#112400 From: "ionutkrech" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New to Dhamma ionutkrech Thank you for your kind words. As I start writing this answer, I'm thinking that the only thing that seems real since I can remember is the sense of being, I feel the same as I felt when I was 15, 21, 28, all the other things in my life have changed in this time except this feeling! Right now I’m trying to get my bearings since I had some spiritual experiences back in those years when I’ve practiced Yoga and I’ve found out that there is some kind of meditation called Vipassana (insight meditation). I need to learn how to meditate in this manner because I’m a practical men, it’s not enough for me to read and study. I have to apply what I learn. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Ionut, > > Welcome to DSG and many thanks for your helpful introduction! I'm very glad you've mentioned you've joined us. <...> #112401 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 9:07 pm Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------------- <. . .> KH: >> in the Ongha Sutta we are told the flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could stand still. >> RE: > For future reference it's the Ogha-tarana Sutta: [Crossing over the Flood.] --------------- Thanks, I have made that mistake before and I am sure to make it again: my feeble mind remembers this sutta by associating "the flood" with Onga pumps. :-) ------------------------ RE: > And there is no mention in it anywhere of the right or wrong view of self. From what in the sutta do you derive this idea from? Here's a link to consult: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.001.than.html Please show me the line that says you can't cross over with wrong view of self. Thanks. -------------------------- As you say, there is no mention of right view and wrong view. This sutta is a teaching by way of paradox; it doesn't spell out the meaning. The commentaries, however, give a number of meanings for "standing still" and "striving" one of which is 'eternity belief' and 'annihilation belief' respectively. ----------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> the Middle Way is not watered-down aversion. The only way of crossing the flood is by right understanding of paramattha dhammas. >> RE: > Well that certainly is not the subject of this sutta, even in your wildest paramattha dreams. This sutta says that the Middle way is between striving and non-striving, and is not about right understanding per se. ----------------------------------------------- All of the Dhamma is about right understanding in one way or another. The Ogha Sutta talks about the *effort* that is needed to cross the flood. However, it is the effort that arises *with right understanding* and has right understanding *as its leader*. (In a single, conditioned moment of path consciousness, of course.) :-) Ken H #112402 From: Herman Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 9:19 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Nina, On 10 December 2010 02:22, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > We better not delay to develop > all kinds of kusala and understanding. To be kind and gentle in our > speech. > Yes, and truthful. Cheers Herman #112403 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:17 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Herman, -------------------- <. . .> H: > Until you realise the differences between what the Abhidhamma says, and what the Atthasalinini et al say, you will continue to embarrass yourself. But hey, ignorance (of that) is bliss :-) --------------------- One good thing in all this is that you recognise there is a difference between the way an ordinary man in the street understands the Tipitaka and the way the Theras understood it. There is a whole world of difference! It's a very important point that should be made widely known. Thank you for contributing to the cause. :-) Ken H #112404 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" philofillet Hi Nina > N: You are using the word despising in different ways. Despising bad > deeds: shall we say: seeing the disadvantages and dangers of akusala? Ph: Well, you used "despised" in the book to say we *shouldn't* despise our clinging, and I think that is suitable. In a second post I went a bit off topic, but let's forget my second post, which Ken has already commented on. My original point was to say I liked what you wrote, we should not "despise" our clinging. > > > > Ph: A question. WHen you and others say "awareness of realities" I > > am always confused, because according to Dhammapada, a reality is a > > split second in duration. Does awareness of realities actually mean > > awareness of millions of realities that have formed a nimitta or > > something. > ------ > N: Not only in the Dhammapada, in all of the teachings. There can be > awareness and understanding of characteristics of realities that > appear. Seeing has a characteristic different from hearing. Anger has > a characteristic different from clinging. Ph: I guess the answer will be don't think about it, but... ...is it the characteristic of one dhamma that one is aware of, or the characterisitc of millions of dhammas that create a nimitta in a way that give the impression of the characteristics of one dhamma? If we are taught that there are millions or billions of dhammas in a second, and then are told that there can be awareness of the characterisitics of realities, it always seems impossible. NOt impossible for me, in particular, impossible for anyone except if there was some kind of incredible perception power available to the Ariyan or something. when we speak of awareness > of the present reality, that reality has just fallen away, but its > characteristic can still be object of awareness. It has been > explained that we actually experience a nimitta of the realities that > arise and fall away so fast. However, there is no need to think of > nimitta, as Kh Sujin said. There can just be awareness of > characteristics, even now. Ph: Yes, I remember we talked about this before. Unfortunately, for me, there is a need to think about whether one says "awareness of charateristics of realities" one is actually talking about awareness of a nimitta. Actually, I remember hearing Sayadaw U Silananda address this point, he said that the dhamma is actually not present, but there is a nimitta and it is enough to say the dhamma is still present although it has actually just fallen away. So he was basically agreeing with A.S and saying don't worry about it. > > Ph: And what is the difference between a nimitta and a concept? > ------- > N: There are many types of concepts, some represent realities, others > do not. I asked Kh Sujin the same question as you are asking. She > answered: it is the nimitta of a reality. Ph: At this point it is easier for me to understand that we are aware of concepts of characteristics of realities (however brief the concepts form and fall apart again, and concepts do form and fall apart, don't they?) rather than characteristics of realities, but that's ok. I'm happy to have this rare opportunity to post comments/questions to you without getting strident about my views! Metta, Phil #112405 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:55 am Subject: Re: New to Dhamma kenhowardau Hi Ionut, ------------- <. . .> I: > I've found out that there is some kind of meditation called Vipassana (insight meditation). -------------- Many different practices have been given the name 'insight meditation.' However, none of those practices can be found in the original Buddhist texts. There are very good reasons why they cannot be found in the original texts, but not many people know those reasons. Therefore, most modern-day Buddhists feel compelled to adopt various newly-invented forms of insight meditation. ----------------------- I: > I need to learn how to meditate in this manner because I’m a practical men, it’s not enough for me to read and study. I have to apply what I learn. ------------------------ Application comes naturally, and automatically, with right understanding. It cannot be forced. If there is no understanding, there is no application. If there is wrong understanding, there is wrong application. Ken H #112406 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:55 pm Subject: Causality! bhikkhu5 Friends: Transcendence from Ignorance to Nibbâna! Buddha once explained the entire chain of causes leading to Nibbana: Ignorance is the proximate cause of mental construction. Mental construction is the proximate cause of consciousness. Consciousness is the proximate cause of name-&-form. Name-&-form is the proximate cause of the 6 senses. The 6 senses is the proximate cause of contact. Contact is the proximate cause of feeling. Feeling is the proximate cause of craving. Craving is the proximate cause of clinging. Clinging is the proximate cause of becoming. Becoming is the proximate cause of birth. Birth is the proximate cause of ageing, decay and death. Ageing, decay and death is the proximate cause suffering. Suffering is the proximate cause of faith. Faith is the proximate cause of elation. Elation is the proximate cause of joy. Joy is the proximate cause of calmness. Calmness is the proximate cause of happiness. Happiness is the proximate cause of concentration. Concentration is the proximate cause of seeing and knowing reality. Seeing and knowing reality is the proximate cause of disgust. Disgust is the proximate cause of disillusion. Disillusion is the proximate cause of mental release. Mental release is the proximate cause of ending all mental fermentation linked with ignorance, associated with becoming, and caused by sensing. Ending all mental fermentation is the proximate cause of Freedom.. Ending all mental fermentation is the proximate cause of Peace.. Ending all mental fermentation is the proximate cause of Bliss.. This - only this - is Nibbana ... The Butterfly Effect => A Storm! 1 Cause => Many Effects! <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya II 29-32 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112407 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New to Dhamma epsteinrob Hi Ionut. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ionutkrech" wrote: > > Thank you for your kind words. > As I start writing this answer, I'm thinking that the only thing that seems real since I can remember is the sense of being, I feel the same as I felt when I was 15, 21, 28, all the other things in my life have changed in this time except this feeling! > Right now I’m trying to get my bearings since I had some spiritual experiences back in those years when I’ve practiced Yoga and I’ve found out that there is some kind of meditation called Vipassana (insight meditation). I need to learn how to meditate in this manner because I’m a practical men, it’s not enough for me to read and study. I have to apply what I learn. I think you will find that there are a number of dsg members who practice different versions of Vipassana meditation, and we have some discussions about the Buddha's meditation instructions and the main suttas in which the Buddha set out the different stages and functions of meditation. If you raise meditation questions, either about technique or theory, or want to talk about some of the suttas and other Buddhist writings about meditation, I think you will see a number of people who will be happy to discuss these with you. I also have a yoga background, as well as former practices of T'ai Chi and several forms of Buddhist meditation. Currently I am practicing something similar to the Theravadin Mahasi technique, which is a basic breathing technique aimed towards cultivating mindful awareness, concentration and peacefulness/equanimity. Most of the Theravadin techniques can be traced back to two great suttas of the Buddha, the anapanasati sutta -- scripture on the development of mindfulness of the breath -- and the satipatthana sutta -- scripture on the four foundations of mindfulness. You can find these online, as well as discussions of these suttas if you search the group archives. Many of the discussions here are about sutta and Abhidhamma and how they relate to the Buddhist path, and there are some debates about the usefulness of meditation and of scriptural study and intellectual understanding. But there are also discussions on the substance of particular topics, including meditation. Look forward to your thoughts in this area! