some people object to all this and accuse us of clinging to concepts, yet they go on to stress such ideas as 'emptiness' and 'dependent origination' and suggest that paramattha dhammas are also conventional. This to me is a case of the influence of 'philosophy' resulting in an overlay of ideas upon what otherwise is so simple and straightforward. It is attachment to concepts leading one away from the Truth. Besides, isn't it the case that while you point out to us that ours is just "theory", that you in fact are making a statement about what the Dhamma is and how one should go about studying and practicing it? Is this not also some theory and if so, should the pot be calling the kettle black? Metta, Sukinder #111338 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:51 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 8. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 8. ========= > 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. Robert Ep: 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: I said you 'remind me' and not that you say the same. And this is because you were suggesting that we are "both" right in our own way with regard to studying and practicing the Dhamma and that I should allow for this. ========= > 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? Robert Ep: In the meantime you are only allowed to open the Reading Eye? How about the Experience Eye? Suk: Whatever you mean by 'reading eye', there is no "I" ;-) who can make even this arise. I hope that you are not thinking that "you" can make the 'experience eye' to occur by force of will and that I should likewise do so, do you? ========= > 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. Robert Ep: 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. Suk: "Sitting back scared", this is your perception of us when in need of justification for doing what you do. "I'm not afraid of wrong view" is what you and Phil will say when cornered.And this is because both you and he do not in fact see wrong view for what it is, because if you did, you'd not think to overlook it. You are both eager to do good with the aim of achieving good results, but the self-view which keeps being fed, this will bring about worse results than you can imagine. Wrong view is not a bogeyman, but is Mara itself, and you are being fooled into doing things with promise of results, all the while lost in illusion and increasing ever more delusion. Metta, Sukinder #111339 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:52 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 9. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 9. ============= > 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. ;-) Robert Ep: 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. Suk: Conceiving of the idea of meditation is by default a seeking of result and does not matter if this is one week, one month, one lifetime or many lifetimes. If there is no Right View, then it must be Wrong View at work and this is accompanied by attachment. So yes, you are seeking quick result when you insist on 'doing' as against 'not doing', including when you state above, "I believe in doing *more,* not less". ========= > 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? Robert Ep: I'm not judging anyone's experiences. You are. Suk: No, it is the view expressed. ========= > > 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. Robert Ep: I still think meditation is kusala because of the real effect it has. It's not a theory. Suk: I think the more the understanding; the interest would incline towards knowing "cause" rather than any apparent effect. For example, while thinking in hindsight about the effects of 'meditation', the imperative is to understand the "thinking" at that very moment. After all, such thinking could well be rooted in attachment, and if one didn't know better, would lead to further being deluded. Metta, Sukinder #111340 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:52 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 10. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 10. ========= > 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. Robert Ep: Nope. But I don't think you can think your way to enlightenment. Suk: Do you even know what Suttamaya panna and Cintamaya panna are? Even though these are instances of the arising of panna, no one has ever suggested that without Bhavanamaya panna there can be enlightenment. ========= > Your assertion therefore of `practice developing the capacity to see more > clearly' therefore has little merit. Robert Ep: 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. Suk: I know what practice / patipatti / Bhavanamaya panna is. I was questioning your understanding about this, given that you do not appreciate the causal connection between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. I was rejecting your understanding about patipatti. To put it another way, as with everything else, the concept of "practice" is in need of right understanding about at the level of pariyatti, which I think anyone who is attracted to the idea of 'meditation' does not see. Metta, Sukinder #111341 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:53 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 11 sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 11. ========= > 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? Robert Ep: You might not. Just like you wouldn't know what a real instantaneous dhamma looks like, yet you are all excited about those! :-) Suk: You mean when there is suggestion to understand seeing, hearing, hardness, feeling, thinking and so on, this is being all excited about things out of reach? Compared to these, is it not the case that 'letting go' is reference to something rather obscure where there is potential for much misunderstanding? ========= Robert Ep: Letting go is something that can be cultivated too, something that the Buddha sometimes said was "all of the path." Suk: Right Understanding is to be cultivated, including of what 'letting go' means. If not, then attachment and wrong understanding will lead the way. ======== > Would not jumping at the idea be exactly an expression of the opposite? Robert Ep: Depends on whether you are jumping out of insight or craving I guess. Suk: And insight is so easy to come by? Just say 'let go' and read some descriptions in the texts and it will happen? And since detachment comes from understanding a present moment reality, why not talk about this? ======== > S: What is the difference then and why must you even think in terms of > time for meditation and not? Robert Ep: 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. Suk: So what becomes 'clear'? What is known about the nature of conditioned realities and why can't you actually explain the difference in these terms instead of appeal to subjectivity? Again this is being moved by effect and not interested in studying causes, and when this happens and you go on to convince others about the need for meditation, the result is the encouraging of more ignorance in both. Metta, Sukinder #111342 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:53 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 12. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 12. ======== > 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. Robert Ep: Including meditation! So it's fine according to you! :-) Suk: That of course would be due to the accumulated 'wrong view', but yes, to be accepted. ;-) The idea however is this; with right understanding of the Dhamma one comes to see the need to understand what all that goes on from moment to moment in one's life, all of which reflects the accumulated tendencies. So there is never a need to do anything special for the purpose since after all, whatever arises would in fact be conditioned already. If akusala arises, this can be known and so too any kusala. The idea of 'meditation' goes against such an understanding, since implicit in this is the idea of control and need to change rather than coming to understand what arises naturally due to accumulations. It would mean then that if the thought to 'meditate' arises, this must be known, and when this happens, would be evidence that the very idea was wrong. ========== > 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'. Robert Ep: So promote Right View in meditation. I'm in favor of that! Suk: You mean expecting right understanding to arise while encouraging wrong practice, right result from wrong causes? ;-) ========= Robert Ep: 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. Suk: So you come from believing that meditation is direct discernment of realities and that our aim is also to do the same, but without meditation. But no, ours is about the "development of understanding" which we see as necessarily starting with the intellectual level, and we don't mind it that even this arises very occasionally and that in fact there may be no 'direct discernment' at all for a long time. When hearing the Dhamma and understanding arises for the first time, the effect is of having come to understand what we couldn't have on our own. With this comes the realization about the ignorance, and in our case, the tremendousness of this. So the tendency is to lend ear to more Dhamma knowledge as opposed to jumping at the suggestion to 'practice'. Sure, because of the accumulated craving and wrong view, one may try to catch realities, but gradually one learns to see this for what it is. So it's never about any aim to discern directly, but just developing understanding little by little. Metta, Sukinder #111343 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:53 am Subject: More Response to Robert Ep 13. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, Part 13. ========== > 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? Robert Ep: Yeah, maybe. But if someone is talking about their own experience they may talk in the first person. Suk: Some would refer to the Buddha's teachings out of respect and most likely realizing how little one really understands. But this is not what you were referring to originally, were you? You were expecting real understanding to manifest as direct reference to one's own experiences, with the perception that those of us who 'talk theory' are missing the point. ======== > S: Yes, because whatever that may be, all are equally fleeting and > insubstantial. Robert Ep: 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. Suk: I won't comment but just want to ask, should I leave you be with this or should I go ahead and question you? I am wondering where you draw the line and why? And why someone's claim to directly know certain things carries more weight than those who talk about similar things from theory? Sorry to make you have to go through all this. I'll put forth great effort to make this the last set of posts, and won't mind it whether this will be kusala or akusala / with or without self view. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #111344 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [1] sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- On Sat, 30/10/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >N: Very good material here. We tend to think of the stories: I who receive result. That is why she also said that from the first stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na on it is understood what kamma is, what vipaaka. .... S: Thanks, yes. You've encouraged me to transcribe more on the same topic as it's being discussed here. As I recall, I think only clearly understood at the third stage, when there is the understanding of the arising and falling away of dhammas.... Anyway, the understanding begins with the understanding of seeing now and so on. .... >As to questions for Bgk, nimitta is always a good topic to learn <...> >I like to learn more about the four great elements and the colours of shape and form appearing through the eyes. .... S: I think it's just pointing again to the visible object which appears now - all the colours of whatever is seen and it is the nimitta of such visible object which appears, always the nimitta of any conditioned dhamma appearing through the mind-door. If it weren't like this, we wouldn't have ideas about colours, shapes and forms and various objects now. I'll try to raise your comments next week in Bkk. ... >You once asked whether only one colour appears thjrough the eyes, and the answer was: no. Very good. some people think: only one colour like red or green. .... S: Hmm, as I recall that was your question, or perhaps something someone had written here! Actually, the qu doesn't make any sense to me:) .... >I am looking forward to more transcriptions, even if they are short. ... S: Yes, I appreciate your transcriptions too. You inspire us all to listen more, question and consider more and write more too! I see Rob Ep & Sukin are really inspired!! Best regards to Lodewijk. I just spoke to my mother and she always sends you both her warmest regards too. She'll be spending all of February with us in Sydney, so that'll be a nice warm break for her. Metta Sarah ===== #111345 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [4] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, In Kaeng Krajan, Thailand, April, 2008 [Rob K and Ken H had been discussing more about kamma and the value of reading Dhp and Jataka stories, for example, just like here:-)] *** Ken H: Do the stories about kamma help us to understand kamma more than Abhidhamma explanations? I mean, suttas that talk about the man who was born extremely wealthy because of some daana in a previous life-time - can they have a relevance that we need? Do we need these stories or is it sufficient to study Abhidhamma? . K.Sujin: Can anyone be sure about the understanding of kamma without understanding reality right now? By understanding more and more about reality, one can say that seeing is conditioned, hearing is conditioned. So can anyone escape from the previous kamma which conditions each moment of seeing and hearing? . Sukin: No, that is what Ken is saying. Ken is saying the only relevance is to understanding the present moment. When we think about stories, as Rob gave the example of a prince who just received food from a deva....what was that [story]? . Rob K: I think it was Anuruddha when he was young - because of kamma he'd made in past lives, he never had to work. His food and everything was given to him on a gold dish and he just thought food came from a gold dish...... The reason he was so wealthy was in the past he'd done much merit. . Sukin: The point is how should we think about such stories? . K.Sujin: It seems like one is so firm a believer in kamma and vipaka, but without the understanding of seeing and hearing, can we say that it's firm understanding? . Sukin: No, it's just belief. . K.Sujin: So that's the story of seeing, hearing, smelling and we call it Anuruddha's life, but actually what is the vipaka right now? It is conditioned by kamma, we cannot tell which kamma at all - but to be sure no one can have seeing, hearing at will, right now. While one is fast asleep, who knows what would be the next vipaka which will come without anyone's will at all? For example, while one is fast asleep, no sound, no smell, no taste, no thinking at all, but how come sound will appear? It seems like it's very common and very natural, but actually from not being something arising and appearing and then sound arises, sound appears, to what? To hearing. And what conditions hearing to arise, not seeing to arise, not tasting? It has to be that particular sound which is heard right then. If it's not the right kamma which produced that moment, there is no hearing, sound cannot appear. Even right now, [for]any sound [to be] heard, it has to arise and contact, impinge on the ear-base. And if it's not time for kamma to produce the hearing consciousness, there will be no hearing at all. But since there is hearing right now, one is so sure about the previous kamma, any [kamma] which conditions hearing right now at this moment of hearing, something which we don't expect, like the sound of the birds or whatever sound it is, without any expectations at all. In this way one can be so very firm about the kamma and the vipaka. ***** Metta Sarah ========= #111346 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [5] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, In Kaeng Krajan, Thailand, April, 2008 (same discussion contd) *** Sukin: So this is the way to go. You say then that thinking in terms of situations actually takes us away from the understanding? . K.Sujin: It's not like being so sure like this moment of hearing and seeing, at different times by kamma. . Sukin: Just having a story about kamma. Does that at any level help? . K.Sujin: If it's still "I" and "Someone", it's not the conditioned reality yet. . Sukin: Right, but even on that level we can consider just at that level that there is kamma and there is vipaka. . K.Sujin: Not as close as to understand seeing and hearing right now. . Sukin: So would you say better not think so much in terms of stories? . K.Sujin: No. Anyone can think about anything, but it depends on understanding. . Nina: But you can read those stories with more understanding. So it gets more meaningful afterwards. ***** Metta Sarah ========= #111347 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, In Kaeng Krajan, Thailand, April, 2008 [Contd. After some further discussion (and disagreement!) between Rob K and Ken H about a Dhp story. Rob had mentioned at the outset that he found thinking about the stories of kamma quite useful because he tends to think about life stories anyway, so he'd rather think about these. Others discussed various situations concerning kamma and vipaka.] *** K.Sujin: In order to understand deeper and better and more perfectly about vipaka, it doesn't mean that we listen to someone's story or one's own story from birth and understand when was the kusala vipaka and when was the akusala vipaka. That's not clear enough to see that it's not self at all. There is still the idea of someone, "I". Can we say that that is the understanding about vipaka or the vipaka moment or just thinking about vipaka? But, at this moment, it's vipaka which sees, it's vipaka which hears, when there can be the understanding of the nature of reality, no self. So we can understand the cause and conditions better like 'this is conditioned by kamma' or 'it's conditioned by other paccaya' and so we come closer and closer to understanding what is vipaka - not the whole story, but the moment of experiencing through the five sense doors - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, no matter when, 2000 years ago or in the future or right now. ***** Metta Sarah ======== #111348 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [7] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, In Kaeng Krajan, Thailand, April, 2008 [Contd.] *** Ann: What's the point of the suttas, then, Ajahn Sujin? . K.Sujin: Without any realities, can there be anyone in the suttas? We can understand the kamma, the vipaka by stories, but not the reality right now. . Sukin: I guess Robert's point is that we don't stop having stories anyway about our lives, so when we read the suttas, including the Dhammapada and all that, if, at that moment, we're having a wrong story of our own about our life, that could be a reminder about a different kind of story that reflects Dhamma. Is that what you're saying? . Rob K: Yes. . K.Sujin: And can we say we understand the terms kamma and vipaka without understanding the reality of kamma and vipaka? For example, now we're talking about vipaka. Can we know which kamma now will condition the future vipaka? Because the vipaka now is the result of previous kamma unknown, which life and when, but now the present kamma will condition the future vipaka. Can we understand [kamma or] vipaka right now as not self? Because it's kamma, not anyone at all. Even right now, can it be known, can it be directly experienced as kamma, not self? Even it is now kammma - listening to Dhamma, understanding is wholesome kamma - but without direct awareness, it's only words that there is kusala kamma, right now - just thinking about kusala kamma. But what is kusala kamma? It's not hearing, because hearing is not kusala, but at the moment of understanding, it's the present kamma. It cannot produce result after hearing or considering Dhamma right now, but later or when time comes with proper or right conditions, it can produce results 'right now', so we can understand whether it's the present kamma which will condition the future vipaka or the present vipaka which is conditioned by previous kamma. They are the same - no self, and it has to be like this: the kusala kamma will produce the kusala vipaka and the akusala kamma will produce only akusala vipaka. This is the way to understand kamma and vipaka. *** Sukin: No one can decide what's heard, what's read. . K.Sujin: And what citta which thinks about the story? kusala or akusala? *** Metta Sarah ======== #111349 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:09 am Subject: When Does Volition Arise? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & all - In one recent post, Ajahn Sujin was quoted as saying that kamma does not occur during seeing. This makes perfect sense to me. I believe this to also be so for hearing, tasting, smelling, and bodily sensing. It seems very clear to me that volition occurs only during (some) moments of mind-door consciousness, often interspersed within a thinking process. I cannot imagine the facts being otherwise. Does this accord with Abhidhamma? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111350 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, >H: Do you think that the Buddha had no values ? It all depends on what you mean by values. Buddha certainly knew what is right and what was wrong. He still had memory of the past. According to the suttas, the Buddha had thoughts and intentions. It was just that they were not conditioned by 10 fetters or 3 unwholesome roots. IMHO. Alex #111351 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] We tend to think of the stories: nilovg Dear Alex, Op 30-okt-2010, om 21:03 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N: We tend to think of the stories: I who receive result. > > Are all "stories" wrong? > Are all "stories" bad? > > Isn't all the talk about "1 billion of dhammas per second each with > its own characteristic, and no living beings" a sort of a "story" > that is still beyond our reach? ------ N: This is said in a particular context. As Sarah posted just now: ------ Stories: conventional reality in contrast to ultimate realities: conditioned realities are citta, cetasika and ruupa. Stories in the suttas point to ultimate realities and if we understand this, we can grasp the deeper meaning of the Buddha's words. Nina. #111352 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [1] glenjohnann Dear Sarah and Nina > S: Yes, I appreciate your transcriptions too. You inspire us all to listen more, question and consider more and write more too! A: I very much appreciate all of the transcriptions that you both have done. Even when we hear the recordings I often find that being able to read what has been said is very helpful. And of course when we are not there to hear what has been said, the transcriptions are invaluable! Thank you both. > >As to questions for Bgk, nimitta is always a good topic to learn > <...> > >I like to learn more about the four great elements and the colours of > shape and form appearing through the eyes. > .... > S: I think it's just pointing again to the visible object which appears now - all the colours of whatever is seen and it is the nimitta of such visible object which appears, always the nimitta of any conditioned dhamma appearing through the mind-door. If it weren't like this, we wouldn't have ideas about colours, shapes and forms and various objects now. > > ... A: Nina, I too found myself rereading over and over the transcriptions about nimitta that you referred to in your question for Bangkok. I understood the Four Great Elements to be referring to the rupa which is object of the cittas - reminding us that all rupas consist of the Four Great Elements and the inseparables and nothing more or less. At first I wondered if there were greater significance to the use of the words "Four Great Elements" - however, I also wondered if Achan Sujin was simply pointing even when we say colour, we may be attaching some significance to it as an entity - not just elements. We talk about seeing, hearing, colour, sound all the time - and perhaps we attach some subtle "something" to these terms, rather than really understanding them as anatta. Without more and direct understanding of them, that tendency is always there. So, yes, some clarification on that would be helpful. Ann A: Sarah, (off topic here) I sent you an email offline on Sept. 29 - re travel plans etc for new year - wondering if you received it - if not, can you please let me know at (eannmar@...) and I will resend it - so we can discuss. #111353 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Rob E, On 31 October 2010 17:24, Robert E wrote: > > > So, my conclusion was that therefore z had to be x and / or y. Am I right > or > > am I wrong? If I am wrong, then surely the statement there are only namas > > and rupas is wrong, and should be changed to there are namas and rupas > and > > concepts? > > If x ≠ z, but *appears* to = z, does z exist or not? > > If I can see or imagine something that doesn't exist, > One sees what one sees, and one imagines what one imagines. > that makes it experienceable, but doesn't make it actual. > How can an experience not be an actual experience? I think you are talking about reality-testing here. > Therefore one would say it does *not* exist, but I *think* it exists. > OK. Yes. > If I think unicorns exist, that doesn't make them exist, that only makes > thought exist, which is a nama. The concept of unicorn is the object of the > thought, which thought does exist, but the concept which is the object of > the thought does not exist. > If you are saying that there is no object in the outside world which corresponds to your thought of a unicorn, then yes. > Anything can be the object of a thought, including many concepts which > don't exist. Still, the thought is a nama, and so only namas and rupas are > actually there. > > You appear to be saying that some concepts have referents, some don't, and that concepts are namas, and I have no problem with that. > By the way, I disagree with Ken H. that since only namas and rupas exist, a > stream of namas and rupas cannot exist, and is a concept. That is not > logical. A stream of namas and rupas refers to how the namas and rupas are > organized, not to another existent other than namas and rupas. No one is > saying there are namas and rupas and streams, just that namas and rupas are > organized in different streams, which is the only way to explain why you and > I experience a different set of namas and rupas. Each of us is like a > separate portal through which come certain experiences. We don't experience > the same ones. > > I wonder how you can say that namas and rupas are organised in streams, and yet deny there are streams? > If I "stream" video to you over the internet, the only thing that exists in > the stream is video, there is not a "stream" on the one hand, and a "video" > on the other hand; > The specific stream is the specific relations between the specific video bits. Without those relations (eg clock rates) you would be streaming noise. > streaming is just the method of delivery of the video, not another object > that contains the video. So a stream of namas and rupas would just be > composed of namas and rupas, nothing else. > I disagree. Relationships between nama and rupa are neither nama or rupa. Cheers Herman #111354 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 31 October 2010 17:28, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > The end of suffering for Buddhists is death without rebirth. The 4th > noble > > truth is the way that leads to that extinction. > > Hm. I don't see permanent extinction as the end of the path. > That's fine, of course. What is paranibbana, in your opinion? > I see extinction of the kandhas as the end of the path, but nibbana is not > included in the kandhas, and no one achieves extinction of the kandhas > without experiencing nibbana. > Experience and the khandas are synonymous. How can the khandas be extinguished and yet there be an experience of something? > And so, one's awareness is transformed by experiencing nibbana before the > kandhas stop arising. That is a little different than simple extinction - > well, a lot different. > > It would be, if it were possible :-) > > > I have no doubts about the reality of nibbana, but I left the space > > intentionally blank because liberation from samsara is a moot point while > I > > am still alive. > > Hm. I don't see it as a totally moot point. I may know nothing about > California, but if I'm planning to drive there, I would not leave the > "California" part of the map "intentionally blank," I'd want to at least > have a diagram of where I am heading, in order to get there accurately. > If you believe that it is possible to remain alive and yet be free from all craving whatsoever, then I would have to disagree with you there. In other words, I would think that the bit of the map that has your intended destination on it, is a concept without a referent. Cheers Herman #111355 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 31 October 2010 17:44, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > However, such is not the Buddhist path. The method and intent is not to > > acquire views, but to abandon them. > > > > Sutta Nipata 4.5 > > Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up > (another), > > he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he > is > > certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at > > all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or > > non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist > a > > fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). > > Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the > least > > notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be > > identified in the world? > > I think the sticking point here is that people believe that they are to > develop Right View, which the Buddha said leads all the other factors in the > path, and that No View is not Right View. So what would you say to such > folks to reconcile these two ideas? > > I would say that I read exactly the same sources as they do. If people choose to read things a-historically ie insisting that the Abhidhamma and commentaries preceded the suttas that is their business. I choose to read things historically, and can trace a development of views, even within the suttas themselves. It is plain as daylight to me that the Abhidhamma is a later synthesis, and its commentaries much, much later still. I would add here that IMO an a-historical view of the dhamma could never be a right view of it. > > Success with this sort of method leads to the discovery of emptiness. > > Yes, I can see the logic, and also, letting go of views, which all tend to > be self-based and delusion-based, seems the right direction to head in. > > > > Discoveries like that make it rather easy for the likes of Socrates to > drink > > the hemlock when the time comes. > > Ha ha, well here in the U.S. that is a very nice ominous message to > consider the day before Halloween! > > Cheers Herman #111356 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 31 October 2010 17:46, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are firmly > > planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when > engaged > > in meditation. > > I take it, given this comment, that your understanding of meditation is to > head in the direction of the jhanas. Do you consider sense-based insight > meditation to be valid as well, or only that which is rooted in a skillful > mastery of samadhi, with the senses cut off? > > I think the intention to be free of ignorance is delusional, and cannot bear fruit :-) (a bit like intending to become intelligent) Cheers Herman #111357 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" egberdina Hi Alex, On 1 November 2010 01:06, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all, > > >H: Do you think that the Buddha had no values ? > > It all depends on what you mean by values. Buddha certainly knew what is > right and what was wrong. He still had memory of the past. > > According to the suttas, the Buddha had thoughts and intentions. It was > just that they were not conditioned by 10 fetters or 3 unwholesome roots. > > So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change posture and recline, if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure and pain are all of the same value, there is no need to react, is there? Cheers Herman #111358 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:34 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Sarah (and Robert E), ------------ <. . .