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #112408 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:38 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > The commentaries, however, give a number of meanings for "standing still" and "striving" one of which is 'eternity belief' and 'annihilation belief' respectively. This seems like quite a stretch to me - another commentarial amazing pretzel-like yoga stretch whilst leaping in the air simultaneously. I wonder what kind of mushrooms the commentators were taking? It seems amazing to me that the supposedly enlightened commentators will take the Buddha's words and twist them in a knot without a hint of embarrassment. Buddha is straightforwardly talking about right effort as neither asserting volition, nor being completely passive, just as he says, but to move forward in accord with conditions. > ----------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> the Middle Way is not watered-down aversion. The only way of crossing the flood is by right understanding of paramattha dhammas. > >> > > RE: > Well that certainly is not the subject of this sutta, even in your wildest paramattha dreams. This sutta says that the Middle way is between striving and non-striving, and is not about right understanding per se. > ----------------------------------------------- > > All of the Dhamma is about right understanding in one way or another. Yes, and all food is about digestion and keeping the body alive. Yet there is a difference between fruits, vegetables, meat and grains, and whenever someone mentions the characteristics of grains, you don't have to shout "THEY ARE FOR NUTRITION." It's just not the subject at hand. > The Ogha Sutta talks about the *effort* that is needed to cross the flood. However, it is the effort that arises *with right understanding* and has right understanding *as its leader*. (In a single, conditioned moment of path consciousness, of course.) :-) Yes, you can basically xerox that statement and stick it onto every sutta in existence if it makes you happy. Rather than shedding any light, it will merely obscure the specific teachings of each sutta. Have fun repeating yourself! :-) Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = = #112409 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:44 am Subject: Re: New to Dhamma epsteinrob Hi Ionut, and penpal Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Ionut, > > ------------- > <. . .> > I: > I've found out that there is some kind of meditation called Vipassana (insight meditation). > -------------- > > Many different practices have been given the name 'insight meditation.' However, none of those practices can be found in the original Buddhist texts. > > There are very good reasons why they cannot be found in the original texts, but not many people know those reasons. Therefore, most modern-day Buddhists feel compelled to adopt various newly-invented forms of insight meditation. > > ----------------------- > I: > I need to learn how to meditate in this manner because I’m a practical men, it’s not enough for me to read and study. I have to apply what I learn. > ------------------------ > > Application comes naturally, and automatically, with right understanding. It cannot be forced. If there is no understanding, there is no application. If there is wrong understanding, there is wrong application. Here, Ionut, you find yourself in the middle of our meditation debate. You can participate, or just focus on that which you want to learn about from those interested. I disagree with what Ken H. says above. Vipassana meditation traces directly back to the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, the direct word of the Buddha. After taking a look at these suttas, you may begin to form your own opinion about how they relate to what is called Vipassana meditation. There are also writings of the meditation masters of the Thai Forest Tradition, who are the meditation experts in the Theravadin community. Teachers like Ajahn Lee and Ajahn Chah were highly developed and may give you some good information with their writings, which can be searched online. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112410 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi KenH, Herman, Howard, > KenH: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the theory of infinite divisibility a thing of the past? pt: I was trying to point out that divisibility etc. for me cause problems because these in essence refer to (and rely on) an instance of intellectual speculation, so not on an actual occurence of insight (which is what I believe descriptions in terms of dhammas - namas and rupas - actually refer to). > KenH: Lasting for a period of time does not equate with self - why should it? A thing that lasts for a period of time is a nama or a rupa, not a self. A self, if it existed, would be any reality *other than* a nama or a rupa. ... > It *is* theoretically right, but what is the problem? Why would do you say, "but wait"? > > I don't see how the fact that dhammas co-arise with other dhammas could stop them from being anatta. What is the point I am missing here? pt: The point I was trying to address refers to Howard's and Herman's objections to how an instance of actual insight is described in the commentaries - i.e. that a single dhamma (or rather it's characteristics by way of navataba) are experienced at the moment of insight. I think Howard mentioned that for him this equates to fragmentation of reality, so nothing more than mere conceptualisation, while Herman quite simply termed it delusion. So, the problem we have at the moment is that what's considered "insight" by some is considered "delusion" by others. So, I'm trying to clarify this situation - in particular, I get the feeling that Herman and Howard got to their conclusions because they take commentarial position to refer to theory and mere intellectual speculation rather than a direct experience of insight - this is something I'll try to clarify further in posts to them individually. > KenH: I think Sarah has explained that the dhamma - not the characteristic - is the object of experience. Panna experiences a dhamma and understands its characteristics. pt: Hm, I think the way it was said is that dhamma falls aways and then its characteristics are experienced in the following mind-door process(es) by way of navataba (so by way of a nimitta, which is not a nimitta of a concept, but of a dhamma that has fallen away). > KenH: As I was saying, I don't see any conflict between the theory and the practice. I must be missing something you scientifically-trained fellows can see. pt: Well it had to do with the objections often put against the commentarial three sub-moments of dhamma - the objections essentially revolving around speculation regarding temporal duration, problems of (in)divisibility, and state of change. So what I was trying to say is that all this speculation misses the point since the 3 sub-moments are a description of an instance of insight, not a philosphical or intellectual speculation - I mean, the notion of time and temporal duration don't apply at all to the realm of insight (paramattha dhammas), since I think kathavatthu says time is a concept, etc. Best wishes pt #112411 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Phil: But yes, I don't know how a reminder about having detachment can actually condition detachment, it seems to me to be sure to condition trying (however subtly) to have detachment, which of course moots it. pt: It occurred to me that reminders about detachment should work the same way as reminders about sila. Recently you mentioned how a post by Han (a reminder I guess) helped you to understand the importance of sila in life. And I'd assume that every time you read a sutta about sila, it also acts as a reminder. And then when there's actual abstinence from akusala, it's thanks to these reminders and understanding that abstinence from akusala actually happens - because at the time there's remembering and appreciation of the value of sila. Of course, there can also be abstinence through repression, which I don't think is sila, but just repressing akusala with more akusala (though I guess it might be argued that if akusala helps to abstain from even bigger akusala, then that's fine, but as you say, I think that moots the whole thing). Still, these moments of repression don't take away from the importance and value of true sila when it occurs. So anyway, I think this is pretty much the same with detachment - it can arise thanks to reminders and understanding, but as you mention, there can also be trying to have detachment, which is akusala. But, that's just how things are, so these akusala instances of trying to have detachment don't take away from the value and importance of true detachment when it occurs. Best wishes pt #112412 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:07 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thanks very much for the discussion. Best wishes pt > N: Aayatana refers to association, the meeting of several realities so > that objects can be experienced. #112413 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:18 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Lukas) #110622 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I recall a discussion - I think on another list - where it was said that the arahat while in the world still experiences contact and vedana, but instead of the vedana becoming the springboard for proliferations causing further kamma, the arahat detaches from the vedana and the reaction stops at simple pleasantness or unpleasantness without further delusory concept or attachment being formed. I wonder what others think about this? .... S: Firstly, I thought that Lukas gave some excellent quotes on sa.mvara (restraint)in #110611 to which you replied. With regard to you comment above, contact (phassa) and vedana arise with every single citta, even for the arahat. As indicated, in the case of the arahat, there is no further kamma (even of a wholesome kind) and certainly no unwholesome proliferations. This doesn't mean that the arahat doesn't think or conceptualise about what is experienced through the senses, but as suggested, it is not with attachment, aversion or ignorance. It's not a case of the "reaction stopping", but the reaction not being one with unwholesome roots. Btw, Lukas, on your question about recommended texts, I rather agree with Pt that the "Guide to Conditional Relations" may be more useful than the translated Patthana. However, you may want to read along the Patthana with the Pali, in which case, perhaps just get the first volume. I remember when I was in my 20s and had really very, very little money, I joined the PTS and would save up to buy one text at a time. The Atthasalini translation was one of these and it seemed so expensive, but I've had over 30 years good use of it since! The Sammohavinodani translation is really nice, but again pricey. Become a 5 yr member and then you can choose any one book free each year! Metta Sarah ======== #112414 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, > > The problem is that they would say that you can't even do that. Rather than "abandon self-view" which would itself be an action involving self-view, one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. ... S: Why is that a problem? Yes, just see/understand self-view when it arises, so that there are conditions to gradually abandon it. When one thinks that "Self" can do it, that's a good time for panna to understand it:-) Metta Sarah ====== #112415 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Views, Snp4.5 sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Why didn't the Buddha specifically mentioned Wrong views, but simply stated "views"? > > > Are you saying that an Arahant is identified with right views? ... S: By "di.t.thi" in context, wrong views are understood. See Nyantiloka dict. again. Just as "samadhi" in context usually means kusala - no need to add "sammaa". The audience understood. The arahat's cittas are accompanied by pa~n~naa, i.e. sammaa di.t.thi very, very often during the javana process. Metta Sarah ===== #112416 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: On right view bringing purity, see Nina's Sangiiti post # 111561. > > > > "The commentary and Tiika explain the reasons. Pa~n~naa is the condition for all otehr kinds of kusala, it purifies from defilements and it gives brightness and pervasion. It illuminates the darkness of ignorance so that the truth of all realities can be realized. Pa~n~naa is one of the perfetions and through pa~n~naa all the other perfections are fulfilled. The perfections lead to the other shore, to nibbaana." > > > > "The treasure of pa~n~naa is the best of all (sabbase.t.tha.m)." ... >A: Are you saying that Arahant depends on panna? > Does arahant cling to panna? > Does Arahant hold panna "to be best of all"? ... S: The arahat doesn't "depend on" or "cling to" anything. The arahat knows that pa~n~naa is the greatest treasure and that nothing else really matters in life except for its development. For the arahat, the job is done, there is no becoming, because pa~n~naa has eradicated all defilements. Metta Sarah ========= #112417 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:40 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- KH: >>> The commentaries, however, give a number of meanings for "standing still" and "striving" one of which is 'eternity belief' and 'annihilation belief' respectively. >> RE: > This seems like quite a stretch to me - another commentarial amazing pretzel-like yoga stretch whilst leaping in the air simultaneously. I wonder what kind of mushrooms the commentators were taking? ------ The Theras who wrote the ancient commentaries deserved our deepest respect. The reason their words were so carefully preserved was that they were always recognised (until recent times) as being in strict accordance with the true Dhamma. ----------------------- RE: > It seems amazing to me that the supposedly enlightened commentators will take the Buddha's words and twist them in a knot without a hint of embarrassment. ----------------------- I don't know why you want to talk that way. You understand the Dhamma differently from the way the Theras understood it. There is no need for insults, just acknowledge the difference. ------------------------------ RE: > Buddha is straightforwardly talking about right effort as neither asserting volition, nor being completely passive, just as he says, but to move forward in accord with conditions. ------------------------------ That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Although I don't know how you see it as "straightforward." It sounds like double talk to me. ------------- <. . .> KH: >> All of the Dhamma is about right understanding in one way or another. >> RE: > Yes, and all food is about digestion and keeping the body alive. Yet there is a difference between fruits, vegetables, meat and grains, and whenever someone mentions the characteristics of grains, you don't have to shout "THEY ARE FOR NUTRITION." It's just not the subject at hand. ------------ But there is a need in our case. Most Buddhists think the Dhamma is about getting somewhere or attaining something. It's actually about understanding the present reality. --------------------- KH: >> The Ogha Sutta talks about the *effort* that is needed to cross the flood. However, it is the effort that arises *with right understanding* and has right understanding *as its leader*. (In a single, conditioned moment of path consciousness, of course.) :-) >> RE: > Yes, you can basically xerox that statement and stick it onto every sutta in existence if it makes you happy. Rather than shedding any light, it will merely obscure the specific teachings of each sutta. Have fun repeating yourself! :-) ------------------------- There will always be a need to repeat myself when the people I am talking to refuse to acknowledge the single-moment nature of the universe. Ken H #112418 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:41 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, Good qus in #111974! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I still don't understand the distinction you are making, I'm afraid. You say > visible object is real, when it is seen. ... S: True or not true? ... >H:Yet an idea is not real, when it is > thought. ... S: True or not true? The thinking at that moment is real and can be known, but surely the idea is just that - an idea. ... >H:I don't get it, what else does one expect from an idea? When > thinking a thought, it is a real thought, isn't it? .... S: It may be a good thought, a bad thought, a thought about something real, a thought about an idea, a thought about some fantasy. What such thoughts have in common is that they are just concepts, ideas conceptualised by thinking. So the cittas which think are real. The accompanying mental states, such as the memory, the intention, the concentration and so on are real. But the ideas, the dreams, are just figments of the imagination. I think that appreciating the distinction between the real thinking and the ideas thought about is one of the major "break-throughs" in the understanding of the Dhamma. Now I'm thinking about the sunshine and waves I can see through the windows in Manly. The thinking is very real. The sunshine and waves are ideas thought about on account of various visible objects seen in between the thinking. Does that make sense? Metta Sarah p.s Again, apologies to all for the slow replies. Trying to catch up a little before the next trip on Monday. ========== #112419 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:46 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[d] sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #111938 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" > > S: As has been explained, the monks were already at the roots of the trees and the Buddha was encouraging the development of samatha and satipatthana up to full enlightenment. He praised what was kusala. He didn't say that any Self should do anything. If there isn't patience to understand what is conditioned now, there will never be any development of either kind of bhavana! > >R: Though I think as you said further on that "any object" could be the subject of wise reflection and development of samatha, it still seems hard for me to think that samatha or any other factor will develop unless it gets to the point where the experience is repeated, extended, and thus accumulated in greater degree; so in a way, you are saying - in my interpretation - that the person who sat at the root of the tree to develop samatha of breath intensively had simply reached the point of conditions and accumulations where he would have that inclination full-time, and thus would naturally sit for long periods of time deepening the experience of samatha in a kusala way. .... S: Yes, you've put that rather well. ... > > This does not particularly line up with Buddha saying "*Go* to the root of a tree" ... S: I don't think he said that... ... >and to meditate intensely, or whatever he exactly said, but something to that effect. He seemed to be urging not just the development of the kusala qualities but also the conditioning activity - sitting and contemplating the breath. But leaving that aside, if it is true that the more prolonged sitting in anapanasati was a natural development that the Buddha then praised and encouraged, I would draw two conclusions, and wonder what you think of them: > > 1. If one were to develop the thought "I *should* go meditate more and develop the enlightenment factors through mindfulness of breathing," that would be akusala and involve self-view and the illusion of control. ... S: yes ... > > 2. If one were to develop the natural inclination to go meditate and practice mindfulness of breathing, that would be kusala and would involve the conditions and accumulations that would naturally lead to this way of developing the path factors. So if it is not a desire, an intention that is aimed towards results, but a natural development, then one would be in the same situation as the monks whom Buddha encouraged. ... S: yes ... > > I would say if the latter were the case then there would be no craving, no conflict, no worry about doing it well or often enough, but just that "when convenient" [as I think Jon put it...] he would naturally be inclined to sit down and engage in mindfulness of breathing. Just as one who likes carrots might be inclined to regularly grab one from the refrigerator. > > Would you agree with this distinction? .... S: yes You write well and I appreciate your efforts to really understand what I and others are saying. And now the question is whether you agree with the distinction too? Metta Sarah ====== #112420 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:11 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: in Ayutthaya sarahprocter... Dear Ann, #111898 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > Thank you so very much for the summaries of points raised in your discussions there. You have obviously taken a lot of time and care to synthisize the talks and present them in very understandable and cogent form. Very helpful indeed. ... S: Thanks Ann and again, apologies for the very delayed response to your helpful comments below: ... > >S: 3. Nimitta. Nina's message #111313 - the first quote on nimitta and the comments. > > It depends on understanding, we don't need to think of nimitta - it's so very short. Instead of paying attention to nimitta, there can be awareness of reality. No time to consider whether there's nimitta or not, and no use trying to see the rising and falling away with an idea of self. It seems like there's a "trying to do", more than understanding. Understanding works its way with detachment. Trying is attachment. > > A: Often when thinking about nimitta, I find myself grappling with the idea of it and when I either settle on something acceptable to my thinking at the moment or leave it alone because nothing suitable comes to mind or understanding, I often think back to Achan Sujin's comments about not focusing on ideas of nimitta because what is important is the awareness / understanding of the present reality (as you have restated above). > .... S: yes, exactly. It always comes back to the reality now. Usually we're lost in the world of concepts - even if those concepts relate to the Dhamma - instead of just being aware of