> >KH:I think that must be an important point to understand. Can you say anything more that might help? >> S: > Not sure! As with the characteristics of dukkha and anicca, it comes down to a more and more precise understanding of the nature of the realities themselves. For example, the more precisely 'heat' is known when it's experienced, the clearer becomes its nature as being anatta - just the element which is experienced, no thing in it at all. And later, the nature of that element as anicca and thereby dukkha too. ------------- Thanks, that is what I needed to hear. I think Robert E and I were concentrating so much on the inherent/non-inherent nature of anatta that I lost the plot for a while. The same goes for the abyss/starry-night debacle: too much theorising, not enough staying on track. :-) Ken H #111359 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] philofillet Hi all > K.Sujin: In order to understand deeper and better and more perfectly about vipaka, it doesn't mean that we listen to someone's story or one's own story from birth and understand when was the kusala vipaka and when was the akusala vipaka. That's not clear enough to see that it's not self at all. There is still the idea of someone, "I". Ph: Of course there is! Whether it's a story about people doing things in the conventional sense, or thinking about dhammas, it is still "I." This is what I don't get, the power of thinking is not that liberating. > Can we say that that is the understanding about vipaka or the vipaka moment or just thinking about vipaka? But, at this moment, it's vipaka which sees, it's vipaka which hears, when there can be the understanding of the nature of reality, no self. Ph: Of coure we can say that. But we don't understand it, not really. It is just "I" thinking about deep teachings again! It is a good narrative, the narrative of a person whose life has come to be centered on discussing and thinking about the Dhamma, especially deep, paramattha topics. A good narrative, a fine narrative (as long as there aren't dark corners of behaviour that aren't hidden away and justified by thinking about anatta etc. My personal narrative is all about conventional behaviour, about refining behaviour. I think it will come to contain more paramattha thinking, we'll see.... Metta, Phil #111360 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:20 pm Subject: Learning to Let Go! bhikkhu5 Friends: Learning The Five Grades of Mental Purity: Initially the Noble Learner temporarily disables the mental hindrances and bindings by "Substitution by the Opposite" using insight. Lust is thus temporarily substituted by disgust, anger by friendliness, restlessness by calm, laziness by energy and doubt is substituted by certainty. Later the Noble Learner temporarily overcomes the mental hindrances and bindings by "Suppression" by entering one-pointed absorption of concentration, which is unmixed, unpolluted and untainted by hindrances. Later the Noble Learner permanently eliminates another fraction of the hindrances & bindings by "Cutting Off" at reaching path-moment of the Stream-entry, Once-Returner, Non-Returner and Arahat (Magga ) state. Later the Noble Learner permanently eliminates the remaining fraction of hindrances by effortless "Calming" at reaching the fruition-moment of the Stream-entry, Once-Returner, Non-Returner & Arahat (Phala ) state. Finally the Noble Learned irreversibly leaves behind all mental hindrances and bindings by "Escape" into the unconditioned and unconditional element of Nibbana, without remaining traces of either clinging or other fuel... Take Home: Substitution => Suppression => Cut Off => Calming => Escape! <...> Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 Have a nice & noble learning day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #111361 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Herman and Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > On 31 October 2010 07:07, Ken H wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman, > > > > ----------- > > <. . .> > > H: > Thanks for your reply. I didn't put my question very clearly. > > > > > > > You say there are only namas and rupas. To make my question clearer, I > > will rephrase this as there are only x's and y's. Then you refer to > > concepts. > > Let's call that z. > > > > > So, you say there are only x's and y's, and this is a z. > > ---------- > > > > I'm not sure if it applies in your example; you might not be talking about > > two realities - an ultimate one and an illusory one. > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. I guess I don't know how the word reality applies to > illusory and ultimate. The only reality I know is the one I live, and it > changes according to what I am doing. If I see a snake, I see a snake. If I > move closer and it turns out to be a rope, it turns out to be a rope. I > lived both moments, they were both real experiences. It seems to me that > ultimate reality cannot be lived, it cannot even be known, it can only be > believed. > > Thanks again for clarifying. That's fine, I guess, but the question it raises for me is: If only namas and rupas exist, how is it possible to experience a concept - in other words, how is delusion possible? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - #111362 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is > no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, > there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & > grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there > is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future > birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such > is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." > Notes1 > .The seven obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession > of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the > obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, and the > obsession of ignorance. This one was a little harder for me to grasp, as "renewed becoming in the future" is such a richly laden construct. But it was still pretty cool. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111363 From: "antony272b2" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Sarah, --- 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 Antony: Here is a sutta from the Nidanasamyutta, the last paragraph of which explains why seeing dependent co-arising makes it impossible to ask the useless questions: Bhikkhu Bodhi translation: "For what reason [is this impossible]? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena." Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.020.than.html Here is the whole sutta: Samyutta Nikaya 12.20 Paccaya Sutta: Requisite Conditions translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will teach you dependent co-arising & dependently co-arisen phenomena. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks replied. The Blessed One said: "Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. "From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth... "From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming... "From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance... "From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving... "From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling... "From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact... "From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media... "From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form... "From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness... "From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What's there in this way is a reality, not an unreality, not other than what it seems, conditioned by this/that. This is called dependent co-arising. "And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging & death are dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. "Birth is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Becoming is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Clinging/sustenance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Craving is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Feeling is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Contact is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "The six sense media are dependently co-arisen phenomena... "Name-&-form is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Consciousness is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon... "Fabrications are dependently co-arisen phenomena... "Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena. "When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.020.than.html With metta / Antony. #111364 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:32 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 1. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > Part 1. > > We are repeating ourselves most of the time, so perhaps this will be my > last set of posts. And this will save us both from the cold sweats. ;-) I would support you in that. Break the chain! > ======= > > > ...But can't you appreciate that the Buddha > > was enlightened to the N8FP and taught this as `The Way'? > > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: Doesn't it make sense that the Dhamma is all about the development > of wisdom from beginning to end? Isn't this that differentiates the > Dhamma from all other teachings which encourage to a greater or lesser > degree, blind acceptance of doctrine? And isn't this because the Dhamma > is about dhammas whereas everything else is bound by concepts? No, your view of Dhamma is not about realities - it is about the concept of realities. You are not forsaking concepts in order to directly see realities. You are replacing "bad" concepts with "good" concepts, and postulating that this is bringing you closer to "seeing" even while it brings you further away. Thinking about "good" concepts is not seeing. Having a concept that you will see in the future is another concept. It is also not seeing. So there is no direct seeing in your Dhamma. There is only conceptualizing. If there were any hope of actually seeing dhammas in the current lifetime, I would acknowledge that the concepts you are proposing are designed to lead you to see. But when all you can hope for are concepts, and the seeing they are aimed at is put off for hundreds or thousands of lifetimes, then I have to say that the concepts are so far removed from seeing that there is no way to judge that they will eventually lead to seeing. I would rather work on seeing now, in the present moment, not by "acknowledging" [by thinking the right concepts] that the present moment is only dhammas, but by actually stopping the flow of conceptualization [both right and wrong] for a period of time, so that I can at least see whatever it is I am actually seeing now [even if you call what I am seeing a concept] without a constant accompaniment of concepts [whether correct or incorrect.] I do not think that kusala is defined by "right concepts." I do not think that Right View/Right Knowledge is defined by Right Concepts [pariyatti.] I think it is defined by the refinement of non-conceptual understanding of what is actually arising in one's perception or mental process. So I think you have reversed the emphasis in Right Understanding. A little conceptual knowing is necessary to get on the "right track." After that conceptualization is an obstacle not an aid, and one must actually "look and see." It can't wait for a distant lifetime while one continues to exchange and refine concepts. Further conceptual understanding should come from and refer back to the refinement of practice. So I don't think the issue is whether meditation is okay or not - I think the issue is that meditation is *essential* and that without it, conceptualization stops having any value at a certain point, even if it is Right Concept, which Buddha did not include in his list of the Eightfold Path. To summarize, Right Understanding is not Right Conceptualization. It is direct understanding, which = direct discernment now. The dhamma that you will never see is a worthless dhamma. People > coming from all religions and teachings claim to be on a quest for > "Truth", but what I've seen is that when the truth is in fact pointed > out to them, namely the reality of the present moment, they shrivel and > rush back into their shell of pre-conceived set of beliefs and the > company of those who agree with them. That is a lovely dramatic image, reducing anyone who doesn't agree with your concepts to the status of frightened little uncomprehending ants. However there is actually a world of people out there from a variety of traditions who are not afraid of your concepts, and don't run crying back to concepts when they hear of your understanding, but merely see that you are announcing your own treasured concepts, and they thus continue to walk, not run, back to whatever their practice happens to be. If your concepts are not convincing to others, it is not others' fault. Buddha convinced many, many people to follow his path, because what he said was actually convincing, not confusing or abstract, or removed from all experience. > I think what we do is not too different each time when faced with some > Dhamma concept, and instead of understanding what these are in the > ultimate sense, we go by a conventional understanding of our own. I don't think there's anything "ultimate" about an elegant conceptual scheme. It's just a conceptual scheme. If you can't apply it, where does it leave you? It makes you a philosopher, not a follower of transformational Dhamma. Buddha's teaching is meant to transform an ordinary person into an arahat. That only happens through developing skills and transformative powers. These are only delivered, as far as I know, by meditative states and spiritual exercises, not by thought and discussion. Conceptual understanding sets up a basis by which you can understand what path to follow and how to follow it. It is not itself the path. It is just a map. If you don't follow it up and apply the knowledge, eg, actually see things according to the description of reality, you are not doing much but philosophizing and feeling content with your position in the Dhamma. > Most Buddhists are happy with an interpretation of the N8FP which > suggests that each of these factors is to be separately developed. But > if in fact what the Buddha taught requires "right understanding", should > we then talk about developing each of these factors namely, thought, > speech, action, livelihood, effort, concentration and mindfulness as > though this could happen without Right View? If not, then why can't we > see that when say, Right Speech arises, that this must be accompanied by > mindfulness, effort, thought and concentration that must also be right > and all by virtue of Right View? And this is why it is so much stressed > here that this latter is the forerunner of the Path? I don't have a problem with Right View leading, and the other factors containing an element of Right View when they arise, but I do have a problem with the conclusion that is drawn, if it is, that this means that Right View is the only factor that needs to be developed and that the other factors not only need Right View, but can be *replaced* by it, and they will be included in it without developing them at all. For instance, for one to choose a "Right Livelihood" one must have Right View. But Right View does not include Right Livelihood all by itself. Right Livelihood has to be developed as well. Right View is necessary to some degree in order to develop Right Concentration, but Right Concentration is not contained in Right View. Right View by itself will not give you Right Concentration. You have to actually develop Right Concentration in addition or you will not have it. Right Concentration is traditionally understood as Jhana or Samadhi, but you reject this idea and reject the meditative exercise of concentration that *actually* develops Right Concentration in the description of the Buddha and many knowledgeable Buddhists since the time of the Buddha. Gunaratana reviews the means by which one may attain stream-entry through arahant attainment. He acknowledges both sutta, Abhidhamma and Vism references with regard to the various combinations of mundane and immaterial jhanas that form the basis for the insight of the path, and also the case of one of strong wisdom or faith who has the requisite "dry-insight" qualities to attain the stature of arahant without jhana attainment. The path without jhana is a much more difficult and more rare attainment. Though it exists, attainment of at least one immaterial jhana is a much more natural basis for attainment of the fruit of the path. I quote his analysis in part and will refer you to the complete essay at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch5.4 ===================================== What is both requisite and sufficient to qualify as a body-witness is the partial destruction of defilements coupled with the attainment of at least the lowest immaterial jhana. Thus the body witness becomes fivefold by way of those who obtain any of the four immaterial jhanas and the one who also obtains the cessation of perception and feeling. [4] One who is liberated in both ways is an arahant who has completely destroyed the defilements and possesses the immaterial attainments. The commentaries explain the name "liberated in both ways" as meaning "through the immaterial attainment he is liberated from the material body and through the path (of arahatship) he is liberated from the mental body" (MA.ii,131). The sutta defines this type of disciple thus: And what person, monks, is liberated in both ways? Herein, monks, someone has reached with his own (mental) body those peaceful immaterial deliverances transcending material form, and having seen with wisdom, his cankers are destroyed. This person, monks, is called liberated in both ways. (M.i,477) The Puggalapańńatti (p.184) gives basically the same formula but replaces "immaterial deliverances" with "the eight deliverances." The same principle of interpretation that applied to the body-witness applies here: the attainment of any immaterial jhana, even the lowest, is sufficient to qualify a person as both-ways liberated. As the commentary to the Visuddhimagga says: "One who has attained arahatship after gaining even one [immaterial jhana] is liberated both ways" (Vism.T.ii,466). This type becomes fivefold by way of those who attain arahatship after emerging from one or another of the four immaterial jhanas and the one who attains arahatship after emerging from the attainment of cessation (MA:iii,131). [5] The truth-devotee is a disciple on the first path in whom the faculty of wisdom is predominant. The Buddha explains the truth-devotee as follows: Herein, monks, some person has not reached with his own (mental) body those peaceful immaterial deliverances transcending material form; nor, after seeing with wisdom, have his cankers been destroyed. But the teachings proclaimed by the Tathagata are accepted by him through mere reflection, and he has these qualities — the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. This person, monks, is called a truth-devotee. (M.i,479) The Puggalapańńatti (p.185) defines the truth-devotee as one practicing for realization of the fruit of stream-entry in whom the faculty of wisdom is predominant, and who develops the path led by wisdom. It adds that when a truth-devotee is established in the fruit of stream-entry he becomes one attained to understanding, the sixth type. The sutta and Abhidhamma again differ as to emphasis, the one stressing lack of the immaterial jhanas, the other the ariyan stature. Presumably, he may have any of the four fine-material jhanas or be a bare-insight practitioner without any mundane jhana. [6] The one attained to understanding is a noble disciple at the six intermediate levels who lacks the immaterial jhanas and has a predominance of the wisdom faculty. The Buddha explains: And what person, monks, is the one attained to understanding? Herein, monks someone has not reached with his own mental body those peaceful immaterial deliverances transcending material form, but having seen with wisdom some of his cankers are destroyed, and the teachings proclaimed by the Tathagata have been seen and verified by him with wisdom. This person, monks, is called the one attained to understanding. (M.i,478) The Puggalapańńatti (p.185) defines the one attained to understanding as a person who understands the Four Noble Truths, has seen and verified by means of wisdom the teachings proclaimed by the Tathagata, and having seen with wisdom has eliminated some of his cankers. He is thus the "wisdom counterpart" of the one liberated by faith, but progresses more easily than the latter by virtue of his sharper wisdom. Like his counterpart, he may possess any of the four mundane jhanas or may be a dry-insight worker. [7] The one liberated by wisdom is an arahant who does not obtain the immaterial attainments. In the words of the sutta: And what person, monks, is the one liberated by wisdom? Herein, monks, someone has not reached with his own (mental) body those peaceful material deliverances transcending material form, but having seen with wisdom his cankers are destroyed. This person, monks, is called one liberated by wisdom. (M.i,477-78) The Puggalapańńatti's definition (p.185) merely replaces "immaterial deliverance" with "the eight deliverances." Though such arahats do not reach the immaterial jhanas it is quite possible for them to attain the lower jhanas. The sutta commentary in fact states that the one liberated by wisdom is fivefold by way of the dry-insight worker and the four who attain arahatship after emerging from the four jhanas. It should be noted that the one liberated by wisdom is contrasted not with the one liberated by faith, but with the one liberated in both ways. The issue that divides the two types of arahant is the lack or possession of the four immaterial jhanas and the attainment of cessation. The person liberated by faith is found at the six intermediate levels of sanctity, not at the level of arahatship. When he obtains arahatship, lacking the immaterial jhanas, he becomes one liberated by wisdom even though faith rather that wisdom is his predominant faculty. Similarly, a meditator with predominance of concentration who possesses the immaterial attainments will still be liberated in both ways even if wisdom rather than concentration claims first place among his spiritual endowments, as was the case with the venerable Sariputta. ===================================== I think it is obvious from the above, and even moreso from the full article if you peruse it, that Buddhaghosa and all sources agree that Right Concentration is in fact fulfilled by the attainment of the jhanas, which you have previously said is "not part of the path," and in fact is an "impediment to the path." According to sutta, Abhidhamma and Buddhaghosa, the person who is a "dry insight" worker and attains to the status of arahant has to have an enormous attainment of either wisdom or faith, a much more difficult and unusual attainment than those who realize the fruition of the path by attainment of at least one of the immaterial jhanas. This is cited mostly to point out the *Wrong View* that is developed when one overemphasizes the independent status of *Right View* and thinks it is not only the forerunner path factor, but the *whole* of the path. I hope you will correct this mistake in your own understanding. > Nothing happens suddenly; causes and conditions are stressed between, > pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha the development of which takes place > over countless lifetimes, not just one life path! That may be true if one follows the path of dry insight, which is *not* the main pathway, but a path reserved for those capable of developing great wisdom or faith, and who are likewise *incapable* of developing Right Concentration to the level of the jhanas. It is for those who happen to have a nature that is not suited for development of jhana, but who have a nature to develop wisdom and the other concomitant factors along with wisdom that are adequate to take the place of the *normal* development of the Noble Path, which is the path of development of Right Concentration to the level of at least the first immaterial jhana, and who realizes insight at the level of the jhanas. Contrary to your prior statements, jhana is not an impediment or an addiction or a sidetrack to the development of insight, but is the normal foundation for the development of the higher insights that are necessary to attain the status of arahant. And for one for whom the development of jhana is possible, that person should be encouraged to practice meditation on breath or other appropriate object to develop samatha to the level of jhana in this lifetime, not hundreds or thousands of lifetimes from now, and to develop the path factors that are most normal and natural to one devoted to the path of awakening taught by the Buddha. One should not spread the myth that it is normal and natural to restrict the path to the development of pariyati for hundreds or thousands of lifetimes and to restrict the 8fold path to the one path factor of Right View, when that is only the forerunner and not the fruition of the path in and of itself. To encourage people, without regard to their type or temperament, to restrict their practice to pariyati is a great disservice to those who want to understand the full and normal functioning and development of the Noble 8Fold Path, depriving them of the opportunity to develop Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness now, in this lifetime, using the perceptions and thought processes that they can observe even now, and the tools that Buddha provided to do so. There are rare individuals cited in the suttas who can attain the full path even in a moment when they hear the Dhamma with great faith and full concentration, most likely because they attained the other path factors in previous lifetimes, but it is very dangerous to use them and those suttas as a model for everyone, and as an excuse to restrict practice to Dhamma study and Right View among all of the 8 path factors. For most of us, that is not an adequate pathway through which to develop the whole of the path and to develop the necessary path factors to realize the fruit of the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #111365 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:50 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 2. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Suk: The development of samatha right up to Jhana attainments does not > at any time involve seeing the danger of ignorance. On the other hand > pariyatti understanding leading to patipatti is about coming to better > understand the Four Noble Truths, which means that "ignorance" is being > directly addressed. Why should it be then that the former is said to > help insight and the latter to be lacking something? I think it is a mistake to think that intellectual pariyati understanding, even under the magic rubrick of Right View, will ever in and of itself, except for very rare individuals, convert directly into direct seeing, discernment or the transformation of mental faculties necessary for fulfilling the full set of path factors. It is because of this wrong understanding, this conviction that intellectual knowledge is the basis of the path, that one believes that special states such as jhana and *direct* insight based on transformation of perception in meditation, is not necessary, and even in fact not desirable. In order to understanding why the jhanas, which seem to you to be in the opposite direction of insight, are necessary in almost all configurations given by the Buddha to the development of insight to the level of enlightenment, one would have to appreciate the technical steps and configurations that are taken by the mental faculties in order to achieve the combination of stillness and insight that characterize the enlightened mind. Without an appreciation of these technical requirements, jhana will not be comprehended in its role as setting and preparation for the deepest attainments of insight. The technical configurations given by the Buddha in sources such as Gurantana's rundown of sutta and Buddhaghosa references to the ways in which arahanthood is actually attained, which I cited in my last post, helps to explain this in much more detail. One must not only have intellectual understanding of Right View, but active and transformed discernment within a transformed consciousness to cross the threshhold to enlightened awareness. It may begin as a pariyati path, but can not be attained by the pariyati understanding, which is much much thinner, no matter how clear it may be, then the deep attainment of enlightened consciousness. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111366 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] nilovg Hi Phil, Op 1-nov-2010, om 1:45 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Can we say that that is the understanding about vipaka or the > vipaka moment or just thinking about vipaka? But, at this moment, > it's vipaka which sees, it's vipaka which hears, when there can be > the understanding of the nature of reality, no self. > > Ph: Of coure we can say that. But we don't understand it, not > really. It is just "I" thinking about deep teachings again! It is a > good narrative, the narrative of a person whose life has come to be > centered on discussing and thinking about the Dhamma, especially > deep, paramattha topics. A good narrative, a fine narrative (as > long as there aren't dark corners of behaviour that aren't hidden > away and justified by thinking about anatta etc. ------- N: It is a reminder to be aware of seeing now, hearing now, so that we shall come to understand what vipaaka is, result of kamma. All this is not about thinking at all. Everybody sees and hears, but it is beneficial to investigate these realities to see them as only conditioned naamas, no self who sees or hears. ------ Nina. #111367 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [1] nilovg Dear Ann, Op 31-okt-2010, om 17:17 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > I also wondered if Achan Sujin was simply pointing even when we say > colour, we may be attaching some significance to it as an entity - > not just elements. We talk about seeing, hearing, colour, sound all > the time - and perhaps we attach some subtle "something" to these > terms, rather than really understanding them as anatta. Without > more and direct understanding of them, that tendency is always there. ------ N: You expressed that very well. Extra clarifications are always useful, I think. Nina. #111368 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:01 am Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 3. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > Part 3. > > ========= > > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: I wouldn't characterize Jhana as 'trance-like', and yes, progress > through the Jhanas involves ever greater levels of awareness. However > the awareness and understanding has as object not a characteristic of a > reality, but a concept. So why would you think to make this particular > connection between these two? The Buddha did talk about the different > Jhana levels and how insight could come in at any time to have any of > the realities involved as object. But he never drew the conclusion you > make, instead you have made it up yourself. Of course I did not. It is cited in great detail in many suttas and works derived from the suttas and Abhidhamma as to the different configurations under which different jhanic attainments are the basis for insight and enlightenment. The objects of awareness in the jhanas are not concepts. They are specific qualities of the jhanas that accompany each of the successive jhanas, and Buddha speaks of them in this way quite specifically. Here is Gunaratana again, who I think categorizes these methods very clearly: ================================== When the path is produced after emerging from the second, third, fourth and fifth jhanas (of the fivefold system) and using these as the basis for insight, then the path pertains to the level of the jhana used as a basis — the second, third, fourth of fifth. For a meditator using an immaterial jhana as basis the path will be a fifth jhana path. Thus in this first theory, when formations are comprehended by insight after emerging from a basic jhana, then it is the jhana attainment emerged from at the point nearest to the path, i.e., just before insight leading to emergence is reached, that makes the path similar in nature to itself. According to the second theory the path that arises is similar in nature to the states which are being comprehended with insight at the time insight leading to emergence occurs. Thus if the meditator, after emerging from a meditative attainment, is comprehending with insight sense-sphere phenomena or the constituents of the first jhana, then the path produced will occur at the level of the first jhana. On this theory, then, it is the comprehended jhana (sammasitajjhana) that determines the jhanic quality of the path. The one qualification that must be added is that a meditator cannot contemplate with insight a jhana higher than he is capable of attaining. According to the third theory, the path occurs at the level of whichever jhana the meditator wishes — either at the level of the jhana he has used as the basis for insight or at the level of the jhana he has made the object of insight comprehension. In other words, the jhanic quality of the path accords with his personal inclination. However, mere wish alone is not sufficient. For the path to occur at the jhanic level wished for, the mundane jhana must have been either made the basis for insight or used as the object of insight comprehension. The difference between the three theories can be understood through a simple example.[26] If a meditator reaches the supramundane path by contemplating with insight the first jhana after emerging from the fifth jhana, then according to the first theory his path will belong to the fifth jhana, while according to the second theory it will belong to the first jhana. Thus these two theories are incompatible when a difference obtains between basic jhana and comprehended jhana. But according to the third theory, the path becomes of whichever jhana the meditator wishes, either the first or the fifth. Thus this doctrine does not necessarily clash with the other two. Buddhaghosa himself does not make a decision among these three theories. He only points out that in all three doctrines, beneath their disagreements, there is the recognition that the insight immediately preceding the supramundane path determines the jhanic character of the path. For this insight is the proximate and the principal cause for the arising of the path, so whether it be the insight leading to emergence near the basic jhana or that occurring through the contemplated jhana or that fixed by the meditator's wish, it is in all cases this final phase of insight that gives definition to the supramundane path. Since the fruition that occurs immediately after the path has an identical constitution to the path, its own supramundane jhana is determined by the path. Thus a first jhana path produces a first jhana fruit, and so forth for the remaining jhanas. ================================== > ========= > > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: Yes, and perhaps instead of all this, we should be discussing your > reason for not accepting the dhamma theory...? Which part of it don't I accept? That there are only namas and rupas in consciousness? I accept that. That dhammas arise and fall away and are subject to anicca and anatta? I accept that. That the kandhas are empty of self and arise and fall away based on conditions? I accept that. That kammas will produce vipakas that will arise according to accumulations and conditions? I accept that. What don't I accept in your view? And by the way, yes you neatly changed the subject without addressing it. I hope that is convenient for you! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111369 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:09 am Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > Part 4. > > ========== > > ...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. > > Robert Ep: More useful than what? > > Suk: Anything else. > > ======= > Robert Ep: Don't you think Dhamma study is "more useful" than doing > something else? Confess! ;-) > > Suk: I confess! ;-) > > But of course the actual reference is to the arising of panna, a > conditioned reality, beyond control. And while in the case of Dhamma > study there is no claim to such things as 'setting up conditions' or > that panna is more likely to arise at such times than any other time, Then why do it? If that is the case, please tell me your exact motivation for studying Dhamma. > meditation on the other hand, would not be followed if such thoughts > were not entertained. In the case of study, the motivation is basically > the same as that towards any other subject, namely an interest. Oh I am sorry if I don't believe that, but that is ridiculous. You really believe that your adherence to Dhamma study is merely an idol interest? You're not doing it to develop Right View, which will lead to enlightenment? Give me a break! Go ahead and say that if you really think it's true. What is your interest? Why do you study Dhamma? I think this is unbelievable by anyone, including yourself. Oh those who are pure of heart, and who study for its own sake alone! I can see you slowly rising above the ground even as we converse. > One does > not need to be convinced each time that it is the valuable thing to do. > Indeed, while there, one does even think about it, given especially that > what is being encouraged is to understand present moment realities and > distinguishing this from concept. > > But the same cannot be said about meditation, which as you will confess, > involves the idea of trying to make sati and panna arise all while > thinking in terms of time, place, posture and particular object to > anchor upon, and is not reference to the actual arising of sati and panna. Not at all. I will not confess that, because it's not true. Yes, there is as desire to develop sati and samatha. Yes, I am following the Buddha's instructions for practice. Yes, I wish to develop the path factors. But when I sit, I understand it is a process, and I don't have any specific results in mind or expect any, for any given time of sitting. I don't sit trying to make anything happen, and I don't expect anything out of it at any given time. > ======== > > 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. > > Robert Ep: 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! > > Suk: How could I forget something I don't believe in? ;-) Then you don't believe what Buddha has taught in that area. That is something you will have to work out between you and Buddha, not me. > ======= > > Robert Ep: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. > > Suk: I should have elaborated or at least said it differently. It is not > just any initial wrong view, but one which conditions wrong practice. It > is the wrong practice which is the problem here. Except that it is not wrong practice. It is Buddha's practice, which he did, and which he taught. You have a very funny view that Buddha taught the opposite of his own practice, which he both practiced and preached throughout his career. How did you develop such a wrong view? It is difficult to understand. > It is like expecting > right practice to arise while engaged in wrong practice, and is why this > is not to be expected.But of course if patipatti did arise, this would > be in spite of the wrong practice, resulting in seeing through and hence > disinclination to following it. I think that thinking Right View is the entire practice is wrong view and wrong practice. So there! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111370 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [1] sarahprocter... Dear Ann (& Nina), --- On Mon, 1/11/10, glenjohnann wrote: >A: Nina, I too found myself rereading over and over the transcriptions about nimitta that you referred to in your question for Bangkok. I understood the Four Great Elements to be referring to the rupa which is object of the cittas - reminding us that all rupas consist of the Four Great Elements and the inseparables and nothing more or less. .... S: Yes, good comments. The suttas also often refer to the Four Great Elements - without these, no other rupas (inc colour/vis object), no ideas about shapes, forms, different colours or objects at all. .... >At first I wondered if there were greater significance to the use of the words "Four Great Elements" - however, I also wondered if Achan Sujin was simply pointing even when we say colour, we may be attaching some significance to it as an entity - not just elements. We talk about seeing, hearing, colour, sound all the time - and perhaps we attach some subtle "something" to these terms, rather than really understanding them as anatta. Without more and direct understanding of them, that tendency is always there. So, yes, some clarification on that would be helpful. ... S: I think your comments are all good and as you say, a good topic to raise further. Again, we so often get lost in names and labels, such as 'nimitta', 'colour' and so on, forgetting about the understanding of just what is seen or the seeing itself when it appears as anatta. Yes, atta-belief can creep in anytime at all, even when discussing visible object! Of course, as we all know, when there's awareness of what is seen, there's no idea of colours or shapes or nimittas. Pls keep chipping in with your helpful comments. Metta Sarah A: Sarah, (off topic here) I sent you an email offline on Sept. 29 - re travel plans etc for new year - wondering if you received it - ... S: So very sorry, yes recd and very behind with mail on and off-list! Planning to be in Bkk first week or so in Jan, but will confirm when we're there later this week and let you and others here know if anything is arranged. Hope to see you then! =========== #111371 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] When Does Volition Arise? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 31-okt-2010, om 14:09 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In one recent post, Ajahn Sujin was quoted as saying that kamma does > not occur during seeing. This makes perfect sense to me. I believe > this to > also be so for hearing, tasting, smelling, and bodily sensing. ------- N: The reason is that these cittas are vipaakacittas, results of kamma. -------- > H: It seems > very clear to me that volition occurs only during (some) moments of > mind-door > consciousness, often interspersed within a thinking process. I cannot > imagine the facts being otherwise. Does this accord with Abhidhamma? ------- N: Kusala cittas or akusala cittas can motivate deeds during the moments of javana in a process of cittas. Javana cittas arise in sense-door processes and mind-door processes. The question is: can there be the committing of kusala kamma or akusala kamma during a sense-door process? Generally speaking through the mind-door but the matter is more complex. Taking the example of the first stage of insight. Insight is kusala kamma. At the first stage of tender insight there are several processes when the difference between naama and ruupa is discerned through the mind-door. However, the processes through the sense-door and mind-door alternate extremely fast: sense-door/mind-door/ sense- door/ mind-door. Kh Sujin explained that the kusala cittas with pa~n~naa arising in a mind-door process and then in a following sense- door process cannot be prevented from arising. We cannot pinpoint all this. It is, to begin with, very difficult to know when there is a sense- door process and when a mind-door process, and it is only at the first stage of insight clearly known what a mind-door process is. Therefore, why should we try to pinpoint the difference between sense- door process and mind-door process and find out when kusala kamma or akusala kamma is performed? This can remind us to investigate the different realities arising at this moment, like seeing, feeling, visible object. In this way the Abhidhamma will not be just theory, but can be verified at this moment. ------- Nina. #111372 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Sukin and Rob E, Op 1-nov-2010, om 8:09 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > But of course the actual reference is to the arising of panna, a > > conditioned reality, beyond control. And while in the case of Dhamma > > study there is no claim to such things as 'setting up conditions' or > > that panna is more likely to arise at such times than any other > time, > > Then why do it? If that is the case, please tell me your exact > motivation for studying Dhamma. ------- N: I just take out one sentence which i find of interest. I was listening to a Thai DVD where this came up. The subject was the perfection of truthfulness. Kh Sujin asked someone what his motive for listening to the Dhammas was: answer: to have more understanding of realities. She asked whether he wanted to get anything else. His answer was: nothing else. Kh Sujin: this is the perfection of truthfulness, sacca parami. When the perfection of truthfulness develops, we do not want to get any advantage for ourselves, not even a happy rebirth. We see the benefit of understanding of realities, since this leads to having less clinging to self and eventually to the eradication of all defilements. ------ Nina. #111373 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:44 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob E and all > You are funny. Unfortunately you have now raised the next question for the group: Can wholesome vipaka cause unwholesome kamma? Always reflecting on this, it's such an important topic. A couple of things I came across recently. 