the reality now. .... > >S: 4. Trying, effort > > By knowing/seeing the benefit of understanding with detachment, otherwise there won't be less attachment. Lobha motivates. Understanding sees the value. If we read over and need someone's explanation for understanding, it's not just wanting to have more and more understanding. > > A: Can you discuss the last sentence in (4) above. Wanting an explanation in order to understand - sounds like it could both motivated by lobha and seeing the value of understanding - different moments, of course. ... S: It was a bit of a jumble above! Again it comes back to the sincerity (sacca) and understanding. We may read Dhamma and ask for explanations out of lobha, trying to 'get' more understanding for ourselves, or there may be sincere appreciation and understanding the value of what is read and sincere questioning of this too, as indicated in your message!! Actually, of course, only panna can ever know the cittas which change all the time. But we get the idea, reading, listening and questioning can be with kusala or akusala cittas. .... > > >S: 6. Kamma and vipaka in Jatakas or daily life > > Most difficult - attachment to self, atta ditthi. Anything can happen, any citta, depends on conditions whether sati and understanding arise. Jatakas like any story in one's life or any story one reads about in the newspaper - different accumulations. If we have expectations from a particular reading, lobha again. Upanissaya gocara - that object which frequently turned towards. Talking about Dhamma can be meaningless, "delirious" chatter, if it's just more stories about dhammas. No detachment at such times. KS mentioned that sometimes Thai friends just have delirious chatter about Dhamma, such as about the results of kamma and the poor people in Ayutthaya affected by the flooding. Not really understanding anything about kamma. > > > 10. Pt's Qus #102522 on rupa kalapas, such as "if we see a patch of dirt, does that mean that that particular kalaapa that's in contact with our eyes has more color ruupa?" It depends on the intensity/quality/variety, not on having more. No understanding of realities - much better to have an understanding now of realities, otherwise we keep further away by unpanissaya gocara (object decisively adhered to). .... > A: You have mentioned upanissaya gocara twice in this post - object decisively adhered to and object frequently turned towards. Do I understand correctly that this refers to the continuous (and overwhelming) tendency to lobha - the desire or expectation for something? .... S: It refers to the accumulation of attachment. As we read in the suttas, that which are minds tend towards (with attachment) that will be the object of attachment over and over again, not just in this lifetime. This of course brings us back to the anusayas, the latent tendencies which are accumulated. For example, SN 22,35(3): "...Bhikkhu, if one has an underlying tendency towards something, then one is reckoned in terms of it. If one does not have and underlying tendency towards something, then one is not reckoned in terms of it..." ... >A: Without panna developed through intellectual understanding and beyond (patipatti, pativeda), this tendency predominates until there is more understanding of realities now? Are you able to elaborate - or correct me if I have misunderstood? .... S: Yes, without understanding of the realities, attachment just accumulates on and on. This can also be true with regard to attachment being accumulated when reading/discussing Dhamma if there is no understanding of present realities! Cheating dhammas again:) ... Please let me know if anything needs further clarification/discussion. Thx again for your comments! Metta Sarah > ps - any more thoughts / plans re your spending time in Bkk in January or March? We are going to be booking tickets etc soon. If you are going to be there - would love to coincide. ... S: As you know, we hope to see you there at the beginning of Jan at least. If anyone else is free to join us, pls let us know. ======== #112421 From: Herman Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi pt, On 10 December 2010 17:16, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi KenH, Herman, Howard, > > > KenH: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the theory of infinite > divisibility a thing of the past? > > pt: I was trying to point out that divisibility etc. for me cause problems > because these in essence refer to (and rely on) an instance of intellectual > speculation, so not on an actual occurence of insight (which is what I > believe descriptions in terms of dhammas - namas and rupas - actually refer > to). > > > KenH: Lasting for a period of time does not equate with self - why should > it? A thing that lasts for a period of time is a nama or a rupa, not a self. > A self, if it existed, would be any reality *other than* a nama or a rupa. > ... > > > It *is* theoretically right, but what is the problem? Why would do you > say, "but wait"? > > > > I don't see how the fact that dhammas co-arise with other dhammas could > stop them from being anatta. What is the point I am missing here? > > pt: The point I was trying to address refers to Howard's and Herman's > objections to how an instance of actual insight is described in the > commentaries - i.e. that a single dhamma (or rather it's characteristics by > way of navataba) are experienced at the moment of insight. I think Howard > mentioned that for him this equates to fragmentation of reality, so nothing > more than mere conceptualisation, while Herman quite simply termed it > delusion. > > So, the problem we have at the moment is that what's considered "insight" > by some is considered "delusion" by others. So, I'm trying to clarify this > situation - in particular, I get the feeling that Herman and Howard got to > their conclusions because they take commentarial position to refer to theory > and mere intellectual speculation rather than a direct experience of insight > - this is something I'll try to clarify further in posts to them > individually. > > > KenH: I think Sarah has explained that the dhamma - not the > characteristic - is the object of experience. Panna experiences a dhamma and > understands its characteristics. > > pt: Hm, I think the way it was said is that dhamma falls aways and then its > characteristics are experienced in the following mind-door process(es) by > way of navataba (so by way of a nimitta, which is not a nimitta of a > concept, but of a dhamma that has fallen away). > > > KenH: As I was saying, I don't see any conflict between the theory and > the practice. I must be missing something you scientifically-trained fellows > can see. > > pt: Well it had to do with the objections often put against the > commentarial three sub-moments of dhamma - the objections essentially > revolving around speculation regarding temporal duration, problems of > (in)divisibility, and state of change. So what I was trying to say is that > all this speculation misses the point since the 3 sub-moments are a > description of an instance of insight, not a philosphical or intellectual > speculation - I mean, the notion of time and temporal duration don't apply > at all to the realm of insight (paramattha dhammas), since I think > kathavatthu says time is a concept, etc. > > Best wishes > pt > > I thought this was a very balanced assessment of the critical issues in the discussion. I commend you for it. Cheers Herman #112422 From: Herman Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" egberdina Hi Ken H, On 10 December 2010 18:40, Ken H wrote: > > > The Theras who wrote the ancient commentaries deserved our deepest respect. > The reason their words were so carefully preserved was that they were always > recognised (until recent times) as being in strict accordance with the true > Dhamma. > > People who follow select commentators of the original, rather than the original, are sectarian, by nature and definition. This applies equally to supporters of Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Sunni, Shiite, Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist etc etc. The Sutta Nipata, as an example of what I mean by original, is not sectarian, Ken, but you definitely are. Your lion's roar may as well be Go the Broncos :-) Cheers Herman #112423 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Pt > pt: It occurred to me that reminders about detachment should work the same way as reminders about sila. Suddenly I remember an old joke from my childhood. How do you get out of an elephant? Run around until you get pooped out. I feel pooped out on this topic, for the time being at least! I think I've said everything I can...but thank you always for your nice patient efforts to engage me in proper discussion. Metta, Phil #112424 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:31 pm Subject: Wisdom, Ignorance - Is there intermediate stage? truth_aerator Dear All, An interesting question. Is there a middle step between ignorance and wisdom, or is it always either/or? Ex: if one didn't acted with wisdom, does it mean that one acted with ignorance (and nothing else)? If one did't acted with ignorance, does it mean that one acted with Wisdom (and nothing else)? With metta, Alex #112425 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:51 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > With regard to you comment above, contact (phassa) and vedana arise with every single citta, even for the arahat. As indicated, in the case of the arahat, there is no further kamma (even of a wholesome kind) and certainly no unwholesome proliferations. This doesn't mean that the arahat doesn't think or conceptualise about what is experienced through the senses, but as suggested, it is not with attachment, aversion or ignorance. It's not a case of the "reaction stopping", but the reaction not being one with unwholesome roots. This is good info. I'd be interested in some more details on this, if that is possible. I am interested in how the arahat forms thoughts without unwholesome roots, and sort of what the nature of such thoughts would be. Would they be pragmatic, ones of understanding the current reality, or directed by metta towards the needs of others? It is interesting to think of what the arahat may be called to think about or act upon when there is no self-view or delusion, and how this would take place. Would the arahat have "inclinations," such as spending the afternoon reading a commentary, or would he be beyond such interests? In the zen tradition, an interesting statement was made that zen was about "doing one thing at a time," and that the enlightened still did ordinary activities, could think or write a book even, but that they would no longer have self-interested or distracting thoughts. In other words, they would match the Buddha's description of "in the seen only the seen, in the thought only the thought." Whatever they were doing they would be easily and happily focused on that, until it was time to do something else. No: "What about my shopping list?" or "I wonder what X thinks of my new dress?" :-) [Or: "Did I pay too much for this cigar?" :) ] > Btw, Lukas, on your question about recommended texts, I rather agree with Pt that the "Guide to Conditional Relations" may be more useful than the translated Patthana. However, you may want to read along the Patthana with the Pali, in which case, perhaps just get the first volume. I remember when I was in my 20s and had really very, very little money, I joined the PTS and would save up to buy one text at a time. The Atthasalini translation was one of these and it seemed so expensive, but I've had over 30 years good use of it since! The Sammohavinodani translation is really nice, but again pricey. Become a 5 yr member and then you can choose any one book free each year! Hm...I may look into this myself. I'd love to get a big fat translation of a major Abhidhamma book every year. Uh oh, I think "greed" is arising. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112426 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: in Ayutthaya nilovg Dear Sarah, Ann and friends, Op 10-dec-2010, om 9:11 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: Yes, without understanding of the realities, attachment just > accumulates on and on. This can also be true with regard to > attachment being accumulated when reading/discussing Dhamma if > there is no understanding of present realities! Cheating dhammas > again:) ------ N: This remark of yours deserves full attention! We ask questions because we do not understand present dhammas, or, possible, in order to understand present dhammas. Here the perferction of truthfulness is important. Herman just reminded me of truthfulness. Perhaps Sarah can elaborate on cheating dhammas in this respect? Nina. #112427 From: Herman Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. egberdina Hi Phil, On 6 December 2010 22:00, philip wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > Sorry I'm a bit slow with some of my replies. I know that you want to give this thread a break, but I'll just answer a question in this post of yours. > > As long as the house needs vacuuming, there's not a hope in hell of > moving > > beyond pleasure and pain. > > Ph: Or likes and dislikes? I think even the fully awakened ones don't move > beyond pleasure and pain, do they? > I believe the 4th jhana is such a state, so, certainly there are those, including fully awakened ones, who abide in such a state regularly, and at will. I would also say that such a state is THE barometer against which detachment is known. Put in another way, attachment of any kind will prevent achieving of such a state. > Well, I don't know, none of my business! My business is here and now, > dealing with a massive shitload of greed, hatred and delusion, heavy > shifting work! > Exactly right. And I wish you every success! > (There is a very good sutta about how if a sala tree - whatever that is - > gets choked with mustard weeds, we must cut the mustard weeds away before we > hope for the tree to grow beautifully again. I sincerely doubt that there > will be anything but cutting away mustard weeds for me in this lifetime, and > that's fine, I know where I am and where my understanding is and how > powerful my defilements are. > > Metta, > > Phil > > p.s thanks for the reminder. My place is a pigsty. If I want to experience > some layperson's happiness at bedtime and upon waking, I had better clean up > tonight. > > They say that cleanliness is next to godliness :-) Cheers Herman #112428 From: Herman Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. egberdina Hi pt, On 10 December 2010 17:49, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi Phil, > > > Phil: But yes, I don't know how a reminder about having detachment can > actually condition detachment, it seems to me to be sure to condition trying > (however subtly) to have detachment, which of course moots it. > > pt: It occurred to me that reminders about detachment should work the same > way as reminders about sila. > I think that the re in remind makes it clear that one can only be reminded about things already known. Cheers Herman #112429 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Herman, ---------- H: > People who follow select commentators of the original, rather than the original, are sectarian, by nature and definition. ----------- I see, and who are these people who supposedly follow commentators *rather than* the original? I believe the ancient commentaries and the original are the same. ----------------- H: > This applies equally to supporters of Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Sunni, Shiite, Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist etc etc. ----------------- So? Who are the people who are following commentators *rather than* the original? ------------------------- H: > The Sutta Nipata, as an example of what I mean by original, is not sectarian, ------------------------- OK, now tell me who is following commentators of the Sutta Nipata *rather than* the Sutta Nipata. Or have you just created a straw man so you could show us how you knock it down? --------------------------- H: > Ken, but you definitely are. Your lion's roar may as well be Go the Broncos :-) --------------------------- OK, show me how I am sectarian. Show me how my understanding is different from the original teaching. Or show me how the commentaries are different from the original teaching. Ken H #112430 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > > The problem is that they would say that you can't even do that. Rather than "abandon self-view" which would itself be an action involving self-view, one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. > ... > S: Why is that a problem? Yes, just see/understand self-view when it arises, so that there are conditions to gradually abandon it. When one thinks that "Self" can do it, that's a good time for panna to understand it:-) ...I guess so... Best, Robert E. :-) - - - - - - - - - - #112431 From: "Chittapala" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:10 pm Subject: Re: New to Dhamma chittapala Hello Ionut, I recommend these useful Dhamma study resources: Texts http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/cpg1420/index.php?cat=3 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/ Talkshttp://www.dhammatalks.org/ http://www.dhammaloka.org.au/downloads/itemlist/category/19-dhamma-talks\ .html Videos http://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA Buddhist centres in Romaniahttp://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/country.php?country_id=80 I wish you well on your journey. Metta,Chittapala. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ionutkrech" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:59 pm Subject: Dependent Causation... bhikkhu5 Friends: All Things Proceed from a Cause! Dependent Origination is the core chain of causality: Dependent on ignorance arises kammic-construction (moral and immoral); Dependent on kammic-constructions arises rebirth-consciousness; Dependent on consciousness arises mind and body, name-&-form; Dependent on mind and body arise the six sense sources; Dependent on the six sense sources arises contact; Dependent on contact arises feeling; Dependent on feeling arises craving; Dependent on craving arises clinging; Dependent on clinging arises becoming; Dependent on becoming arises birth; Dependent on birth arises decay, ageing, death, sorrow, pain, and despair. In this way arises this whole mass of suffering... With the ceasing of ignorance, ceases also kammic-construction; With the ceasing of kammic-construction, ceases also consciousness; With the ceasing of consciousness, ceases also mind and body, name-&-form; With the ceasing of mind and body, ceases also the six sense sources; With the ceasing of the six sense sources, ceases also contact; With the ceasing of contact, ceases also feeling; With the ceasing of feeling, ceases also craving; With the ceasing of craving, ceases also clinging; With the ceasing of clinging, ceases also becoming; With the ceasing of becoming, ceases also birth; With the ceasing of birth, ceases also ageing, death, sorrow, & despair. In this way ceases this whole mass of suffering... <....> Source: BPS Wheel no 54 (Edited Excerpt): The Mirror of the Dhamma. A Manual of Buddhist Devotional Texts. By Narada Thera and Bhikkhu Kassapa. Revised By Bhikkhu Khantipalo: http://www.bps.lk/wh054-u.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! ,...> Have a Nice Noble Day! Bhikkhu Samahita Ceylon #112433 From: "colette" Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:12 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! ksheri3 Hi Robert, > Hm...I may look into this myself. I'd love to get a big fat translation of a major Abhidhamma book every year. Uh oh, I think "greed" is arising. :-) > Is "greed" = "pragmatism"? toodles, colette #112434 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:34 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > KH: >>> The commentaries, however, give a number of meanings for "standing still" and "striving" one of which is 'eternity belief' and 'annihilation belief' respectively. > >> > > RE: > This seems like quite a stretch to me - another commentarial amazing pretzel-like yoga stretch whilst leaping in the air simultaneously. I wonder what kind of mushrooms the commentators were taking? > ------ > > The Theras who wrote the ancient commentaries deserved our deepest respect. The reason their words were so carefully preserved was that they were always recognised (until recent times) as being in strict accordance with the true Dhamma. When were those commentaries written? > ----------------------- > RE: > It seems amazing to me that the supposedly enlightened commentators will take the Buddha's words and twist them in a knot without a hint of embarrassment. > ----------------------- > > I don't know why you want to talk that way. You understand the Dhamma differently from the way the Theras understood it. There is no need for insults, just acknowledge the difference. I don't necessarily see the Dhamma in general different from the commentators, and I don't think the commentators necessarily represent the only Theravadin view, especially when it contradicts the suttas themselves. If there is not a deeper explanation, other than chosen dogma, for why the words of a sutta are interpreted to mean something completely different than what they say, then it is difficult to know what basis to accept them on. As for my tone, I'm sorry you find it insulting. It just sometimes makes me nuts when we are asked to accept interpretations without explanation that are far off from what is being said. You take a very similar tone with anyone who practices meditation, including the great Theravadin masters, but never mind about that. I was a little more freewheeling with my remarks than usual, but I have a lot of respect and interest in many of the commentaries I read and their authors. > ------------------------------ > RE: > Buddha is straightforwardly talking about right effort as neither asserting volition, nor being completely passive, just as he says, but to move forward in accord with conditions. > ------------------------------ > > That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Although I don't know how you see it as "straightforward." It sounds like double talk to me. Literally, not moving forward and not striving and not standing still = not putting forth effort and not doing nothing. That's not double-talk, it's just what the Buddha is saying. You really object to that? It's not a far-reaching extrapolation to say that not standing still is not doing nothing, or not being completely passive. Isn't that what that means prior to any metaphysical interpretations? Doesn't 'not striving' mean 'not putting forth effort' literally? Where's the double-talk? This story reminds me of an old Hasidic tale, though not as old as the suttas. The Baal Shem Tov told this story. Tell me what you think of it as a metaphor: "One day there was a man driving a carriage with three horses, a bay, a piebald and a white horse, and not one of the horses could neigh. A passing stranger said 'slacken the reins!' and when he did, all three horses began to neigh." I'm sure the three