1) I don't know if this is strictly from the suttanta, but I heard a teacher talking about the idea of "happiness without bait" and I know there is also a teaching about how lust leads to a kind of debt, i.e an accumulation of a need for the object in question, much like a drug dealer counts on the customer getting deeper in need (debt) of the drug. When we are having a nice stretch of a lot of pleasant vipaka, can we remain reflective about whether there is bait being dangled in front of us, whether the objects that we are consuming (through six senses) lead to an accumulation of debt. One of the great things about meditation is that it provides us with a form of happiness that involves neither baits nor debts (unless we get addicted to it and can't be happy without it.) It's difficult to think of other forms of happiness that are as harmless in that sense... 2) Good to remember that external ayatanas are defined by similes in Vism. (?) as being village raiding daicots (marauders?) and that they are said to lash (beat, flog? I forget the exact verb) the internal ayatanas - this is irregardless of whether they are kusala or akusala vipaka. It is very safe to say that wholesome vipaka tends to condition akusala kamma unless there is steady sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching, a strong willingness to be aware of dangers. "Who is he who is unafraid of wrongdoing?" asks one sutta? It is he who does not reflect "if unarisen evil states arise, it will be for my harm" or words to that effect. We should be afraid of wrongdoing at all times, especially when things are going well.... Metta, Phil #111374 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken and Robert and, most especially, Sarah - In a message dated 10/31/2010 8:34:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Sarah (and Robert E), ------------ <. . .> >KH:I think that must be an important point to understand. Can you say anything more that might help? >> S: > Not sure! As with the characteristics of dukkha and anicca, it comes down to a more and more precise understanding of the nature of the realities themselves. For example, the more precisely 'heat' is known when it's experienced, the clearer becomes its nature as being anatta - just the element which is experienced, no thing in it at all. And later, the nature of that element as anicca and thereby dukkha too. ------------- Thanks, that is what I needed to hear. I think Robert E and I were concentrating so much on the inherent/non-inherent nature of anatta that I lost the plot for a while. The same goes for the abyss/starry-night debacle: too much theorising, not enough staying on track. :-) Ken H ================================== Sarah, you had written "For example, the more precisely 'heat' is known when it's experienced, the clearer becomes its nature as being anatta - just the element which is experienced, no thing in it at all. And later, the nature of that element as anicca and thereby dukkha too." That "no thing in it at all" of yours just made me sit up and take notice! I've never seen you write anything of that sort! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - I very much hope not - but this strikes me as exactly the way that I think about "no self." If I DO understand your meaning here, I'm a trifle puzzled as to why you are so comfortable using "the realities" instead of, for example, "the phenomena," and using "element" rather than, say, "phenomenon," but I will just accept that by that terminology you are referring to actual content of experience as opposed to phenomena with "thingness" conceptually overlaid.) With metta, Howard Just That /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) #111375 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] philofillet Hi Nina > N: It is a reminder to be aware of seeing now, hearing now, so that > we shall come to understand what vipaaka is, result of kamma. All > this is not about thinking at all. Everybody sees and hears, but it > is beneficial to investigate these realities to see them as only > conditioned naamas, no self who sees or hears. Well, Nina, I should stop saying this, and hopefully I will soon, but when we are told by our teacher to remember to be aware of seeing now, that is going to condition thinking about seeing now, and I don't understand how moments of pure awareness of seeing now can possibly get through that screen of thinking about seeing now, certainly not for me. This is perhaps what Jon called my "problem with satipatthana" or something like that, but for me it is all about thinking. And thinking about seeing now, hearing now, certainly better than thinking about harmful objects that condition bad behaviour. I don't believe that it is possible for me to "investigate...realities" without thinking about realities, sorry...well, sorry for me I guess! But not to worry, I have a full and very interesting dish of Dhamma in front of me these days! I am going to refine my behaviour, keep weakening the gross defilements. It's a great purpose, makes life very interesting! Metta, Phil p.s I now vow to take a break from saying that you are preaching thinking, thinking, thinking about realities.... #111376 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] nilovg Hi Phil, Op 1-nov-2010, om 12:59 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Well, Nina, I should stop saying this, and hopefully I will soon, > but when we are told by our teacher to remember to be aware of > seeing now, that is going to condition thinking about seeing now, > and I don't understand how moments of pure awareness of seeing now > can possibly get through that screen of thinking about seeing now, > certainly not for me. ------ N: Your remark is certainly worth considering. Perhaps we can learn to understand that just seeing is not the same as thinking about what is seen or thinking about seeing. Can there be seeing without thinking? There need not be thinking, thinking, all the time. I agree with you that it is not easy to be sure of the difference between thinking about realities and direct awareness of them. When trying to be aware it is not awareness. Listening can condition awareness, but we do not know when. Only when awareness arises we shall know. It is essential to know the difference between the moments of sati and the moments there is no sati. ------- Nina. #111377 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 7:29 am Subject: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" truth_aerator Hello Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin, Herman, all, >Herman: So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change posture >and >recline, if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure and pain are >all >of the same value, there is no need to react, is there? That is an interesting question, Herman. I don't know the answer. I wonder how would KS, Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin answer? Maybe Arhatship does not involve that sort of superman perfection. With metta, Alex #111378 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep., As I said, I don't want to continue this thread. I appreciate however, the extra effort put in to try and explain your position and to cite the relevant text. And there is one thing I'd like to clarify: ======== > > Robert Ep: *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. > > > > Suk: Yes, and perhaps instead of all this, we should be discussing your > > reason for not accepting the dhamma theory...? > > Which part of it don't I accept? That there are only namas and rupas > in consciousness? I accept that. That dhammas arise and fall away and > are subject to anicca and anatta? I accept that. That the kandhas are > empty of self and arise and fall away based on conditions? I accept > that. That kammas will produce vipakas that will arise according to > accumulations and conditions? I accept that. What don't I accept in > your view? And by the way, yes you neatly changed the subject without > addressing it. I hope that is convenient for you! :-) > S: I've put in asterisk the relevant part. At the time my impression was that you were disagreeing with the Dhamma Theory, given that elsewhere you've also expressed disagreement with the commentaries which I consider to play an important part in making clear the particular understanding. Now it appears that you were not in fact referring the Dhamma Theory, but to *my* take of it. I also want to say that some of what we say to each other, is speculative in nature. Sometimes I know this and do it anyway, but I don't really hold tightly to those conclusions. The point is to encourage the other person to look at any wrong view that may in fact be there, regardless of what the "real story" might be. Since the understandings have all been expressed and repeated many times, I think you may well not bother to answer the rest of those posts in this thread, unless of course you think that something useful can be said. But I'd like to start a new discussion with you and will write another post after this one. Metta, Sukinder #111379 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 7:45 am Subject: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, I'd like to begin with the question: "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, are these real?" "If so why, if not why?" Only this for now. Metta, Sukinder PS: If you'd like to be the one asking me questions or to have the discussion some other way, please go ahead. #111380 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep truth_aerator Dear Sukin, I agree that there are only namarupas, that they are fully conditioned, no-control, etc. I also agree that self view is wrong. However, with all of that being said. What is wrong in engaging in the activities outlined in satipatthana sutta, for example? Of course those things "just happen" (no self, no control). Going to the gym, practicing a skill (such as playing a piano), does happen because of impersonal conditions. But just like going to the gym or practicing playing the piano is required for mastery of those skills/abilities, same when it comes to satipatthana. Do you suggest that because there is no control, one should indulge in whatever mind wants (surfing, watching TV, etc etc) without trying to control reality? Please explain. BTW, since there is no-control, it makes no sense to say "he attempted to control realities" as it cannot possibly occur. There are kusala and akusala actions. Satipatthana practices are kusala, worldly are not. Because Kusala is a skill, it has to be developed, and satipatthana does that. With metta, Alex #111381 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:39 am Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 5. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Suk: But samsara is *real*. It is not just the idea of us being in the > world having been born, who then experiences old age, sickness and > death. Samsara is the dependent origination, it is kamma-vipaka, it is > the arising of citta and associated cetasikas experiencing and object. > So indeed the object of study from beginning to end are these moment to > moment realties and not the concepts which we would continue to take for > real were it not for the Buddha teaching us the Dhamma. Your philosophy on this would be provably true and would be accepted as the practice of Buddhism by everyone if people were capable of experiencing "moment to moment realities and not the concepts which we...continue to take for real." The problem in a nutshell is that *no one* experiences dhammas the way the Abhidhamma describes them. Therefore, in terms of actual experience it is just a philosophy, one that cannot be proven and one that cannot be experienced. You have faith that through pariyatti you will one day see dhammas as they really are. But for many lifetimes you are resigned to concepts about these realities - adopting Right Concepts -- which you identify as Right View -- in exchange for Wrong Concepts, which you identify as wrong view. But all you have is concepts. When someone develops sati and insight *now,* regarding what they are actually experiencing, you call that "understanding concepts instead of realities." When someone does *not* look at their actual experience *now* and adopts Right Concepts, you call that "understanding realities." So the person who looks at current reality, you say is stuck in concepts. And the person who deals only with concepts, the correct ones, you say is in touch with realities. You have it backwards, and it is amazing to see this reversal. Concepts are concepts. It is only by faith in the system of pariyatti, which will not be proven for many lifetimes, that your theory of dhammas is seen as correct. There is no proof, no experience, just theoretical understanding. You have reduced Buddhism to a philosophical exercise. What is different about this from any philosophy among thousands that cannot be experienced, but only believed by intellectual conviction? What attracted me to Buddhism was that Buddha did *not* propose belief through faith alone, or through logic alone. He said "come and see," "come and see," "see for yourself," "prove it through your own experience," "put it into practice." That is what makes Buddhism different from Christianity, Judaism, Islam - all the major religions that say "trust in God and do what he says." Buddha did not say that. He said here is a map to follow to enlightenment, freedom from suffering. You can put it into practice now. Read, listen and understand what the path is, then as you come to understand, put it into practice. When you are standing, lying or sitting, be aware of what is really happening, just on that basic level. That is basic mindfulness. Am I sitting and typing right now, or am I lost in a daydream of what is going to happen at my next appointment, or what I am having for dinner? Am I letting go of negative feelings that cause suffering, or am I harboring anger and spending the day in a rage without acknowledging it? The difference between these alternatives is to be in suffering and cause others suffering, or to step back with detachment and see that it causes suffering and let go. Instead of being greedy, greedy, greedy, think about the happiness of the other person and enjoy it. Instead of being afraid of death and amassing possessions as a wall against mortality, realize that all things are temporary and simplify, let go, learn to accept impermanence. Instead of feeding vanity, accept and even enjoy the changing of the body, the aging process, come to terms with the real process of life as it continues. This kind of path is not conceptual, it is real. It is about real life and what we really experience happening. You cannot hide behind concepts of fleeting dhammas to stop experiencing what is really happening to you. The best you can do is miss the experience of your life, rationalizing it away and living in a philosophical dream. That is not what the Buddha intended - at all. You know, when we pay attention in everyday life, when we sit in meditation and concentrate on realities as they arise now, we can actually get a more refined perception of things as they are, and get a more direct experience of anicca and anatta. We can see the fleeting nature of things as we sit there, or while we are doing the dishes, or when we are walking, standing or sitting. We can start to actually feel the dukkha that arises at each moment, aches and pains, fearful emotions, daydreams of the future and regrets of the past, and realize that they are all causing suffering to arise. We can see in reality now, not in a thousand lifetimes from now, the truth of what the Buddha talked about - that this is what life is like, and that to be spiritually mature we have to come to terms with it, be aware of it, and clean up the mess we create every time we proliferate, daydream, harbor the three poisons or promote them in life. We can create the path by sympathetic joy and radiating metta, by becoming more aware and more insightful, by seeing with greater awareness the way the life-process really works, how we produce more suffering and how to reduce it, and how to live a more centered and happy life on the way to greater awareness through meditation and daily attention to ordinary activities and Dhamma study too. We get glimpses of anatta when awareness suddenly sees that all the events and experiences of life are going on by without any prodding on our part, that we're not really doing anything, but responding to what arises, and that conditions continue to shift and cause things to happen. Then it's like taking a ride on a conveyor belt, no more effort, no decisions except what arises, no one home and everyone happy, for a brief moment. That is insight into anatta - not seeing some theoretical construct of a "no-self-thingy" sticking to the side of an instantaneous "hardness" that arose all by itself in a philosophical dream. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111382 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:48 am Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 6. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Suk: What I was asking was for an explanation in terms of causal > relationship between pariyatti and Jhana practice, but you don't seem > interested. Instead you want simply to believe your 'story' about what > monks during the Buddha's time did. But know that you would then simply > be projecting your own theory into the situation. Oh, okay - I guess monks *didn't* meditate, didn't do anapanasati, weren't instructed by the Buddha on jhana and satipatthana. I guess Buddha *didn't* really say in the anapansati sutta that by practicing as described in the sutta one could generate the factors of enlightenment all the way to awakening. I guess he didn't actually praise anapanasati, saying that through this practice one could reach full enlightenment. I must have misread, and you know better because the truth interferes with your opinion. > ========= > > 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. > > Robert Ep: 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? > > Suk: There may be an order in how jhana from one stage moves to a higher > stage and this is the case with anapanasati as a samatha practice. But > the Buddha's point as with all the other Jhana practices was to show the > possibility of insight arising with regard to any and every reality > arisen while engaged in these practices. The description of the > different stages was not therefore about how "insight is developed", but > rather about how "developed insight" can know *any reality*. I am > guessing this that the difference between anapanasati and the other > Jhana practices however, is that here there are also rupas that are > experienced and therefore insight development from the first level, > namely nama-rupa paricchedannana can happen and lead right up to the > last stage. And yes, this would be an 'order' as well, but not the kind > that you are alluding to, and certainly not one suggesting a need to > then practice anapanasati for the purpose. You are making that up, and it is contradiction to the truth. Buddha gave that specific order in order to follow and complete the path. He said that this practice, as given, was a method for developing the 7 enlightenment factors and reaching complete liberation from samsara, to realize nibbana. He said it explicitly and clearly and it is you who are making up your own nonsense to go against the Buddha's words. He included the jhanas in the system which he said led to full enlightenment if followed because jhana is part of the system he gave. Anapanasati would not be complete if you were to pick and choose the parts you like. It is my opinion that the Buddha did not waste his time by giving a detailed pathway only to have you say that it is not necessary. How absurd! You know, all these denials of sutta and saying "Oh but he didn't really mean that," or that "The parts of the sutta that I disagree with were not really necessary - he didn't really say that" are an insult to the Buddha. And you should pay greater attention to what the Buddha says to do, or say that you are following a different path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111383 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:55 am Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 7. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > Part 7. > > ========= > > 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? > > > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: No Rob, think about it. What you are suggesting is that on one hand > the only option is delusion, yet that one is to "see" using this > delusion. How does this work? It's a pretty simple idea, Sukin. Insight means insight. When you look more carefully, when you investigate and examine what is arising and see what it is more clearly, you are coming to understand how the delusion works, what it is made of, and you also start developing clear seeing that is the alternative to delusion. Delusion is not seeing something completely different from what is there; it is seeing it wrongly. We have the capability to see it more clearly and develop insight into it and start to change our relationship to what is arising. If we didn't have that capability, there would be no path out of suffering. > ======== > > Robert Ep: 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: This is the misunderstanding that you and many here have. No, it's your misunderstanding, solidified into a doctrine, that experience is concept and concept is experience. You have it reversed. > The reference point of our study is just these experiences through the > five senses and the mind about which we think and talk about all day, > whether or not we have heard the Dhamma. The difference after hearing > the Dhamma is that before we would take the concepts / conventional > realities for real, and project cause and effect not in line with what > the Dhamma teaches us. After hearing the Dhamma what we go through is > what is called "straightening of view" and this takes place at different > levels beginning with pariyatti understanding. You're not straightening your view; you're adjusting your philosophy, but view is what you live and see, not just what you think. > So we keep thinking and talking about things as we did, but little by > little in between, there may be understanding of say, the reality -- > concept distinction. You wouldn't consider this as projecting an > ariyan's understanding would you? Likewise, there can also be some > understanding about how the present moment has arisen and fallen away > already, and this would impress upon as being either anicca or anatta, > and must this also be a projection? At other times, when there is mere > thinking about the Dhamma, what is always encouraged is to know it as > just this, namely 'thinking'. And is this wrong? > > It is strange that some people object to all this and accuse us of > clinging to concepts, yet they go on to stress such ideas as 'emptiness' > and 'dependent origination' and suggest that paramattha dhammas are also > conventional. This to me is a case of the influence of 'philosophy' > resulting in an overlay of ideas upon what otherwise is so simple and > straightforward. No, the overlay of philosophy takes place when you have a complex theory of dhammas that no one can experience, and try to live with what you can't see and can't know. Dhamma theory is only worthwhile when applied in the field, not just on the couch. > It is attachment to concepts leading one away from the > Truth. You have a concept of the Truth, leading you away from actual experience, which is the only thing that is *not* a concept. > Besides, isn't it the case that while you point out to us that ours is > just "theory", that you in fact are making a statement about what the > Dhamma is and how one should go about studying and practicing it? Is > this not also some theory and if so, should the pot be calling the > kettle black? No, it's not "some theory," it's a pathway to discovering and actually seeing what the Buddha taught, by continuous practice of what he said. Theories are quickly corrected when you try to practice them in real life. Otherwise, you are just spinning philosophy and saying "Well I can't see it anyway, so I may as well just relax and read." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111384 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:03 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 8. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > Part 8. > > ========= > > 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. > > Robert Ep: 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: I said you 'remind me' and not that you say the same. And this is > because you were suggesting that we are "both" right in our own way with > regard to studying and practicing the Dhamma and that I should allow for > this. Yes, you are very convinced that there is only Right and Wrong, and no variation on the path. That is just attachment to view. I know it's important for you to be able to judge yourself as Right and others are Wrong, but no, I don't think that's helpful. It certainly doesn't prove you are Right. > ========= > > 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? > > > Robert Ep: In the meantime you are only allowed to open the Reading Eye? > How about the Experience Eye? > > Suk: Whatever you mean by 'reading eye', there is no "I" ;-) who can > make even this arise. I hope that you are not thinking that "you" can > make the 'experience eye' to occur by force of will and that I should > likewise do so, do you? Force of will = straw man [again.] No one said that. It's a question of understanding what is the path, not one of force or non-force. The middle way between force and non-force is Right Action. Oh sorry, I forgot you don't believe in action at all. ;-) > ========= > > 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. > > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: "Sitting back scared", this is your perception of us when in need > of justification for doing what you do. "I'm not afraid of wrong view" > is what you and Phil will say when cornered.And this is because both you > and he do not in fact see wrong view for what it is, because if you did, > you'd not think to overlook it. I'm saying you don't have Right View by refraining from practicing, you just have thinking you are right, and not doing anything. I don't think that's the path. Buddha said "See for yourself." You can't do that by waiting around for lifetimes doing nothing. > You are both eager to do good with the > aim of achieving good results, but the self-view which keeps being fed, > this will bring about worse results than you can imagine. Give me some evidence that we are being led by self-view and that this will bring worse results? You're making this up out of your own fearful fantasy. Not based on what anyone is actually doing. > Wrong view is > not a bogeyman, but is Mara itself, and you are being fooled into doing > things with promise of results, all the while lost in illusion and > increasing ever more delusion. You don't know this, and it's ridiculous to say it. Watch out for Mara in your own practice. Others will take care of themselves, with a little help from Buddha. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111385 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:06 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 10. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Suk: I know what practice / patipatti / Bhavanamaya panna is. I was > questioning your understanding about this, given that you do not > appreciate the causal connection between pariyatti, patipatti and > pativedha. I was rejecting your understanding about patipatti. To put it > another way, as with everything else, the concept of "practice" is in > need of right understanding about at the level of pariyatti, which I > think anyone who is attracted to the idea of 'meditation' does not see. Show me in sutta where Buddha advised against meditation, ever, for anyone. Your thought about this is a dogma from a sub-group, and it is not in line with Dhamma as Buddha taught it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = #111386 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:12 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 11 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > ======== > > Would not jumping at the idea be exactly an expression of the opposite? > > Robert Ep: Depends on whether you are jumping out of insight or craving > I guess. > > Suk: And insight is so easy to come by? Just say 'let go' and read some > descriptions in the texts and it will happen? Straw man. Never said it was easy to come by. It's a question of means, not ease. > And since detachment comes > from understanding a present moment reality, why not talk about this? Why not experience one? Is it possible? No. So you are saying that detachment is impossible. > ======== > > S: What is the difference then and why must you even think in terms of > > time for meditation and not? > > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: So what becomes 'clear'? What is known about the nature of > conditioned realities and why can't you actually explain the difference > in these terms instead of appeal to subjectivity? I didn't say I can't, but I wouldn't have that much to talk about, since my current experience is just seeing the changes and experiences that arise a little more clearly and experiencing greater calm and release. I've had some occasional moments of insight of some low level, and I've had a sense of energy and well-being that accompanies meditation, but If I experience more specific dhammas, etc., I'll let you know. It's a long path. > Again this is being > moved by effect and not interested in studying causes, and when this > happens and you go on to convince others about the need for meditation, > the result is the encouraging of more ignorance in both. Oh, this is just nonsense. Buddha said "come and see [for yourself.]" That means he *expected* us to assess the path for ourselves based on whether it increased awareness and reduced suffering. If you don't want to get in the water and see what it is like to swim, that is fine. But being a pool-side coach is not following the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111387 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:18 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 12. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > Part 12. > > ======== > > 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. > > Robert Ep: Including meditation! So it's fine according to you! :-) > > Suk: That of course would be due to the accumulated 'wrong view', but > yes, to be accepted. ;-) This is just stubborness on your part. You have your little formula about how bad meditation is - it is contrary to the Buddha's teaching. You cannot really justify it, but you won't let it go because it is the dogma you subscribe to. So there's no way to really discuss it. ...If > akusala arises, this can be known and so too any kusala. The idea of > 'meditation' goes against such an understanding, since implicit in this > is the idea of control and need to change rather than coming to > understand what arises naturally due to accumulations. Again, you're making this up. None of what you say is "implicit" in meditation, it's just the story you have about it, and it is Wrong View. > It would mean then that if the thought to 'meditate' arises, this must > be known, and when this happens, would be evidence that the very idea > was wrong. No it wouldn't. It would just be another thought. If I think "I'm hungry I should eat," does that make eating wrong? > ========== > > 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'. > > Robert Ep: So promote Right View in meditation. I'm in favor of that! > > Suk: You mean expecting right understanding to arise while encouraging > wrong practice, right result from wrong causes? ;-) You think it's wrong practice, you think it's from wrong causes. You are Wrong. > ========= > Robert Ep: 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. > > Suk: So you come from believing that meditation is direct discernment of > realities and that our aim is also to do the same, but without > meditation. But no, ours is about the "development of understanding" > which we see as necessarily starting with the intellectual level, and we > don't mind it that even this arises very occasionally and that in fact > there may be no 'direct discernment' at all for a long time. Meditation comes from the understanding that it is a means for developing mindfulness, insight, right understanding, etc., in a gradual way, through practice. It is no different, you just have Wrong View about it. > When hearing the Dhamma and understanding arises for the first time, the > effect is of having come to understand what we couldn't have on our own. > With this comes the realization about the ignorance, and in our case, > the tremendousness of this. So the tendency is to lend ear to more > Dhamma knowledge as opposed to jumping at the suggestion to 'practice'. > Sure, because of the accumulated craving and wrong view, one may try to > catch realities, but gradually one learns to see this for what it is. > > So it's never about any aim to discern directly, but just developing > understanding little by little. If one doesn't apply what they understand to their own experience, they'll be lost for a billion lifetimes. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111388 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 12:23 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 13. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: Rob E.: 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. > > Suk: I won't comment but just want to ask, should I leave you be with > this or should I go ahead and question you? I am wondering where you > draw the line and why? And why someone's claim to directly know certain > things carries more weight than those who talk about similar things from > theory? Not too clear on what you are saying here. Can you rephrase, if you wish? > Sorry to make you have to go through all this. I'll put forth great > effort to make this the last set of posts, and won't mind it whether > this will be kusala or akusala / with or without self view. ;-) Well, I think it would be useful if you want to, to take one or two points at a time and just post them from scratch, if there is anything we still want to bring up. You know, one or two posts instead of 13, and maybe we can handle a topic or two if they come up. I can't keep answering so many posts, so if there is anything you want to say to my last round, I'll let you have the last word. I appreciate all the hearty discussions! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111389 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 2:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Howard (Robert E and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken and Robert and, most especially, Sarah - > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 8:34:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Sarah (and Robert E), > <. . .> H: > I will just accept that by that terminology you are referring > to actual content of experience as opposed to phenomena with > "thingness" conceptually overlaid.) ------------------------------------------- I'd like to reiterate: Paramattha dhammas are definitely absolute, distinct, realities - in their own right - with their own sabhava. Whatever other theoretical entanglements I might have got into with RobertE, I was definitely not straying from the party line. I would never do that! :-) Ken H #111390 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 2:13 pm Subject: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi all, Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. Does anyone have any problems with that? Cheers Herman #111391 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 2:33 pm Subject: Re: A discussion about reality kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > ---- Yes, Herman, I have profound problems with that. There is nothing wrong with reading emails, but there is a lot wrong with believing in the ultimate reality of 'reading' and 'emails'. Worst of all is when people declare, "This is what the Buddha taught: when we are reading emails we should be mindful of reading, and mindful of emails." Nothing could be further from the truth! Ken H #111392 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi KenH, On 2 November 2010 08:33, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > > > > ---- > > Yes, Herman, I have profound problems with that. > > You appear to understand what I mean by reading an email, yet I think you misread my email; it didn't say anything about an analysis of the act of reading an email. If that is what I had intended, then I would have said "Now while analysing the act of reading an email, there is analysing the act of reading an email". You will note, perhaps, that what is defining of my descriptions, is the act. > There is nothing wrong with reading emails, but there is a lot wrong with > believing in the ultimate reality of 'reading' and 'emails'. > > When there is believing in ultimate realities, there is believing in ultimate realities. Cheers Herman #111393 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: Re: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin, Herman, all, > > > >Herman: So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change posture >and >recline, if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure and pain are >all >of the same value, there is no need to react, is there? > > That is an interesting question, Herman. I don't know the answer. I wonder how would KS, Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin answer? > ------------ Hi Alex, The Buddha had a lot of work to do - constantly walking from town to town, teaching thousands of people. He had to maintain his health for that. And pain is nature's warning; when the body is complaining something needs to be done about it. Ken H #111394 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:15 pm Subject: Serene is Equanimity... bhikkhu5 Friends: Serene Equanimity promotes imperturbable Peace: Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. Equanimity is characterized as promoting the aspect of impartiality among beings. Its function is to see the equality of all beings. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. Its proximate cause is seeing and comprehending the ownership and efficacy of kamma thus: All beings are owners of their deeds, born, created and conditioned by the accumulated effect of their past intentions! Whose, if not theirs, is the choices by which they have become happy, or unhappy, or will break free from suffering, or have fallen down from their past good state? Equanimity succeeds, when it makes both resentment and approval subside, and it fails, when it instead produces a bored, indifferent, & careless state of negligence! Vism I 318 Comments: Non-involved and even Equanimity is a subtle form of happiness... By stabilization it perfects and consummates all the other six links to awakening: Awareness, Investigation, Energy, Joy and Concentration. Equanimity is the proximate cause for knowing and seeing it, as it really is. Equanimity quenches any upset agitation! When seeing and noting: All this is constructed, conditioned, coarse and transient! But this state of serene equanimity is indeed exquisitely peaceful, then instantly ceases any arisen agreeable or nasty feeling, when Equanimity takes its stance! The Power of Equanimity: Not agitation, wavering or panic there! Equanimity (Upekkha) is indeed a divine state and itself a link to Awakening! <..> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <....> #111395 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. glenjohnann Dear Nina (Sukin and Rob E) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I just take out one sentence which i find of interest. > I was listening to a Thai DVD where this came up. The subject was the > perfection of truthfulness. > Kh Sujin asked someone what his motive for listening to the Dhammas > was: answer: to have more understanding of realities. She asked > whether he wanted to get anything else. His answer was: nothing else. > Kh Sujin: this is the perfection of truthfulness, sacca parami. > > When the perfection of truthfulness develops, we do not want to get > any advantage for ourselves, not even a happy rebirth. We see the > benefit of understanding of realities, since this leads to having > less clinging to self and eventually to the eradication of all > defilements. > ------ A: I have to confess that this one caused me to pause - when I thought about my motive for listening to Dhamma - for better understanding of realities, less clinging to self, I thought. However, when I looked at the next question "Anything else?" - things did come to mind - things like "It feels better", as in it makes me feel good, I like listening. The loba of it all - the pleasant feeling. Reminded me of Phil's comment about pablum. So, realistically there is a mix of kusala and akusala motivation. And without really knowing moments of kusala from akusala, impossible to pinpoint which. Often I just sit down and start reading the DSG site - like a routine and never even think about why I am doing it. "Anything else" - a good question, something to think about from time to time. As for sacca parami - are you saying, Nina, that this is truthfulness in terms of only being motivated by understanding the truthfulness of realities, or truthfulness in terms of being truthful about why one is interested in listening to / reading about the Dhamma, whether it be purely for better understanding of realities or being truthful about there being akusala motivation as well (subtle or not so subtle)? I had understood it to be the latter, however, perhaps I have been mistaken in this. Ann #111396 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----- <. . .> H: > . . . I think you misread my email; it didn't say anything about an analysis of the act of reading an email. ----- Did I misread it? Here it is again: -------- > Hi all, > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > > Cheers > > > Herman -------- If that wasn't about an analysis of reading an email, what was it about? ------------------ H: > If that is what I had intended, then I would have said "Now while analysing the act of reading an email, there is analysing the act of reading an email". ------------------- Wouldn't that have been an analysis of an analysis? ------------------------- H: > You will note, perhaps, that what is defining of my descriptions, is the act. ------------------------- Sorry, that one has gone over my head, -------------------------------------- KH: > > There is nothing wrong with reading emails, but there is a lot wrong with believing in the ultimate reality of 'reading' and 'emails'. >> H: > When there is believing in ultimate realities, there is believing in ultimate realities. --------------------------------------- Yes, and it can be right believing or wrong believing. Right believing has it that the the conditioned ones are anicca, dukkha and anatta, and the unconditioned one is anatta. Ken H #111397 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/1/2010 5:13:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (Robert E and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken and Robert and, most especially, Sarah - > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 8:34:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Sarah (and Robert E), > <. . .> H: > I will just accept that by that terminology you are referring > to actual content of experience as opposed to phenomena with > "thingness" conceptually overlaid.) ------------------------------------------- I'd like to reiterate: Paramattha dhammas are definitely absolute, distinct, realities - in their own right - with their own sabhava. Whatever other theoretical entanglements I might have got into with RobertE, I was definitely not straying from the party line. I would never do that! :-) --------------------------------------------------------- Good to know, Ken. :-) In any case, perhaps I made a mistake, but I thought it was Sarah I was replying to. ------------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111398 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken - Just to clarify: I made a mistake in addressing my post to "Ken and Robert, and, most especially, Sarah." It must have seemed that I was attributing Sarah's words to you. I wasn't clear enough. sorry. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:36:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/1/2010 5:13:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (Robert E and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken and Robert and, most especially, Sarah - > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 8:34:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Sarah (and Robert E), > <. . .> H: > I will just accept that by that terminology you are referring > to actual content of experience as opposed to phenomena with > "thingness" conceptually overlaid.) ------------------------------------------- I'd like to reiterate: Paramattha dhammas are definitely absolute, distinct, realities - in their own right - with their own sabhava. Whatever other theoretical entanglements I might have got into with RobertE, I was definitely not straying from the party line. I would never do that! :-) -------------------------------------------------------- Good to know, Ken. :-) In any case, perhaps I made a mistake, but I thought it was Sarah I was replying to. ------------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111399 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi Ken H, On 2 November 2010 09:34, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Herman > -------- > > If that wasn't about an analysis of reading an email, what was it about? > > I do not consider mindfulness to be analysis. It sounds like you do. > ------------------ > H: > If that is what I had intended, then I would have said "Now while > analysing the act of reading an email, there is analysing the act of reading > an email". > ------------------- > > Wouldn't that have been an analysis of an analysis? > > ------------------------- > H: > You will note, perhaps, that what is defining of my descriptions, is > the act. > ------------------------- > > Sorry, that one has gone over my head, > > Perhaps the following will clarify: Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' > -------------------------------------- > KH: > > There is nothing wrong with reading emails, but there is a lot > wrong with believing in the ultimate reality of 'reading' and 'emails'. > >> > > H: > When there is believing in ultimate realities, there is believing in > ultimate realities. > --------------------------------------- > > Yes, and it can be right believing or wrong believing. > > Right believing has it that the the conditioned ones are anicca, dukkha and > anatta, and the unconditioned one is anatta. > > When there is believing in right belief, that's what there is. When there is believing in wrong belief, that's what there is. Cheers Herman