horses have some esoteric meaning, but on the face of it, it means that the man is pulling on the horses too tightly, ie, putting forth too much controlling effort. So he is moving forward, but with unhappy stifled horses. When he slackens the reins, the horses are happy and he continues forward in a better way. Similar to the sutta, or does anything with a little detail to it sound like more doubletalk to you? > ------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> All of the Dhamma is about right understanding in one way or another. > >> > > RE: > Yes, and all food is about digestion and keeping the body alive. Yet there is a difference between fruits, vegetables, meat and grains, and whenever someone mentions the characteristics of grains, you don't have to shout "THEY ARE FOR NUTRITION." It's just not the subject at hand. > ------------ > > But there is a need in our case. Most Buddhists think the Dhamma is about getting somewhere or attaining something. It's actually about understanding the present reality. Yes, sir! Let's not get off track and talk about the details of the teaching. Let's just repeat the approved mantra. > --------------------- > KH: >> The Ogha Sutta talks about the *effort* that is needed to cross the flood. However, it is the effort that arises *with right understanding* and has right understanding *as its leader*. (In a single, conditioned moment of path consciousness, of course.) :-) > >> > > RE: > Yes, you can basically xerox that statement and stick it onto every sutta in existence if it makes you happy. Rather than shedding any light, it will merely obscure the specific teachings of each sutta. Have fun repeating yourself! :-) > ------------------------- > > There will always be a need to repeat myself when the people I am talking to refuse to acknowledge the single-moment nature of the universe. That's what you get for preaching to concepts. You might want to address our single cittas to get a better response. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112435 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: in Ayutthaya sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Ann & all, --- On Sat, 11/12/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > S: Yes, without understanding of the realities, attachment just > accumulates on and on. This can also be true with regard to > attachment being accumulated when reading/discussing Dhamma if > there is no understanding of present realities! Cheating dhammas > again:) ------ >N: This remark of yours deserves full attention! We ask questions because we do not understand present dhammas, or, possible, in order to understand present dhammas. Here the perferction of truthfulness is important. Herman just reminded me of truthfulness. Perhaps Sarah can elaborate on cheating dhammas in this respect? ..... S: As Gayan wrote before, even when sharing the text on vangcaka (cheating dhammas): G:>Theres a chance that even the writer may be under the influence of a vangcaka. The Citta is so diverse and the number of cheating dhammas is incalculable. The point is to see the cheating ability of the mind, and accept it, be aware of it, and beware." Not only when we speak or ask questions, when we're silent as well. Anytime there are opportunities for "cheating dhammas". We may think that because our study or talk is Dhamma study/talk/listenng, that the cittas should be kusala and forget again that all that matters is the understanding and awareness at this very moment. As Alberto wrote before: "Akusala dhammas can be very hard to spot, especially in oneself, for instance I like to think that my appreciation of Dhamma is kusala, of course what else can it possibly be? Well, what about one of the 8 lobha-mula citta? The 8 lobha-mula (and also the two moha-mula), out of twelve akusala citta, can be very easily mistaken for kusala moments since they can have anything as their object, including the Dhamma. And even the 2 dosa-mula can be easily mistaken for kusala, for instance when one dislikes akusala, either one's own or others'. I don't like that (which btw is akusala) but it's a fact of Dhamma." ... S: And now some quotes from the commentary on vangcaka dhammas which Gayan quoted before (and to be found in full in "Useful Posts" under "cheating"): >25. dhammaparibandha pariharana mukhena dhammamacchariyam vangceti. kusala dhammaparibandhapariharana - protecting the dhamma knowledge . Sometimes ones may wish to study dhamma in order to 'discover' the 'loop holes', 'business interests', potential 'business' ideas ,gateways, methods for winning popularity contests..etc and sometimes with the direct intention of harming the dhamma, and subsequently harm the propagation of true dhamma. Detecting these motives (the motive!, focus is not on the person) and being cautious in such situations is dhammaparibandhapariharana. [pariharana - handling ( with care)]. >26. dhammadesanabhirati mukhena bhassaramata vangceti. kusala dhammadesanabhirati - 'liking' to do dhamma katha , preachings akusala bhassaramata - 'talkative'-ness with useless thiracchina talks. (useless talks with a 'dhamma' wrapper) 27. gananuggahakarana mukhena samganikaramata vangceti. kusala gananuggahakarana - maintaining 'anuggaha' to others. (anuggaha- helping,assisting,progressive company gana- groups etc... egroups? ) akusala samganikaramata - mere 'social'-ness , hidden attachment to company and social activities. when cheated by this the samanas divert from the essencial components of effective living, ie study, samatha & vipassana... 28. punnakamata patirupataya kammaramata vangceti. kusala punnakamata - 'desire' to do good deeds(punna). (in order to maintain a hiccup-free lifeflux so the internal search for truth can be effectively continued.) akusala kammaramata - desire in building and construction works of temples, ponds, aramas..etc. Some samanas got the hidden tendency to attach to these types of work. And also got the hidden tendency to divert from study of the dhamma,contemplation,dhammadesana,samatha & vipassana. So cheated they develop an unskillful dhamma thinking that its a skill .( punnakamata ) 30. saddhaluta patirupataya aparikkhata vangceti saddaluta - liking to see persons with high virtue, liking association of them, liking treating them. aparikkhata - Most people may show a face of high virtue just for enjoying the high gains associated with it. venerating all of them without actually finding out the facts is not a skill. this may cheat as saddhaluta. 31. vimamsana patirupataya assaddhiyam vangceti vimamsana - inquiring, searching in order to take examples of the lifestyles and virtues of venerable ones. assaddhi - Not liking to see, associate, venerate persons with high qualities and virtue. when cheated by this one's time 'expires' only and simply(uselessly) for the false 'viamamsana'. 38. upekkhavihara patirupataya kusalesu dhammesu nikkhittachandata vangceti kusalesu dhammesu nikkhittachandata - 'losing hope' in kusala kamma/kusalacchanda...the cheated can live without 'trying' for dhammastudy, bhavana..he thinks he's developing upekkha. **** S: Plenty of food for wise reflection....or for cheating dhammas, taking the unwise reflection for wise reflection? Metta.....or fake metta, as James might suggest? Sarah ====== #112436 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Chittapala, Good to see you here and thanks for writing to Ionut with your recommendations. Are you still living in Queensland? If you have time, do introduce yourself a little. Look forward to more contact later. Metta Sarah --- On Sat, 11/12/10, Chittapala wrote: Hello Ionut, I recommend these useful Dhamma study resources: <.... #112437 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Yes, I remember we talked about this before. Unfortunately, for me, there is a need to think about whether one says "awareness of charateristics of realities" one is actually talking about awareness of a nimitta. > > Actually, I remember hearing Sayadaw U Silananda address this point, he said that the dhamma is actually not present, but there is a nimitta and it is enough to say the dhamma is still present although it has actually just fallen away. So he was basically agreeing with A.S and saying don't worry about it. ... S: And actually, they're both agreeing with what the commentaries say and of course those commentators were just agreeing with what the Buddha said - it's the present reality that is to be known, not the name. Metta Sarah ===== #112438 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New to Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Ionut, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ionutkrech" wrote: > > Thank you for your kind words. > As I start writing this answer, I'm thinking that the only thing that seems real since I can remember is the sense of being, I feel the same as I felt when I was 15, 21, 28, all the other things in my life have changed in this time except this feeling! ... S: Can you tell us what "The sense of being" is? Is it something seen, something heard, something smelt, something tasted, something experienced through the bodysense, or something thought about? ... > Right now I’m trying to get my bearings since I had some spiritual experiences back in those years when I’ve practiced Yoga and I’ve found out that there is some kind of meditation called Vipassana (insight meditation). I need to learn how to meditate in this manner because I’m a practical men, it’s not enough for me to read and study. I have to apply what I learn. ... S: Do you think there can be meditation at this very moment as we reflect on the Dhamma or on what "the sense of being" is now? Can there be any other moment for meditation? Metta Sarah p.s Pls would you kindly make it clear who you are addressing and also, pls sign off with "Ionut" or "Johnny" - whichever you'd prefer we use. ======= #112439 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Calm, no 4. sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > S: While I agree that for the attainment of jhana, naturally the lifestyle > > will be very different. > > > > However, I think that we should stress that in the beginning, the > > development of samatha can occur now in our daily lives and that the > > important factor is pa~n~naa, not a change of lifestyle. > > > > Even as we read or go about our household chores there may be conditions > > for metta to develop, for there to be wise reflection on death, breath or > > any other object depending on accumulations. It depends on pa~n~naa > > understanding the cittas, understanding moments of kusala and akusala, not > > on any wishing to develop samatha, of course. > > > > >H: You appear to be saying that "wandering on" is a condition for its ending. > If I have that right, I'd have to say that is a very silly to suggest :-) > Nowhere does the Buddha teach anyone to just keep doing whatever they've > always done. .... S: No, you have that wrong and I agree it would be silly - no need for a Buddha for that. The only condition for ending the "wandering on" is the development of insight into present realities, having heard,carefully considered and understood what those present realities are. The Buddha taught us to develop such insight at the present moment, regardless of the conventional circumstances we might find ourselves in? Is there ever a choice at this moment for the seeing or hearing to be other than that which has been conditioned already? Metta Sarah ======== #112440 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > I've heard that the the commentary to Bahiya sutta states that Bahiya in his former lives and his fellow meditator monks climbed on a steep mountain and threw away the ladder. They meditated till death. Some of them became awakened to different degrees. And Bahiya benefited quite well as in his future life he Awakened so quickly. .... S: I gave the example of those meditators with dengue fever who thought they should continue to sit in silence and thought that after all your "escaping the fire" and not "driving into the tree" comments, that you'd be the first to appreciate it. Instead, you come back with this example. OK, who were they and who are we? If we climb onto a steep mountain, without food or drink, and throw away the ladder, mediatating till death, would we become enlightened? As for Bahiya, conditions are very complex. He'd studied the teachings in innumerable lifetimes, but because of the "cheating dhammas" thought he was already enlightened before he met the Buddha. If he hadn't met the Buddha, who knows whether he'd have ever become enlightened? ... > Somewhere in Ptsm (and maybe the suttas?) I did read that one should keep the virtue even if it costs one's life. Perfected virtue is when nothing whatsoever can make one to break the precept... I wish I had that... ... S: Only the sotapanna, not even a bodhisatta, keeps perfect virtue. No use in wishing, just develop more understanding at this moment! Metta Sarah ======== #112441 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, I like this sutta too. Thx for sharing! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: One of my favourite suttas is in Anguttara Nikaya, AN IV 62. > "These, householders are the four kinds of happiness that a layperson who enjoys sensual pleasures may achieve, depending on time and occasion." And they are 1) the happiness of possession ("here a family man possesses wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by the strength of his arms, earned by the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained" 2) THe happiness of enjoyment. "Here with the wealth acquired by energetic striving etc, a familyenjoys his wealth and does meritous deeds. WHen he he thinks, 'With the wealth acquired by energetic striving etc, I enjoy my wealth and do meritorious deeds', he experiences happiness and joy. This is called the happiness of enjoyment. 3) The happiness of debtlessness. "WHen he thinks 'I am not indebted to anyone to any degree whether great or small', he experiences hapiness and joy, this is called the happiness of debtlessness. 4) The happiness of blamelessness. "When he thinks 'I am endowed with blameless conduct of deed, word and thought' he experiences happiness and joy. This is called the happiness of blamelessness." > > THere follows a verse: > > Having known the bliss of debtlessness > And further, the bliss of possession, > Enjoying the bliss of enjoyment, > A mortal then sees with wisdom. > While seeing with wisdom the wise one knows > Both shares of his happiness. > THe other is not worth a sixteenth part > of the bliss that comes from blamelessness." .... Metta Sarah ======= #112442 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. ptaus1 Hi Herman, > > pt: It occurred to me that reminders about detachment should work the same > > way as reminders about sila. > H: I think that the re in remind makes it clear that one can only be reminded > about things already known. pt: I think I agree here, though it's possible we invest somewhat different meanings in the term "known". The way I understand it in a bit more detail: 1. there's no discernible beginning to samsara, so we all have wholesome and unwholesome tendencies (the term being asayaanusaya I think), which enable the arising of actual un/wholesome cittas and actions when conditions are there. So, this would mean we all have the capacity for sila (with or without panna), as well as panna itself, no matter how rudimentary or developed. 2. Every time unwholesome or wholesome cittas and actions arise, it is that very arising that strengthens/develops the tendencies. So the same applies to development of both sila and panna. And so, at this point it is possible to start wondering about determinism. E.g. if everything that's arising now is in essence conditioned by one's tendencies, which are in essence past actions, then you get a closed or deterministic system of sorts. However, 3. What makes this a non-deterministic system is the actual possibility of a reminder (about the value of sila and panna for example) coming from outside the system so to speak - i.e. someone else. And this reminder basically becomes possible with the arising of a Buddha. So, it's the teachings a Buddha that essentially open the system - through his teachings one is reminded (i.e. conditions are there) for developing sila and (particular to a Buddha's teaching) panna. And so, when these are developed to a certain degree, they bring about the cutting off of the fetters. So, no more samsara. Best wishes pt #112443 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. sarahprocter... HI Phil & Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I appreciate and agree with your comments. > > Of what value can it possibly be to be reminded about detachment by a fully > intent householder? > > It's like being reminded by a blind person to see! > > That is not a reminder, it is Ignorance > > Phil, you are spot on. The Buddha taught sila to the householder, not > abhidhamma. .... S: What about detachment rather than attachment now, very briefly, at a moment of kindness, at a moment of sharing, at a moment of wise consideration, at a moment of sila? Alobha (non-attachment) arises with every kusala citta. So for me, it's a reminder that there can be kusala at this very moment and at such moments there is detachment, there is calm from harming of any kind. Perhaps the ignorant or blind cannot see, but any reminders which help/encourage us to see, to understand a little more clearly, can be appreciated. Looking for blemishes in the messenger will not help us to see the message. ... > As long as the house needs vacuuming, there's not a hope in hell of moving beyond pleasure and pain. ... S: Well, our flat needs a lot of vacuuming after all the beach runs, but being concerned about others vacuuming needs won't get the job done:-) Anyway, shortly off for a vacuuming break, but I can assure you the dust is never far away and nor is the need for helpful reminders from anyone about understanding and detachment. Metta Sarah ======= #112444 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:51 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > All sorts of specific things cause various conditions and results. No reason why a psychophysical activity should not do so as well. Meditation as a chosen method for developing sati and samatha is given by Buddha - whether instruction or description he did not warn against it in any way, shape or form, and seemed to be in favor of it in all his talks. .... S: We need to consider those talks carefully. Quoting what I wrote in a previous message as a little short of time (for a change!): >Remember Meghiya, the Buddha's attendant who saw a secluded mango grove which he considered perfect for living and meditating alone and for making an effort on the Path in spite of the Buddha's discouragement. Once there, he was overwhelmed by thoughts of sense-desire, ill-will and cruelty. When he returned, the Buddha said" "When liberation of heart is not fully mature , Meghiya, five things conduce to full maturity." These five in brief are: 1. The good friend 2. Morality. "seeing fear in sins even the size of an atom" 3. Talk concerned with the Dhamma and development of wholesome states 4. the 4 Right Efforts 5. Insight leading to the destruction of dukkha. The sutta can be found here, but a lot more helpful detail is in the commentary: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.4.01.irel.html ..... Metta Sarah ====== #112445 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [7] sarahprocter... Hi Herman, #111634 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > This is an interesting discussion about being rich. Figurative and literal meanings are being intermixed freely. This has some questionable consequences. .... S: :-) ... > > K.Sujin: A person who is so sick, who cannot walk, but has a lot of money, > > is he rich? > > . > > Sarah: No. > > > >H: Sorry, I am going to disagree here :-). Having a lot more money than others is what being rich means. I would fully agree with you if you were to say that having a whole lot of money will do you any good on your death bed, but even there, if you have a whole lot of money you can afford the best palliative care possible. And the same goes for any who are just sick, or very sick. The reality is that the best health care is very expensive. Rich people can get better health care. Dirt poor people can't get any. .... S: Even conventionally, I think we can talk about someone leading a "rich life", meaning a fulfilling life. Regardless, we read that wisdom is the greatest treasure, the greatest wealth, so we both agree that it is not money that will ultimately make the difference on the death bed. Even in terms of vipaka, whether one has money or not, has the best palliative care or not, the pleasant/unpleasant bodily feelings are conditioned by past kamma. We never know when death will come, when akusala kamma will bring terrible painful feelings, regardless of the best health benefits. Ask Han! ... > > Jon: He could be in constant pain all the time. > > . > > K.Sujin: He cannot experience very pleasant [objects] like other people. ... >H: So, he calls his personal physician on his Blackberry with an unlimited > plan :-) The doc administers morphine, and pleasantness arises. ... S: Would be better to dial up some past kusala kamma and order some immediate kusala vipaka, I'd say:-) ... > > K.Sujin: Just the experience of pleasant and unpleasant sense objects. > > . > > Sukin: Why call it 'rich'? > > . > > K.Sujin: Who is rich in hell? > > . > > >H: What a very interesting non-sequitur :-) This doesn't follow from anything > that has been said. > > Sukin: Why bring the concept up? > > > > Exactly, Sukin. We agree! ... S: :-)) What about when we're angry? Aren't we in hell? Is there any pleasant feeling then, regardless of the great care and medicine our riches buy? ... > > K.Sujin: In hell, pleasant or unpleasant objects? So, who is rich? > > > > > Who is in hell? ... S: Certain cittas. Blackdog cittas for a start! Metta Sarah ======= #112446 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:14 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > I am glad that you have at last responded. I thought you have written me off:>) .... S: Please never taken it personally - when I'm travelling (most the time), I'm writing everyone off:>) Be sure, I still read and appreciate all your messages a lot. .... > [Han]: I know that such conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death will not lead me to magga and phala ~naa.nas. If I reflect wisely, the most I will get is samvega. But this will help me in avoiding an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts (as stated in the sutta), and that is good enough for me. .... S: Kusala is kusala and avoiding harm/hurt is important. There can also be awareness of dhammas in between any kinds of good or bad reflections, very unexpectedly and without any wishing. Contentment and acceptance of what is, is also a kind of detachment. .... > I know that if I can have the awareness for an instant of a reality such as thinking or seeing or hearing at this very moment (as you said), it will be excellent, but it is difficult for me. ... S: No use in any kind of trying. Understanding more about realities now, such as the wise reflection you gave on atta-ditthi, is the condition for insight. Even now, there can be awareness of thinking or seeing or wishing - just namas. .... > > At the end of the day, I will get what I deserve. So I am not too much worried. ... S: That's a good attitude. When we understand a little about kamma and vipaka we know this is true. Worry doesn't help anything. ... > [Han]: I am quite strong now, and I want to meet you and Jon. But my family is treating me like a baby. I will see if I can make it. Please e-mail to me which morning is convenient to you. ... S: Excellent. They may treat you like a baby, but I know you're the boss:-) Let's email off-list. Metta Sarah ====== #112447 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:23 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[d] epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > #111938 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" > > S: As has been explained, the monks were already at the roots of the trees and the Buddha was encouraging the development of samatha and satipatthana up to full enlightenment. He praised what was kusala. He didn't say that any Self should do anything. If there isn't patience to understand what is conditioned now, there will never be any development of either kind of bhavana! > > > >R: Though I think as you said further on that "any object" could be the subject of wise reflection and development of samatha, it still seems hard for me to think that samatha or any other factor will develop unless it gets to the point where the experience is repeated, extended, and thus accumulated in greater degree; so in a way, you are saying - in my interpretation - that the person who sat at the root of the tree to develop samatha of breath intensively had simply reached the point of conditions and accumulations where he would have that inclination full-time, and thus would naturally sit for long periods of time deepening the experience of samatha in a kusala way. > .... > S: Yes, you've put that rather well. > ... I appreciate your confirmation - if that is correct then it makes sense to me, and I think I understand how that would work a little bit better. > > > > This does not particularly line up with Buddha saying "*Go* to the root of a tree" > ... > S: I don't think he said that... > ... > >and to meditate intensely, or whatever he exactly said, but something to that effect. He seemed to be urging not just the development of the kusala qualities but also the conditioning activity - sitting and contemplating the breath. But leaving that aside, if it is true that the more prolonged sitting in anapanasati was a natural development that the Buddha then praised and encouraged, I would draw two conclusions, and wonder what you think of them: > > > > 1. If one were to develop the thought "I *should* go meditate more and develop the enlightenment factors through mindfulness of breathing," that would be akusala and involve self-view and the illusion of control. > ... > S: yes > ... > > > > 2. If one were to develop the natural inclination to go meditate and practice mindfulness of breathing, that would be kusala and would involve the conditions and accumulations that would naturally lead to this way of developing the path factors. So if it is not a desire, an intention that is aimed towards results, but a natural development, then one would be in the same situation as the monks whom Buddha encouraged. > ... > S: yes > ... > > > > I would say if the latter were the case then there would be no craving, no conflict, no worry about doing it well or often enough, but just that "when convenient" [as I think Jon put it...] he would naturally be inclined to sit down and engage in mindfulness of breathing. Just as one who likes carrots might be inclined to regularly grab one from the refrigerator. > > > > Would you agree with this distinction? > .... > S: yes > > You write well and I appreciate your efforts to really understand what I and others are saying. > > And now the question is whether you agree with the distinction too? Well, I will say that it makes sense to me, and I am more in accord with that way of looking at it than usual. :-) I think there's a happy meeting somewhere of bhavana as natural development and bhavana as focused training that is yet not precluded by self-view, but I understand that whatever is undertaken, it arises due to conditions and accumulations, and one can avoid taking credit for it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112448 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:26 am Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Hearing students of A.S talk about detachment from the beginning was one of the first key clues I received that it was time for me to get the heck out of the sphere of her influence. Detachment from the beginning is a kind of Dhammoxymoron. ... S: :-) If there isn't any understanding, any detachment for a moment now, how can it ever develop? A beginning now with wise consideration, just for a moment? Metta Sarah ======= #112449 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:29 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 5. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Khun Bong thought that there is not much difference between someone > who is sick and someone who is healthy, because for both there are > seeing, hearing etc., kusala citta, akusala citta. These can arise > for everyone. ... S: True. Ideas of sickness and health and all the other worldly conditions are just thoughts at this moment. Seeing, hearing, kusala, akusala, regardless. ... > > She realised that even when speaking about Dhamma there can be > akusala citta. She expressed her thanks to Acharn Sujin who had > enabled her to understand realities. She wrote: "When sati is > developed time and again there will not be the idea of self who has > dosa and painful feeling. I am firmly convinced that these are only > the dhammas of dosa and painful feeling." ... S: Great that she appreciated this and was able to share it in her diary. Metta Sarah ======= #112450 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Hi Herman, #111513 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > S: yes, regardless, namas and rupas arise and fall away. That's all....by > > conditions, like now! > > > >H: Who doubts it? So what are you doing / what is being done presently? ... S: if there's any doubt now, it's just a nama. No "who?":). Again, just namas peforming their functions as usual:) Metta Sarah ======== #112451 From: Herman Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" egberdina Hi Ken H, On 11 December 2010 08:36, Ken H wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman, > > ---------- > H: > People who follow select commentators of the original, rather than the > original, are sectarian, by nature and definition. > ----------- > > I see, and who are these people who supposedly follow commentators *rather > than* the original? I believe the ancient commentaries and the original are > the same. > > ----------------- > H: > This applies equally to supporters of Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Sunni, > Shiite, Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist etc etc. > ----------------- > > So? Who are the people who are following commentators *rather than* the > original? > > ------------------------- > H: > The Sutta Nipata, as an example of what I mean by original, is not > sectarian, > ------------------------- > > OK, now tell me who is following commentators of the Sutta Nipata *rather > than* the Sutta Nipata. > > Or have you just created a straw man so you could show us how you knock it > down? > > --------------------------- > H: > Ken, but you definitely are. Your lion's roar may as well be Go the > Broncos :-) > --------------------------- > > OK, show me how I am sectarian. Show me how my understanding is different > from the original teaching. Or show me how the commentaries are different > from the original teaching. > > This is from U Rewata Dhamma's and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Introduction to A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: "Bearing this in mind, we might briefly note a few of the Abhidhammic conceptions that are characteristic of the Commentaries but either unknown or recessive in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself. One is the detailed account of the cognitive process *(cittavithi).* While this conception seems to be tacitly recognized in the canonical books, it now comes to be drawn out for use as an explanatory tool in its own right. The functions of the *cittas,* the different types of consciousness, are specified, and in time the *cittas* themselves come to be designated by way of their functions. The term *khana,* "moment," replaces the canonical *samaya,* "occasion," as the basic unit for delimiting the occurrence of events, and the duration of a material phenomenon is determined to be seventeen moments of mental phenomena. The division of a moment into three sub-moments — arising, presence, and dissolution — also seems to be new to the Commentaries. The organization of material phenomena into groups *(kalapa),* though implied by the distinction between the primary elements of matter and derived matter, is first spelled out in the Commentaries, as is the specification of the heart-base * (hadayavatthu)* as the material basis for mind element and mind-consciousness element. The Commentaries introduce many (though not all) of the categories for classifying kamma, and work out the detailed correlations between kamma and its results. They also close off the total number of mental factors * (cetasika).* The phrase in the *Dhammasangani,* "or whatever other (unmentioned) conditionally arisen immaterial phenomena there are on that occasion," apparently envisages an open-ended universe of mental factors, which the Commentaries delimit by specifying the "or-whatever states" *(yevapanaka dhamma).* Again, the Commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" *(attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).* The task of defining specific dhammas is finally rounded off by the extensive employment of the fourfold defining device of characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause, a device derived from a pair of old exegetical texts, the * Petakopadesa* and the *Nettipakarana".* * * The Theras that you go weak at the knees for were just normal people like you and me Ken H. Ven Buddhagosa, for example, acknowledged that he had no attainments. Why, oh why then, Ken, do you prefer the interpretations of the Theras, who are perhaps most (in)famous for not knowing which were the training rules that the Buddha said could be dispensed with? *Cheers* * * *Herman* * * #112452 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Just starting out listening to the first audio file on the list - from 2007, and enjoying it very much. It's quite unique to be able to listen to K. Sujin speak so clearly about realities in the comfort of my livingroom. Hearing everyone talk and listen is more immediate than reading the transcripts. Quite enjoyable, and able to follow and consider things a bit easier as the flow of conversation comes across. Nice to hear everyone's voices as well. I think I may have identified Sukin in there - that was exciting. :-) ... S: I was so glad to read this. It would be the 2007 Kaeng Krajan meeting that you were listening to. We give the names at the start in order of appearance and I'm sure penpal Sukin would have been there:-) ... > > The discussion about nimita is very good. I am getting a sense of this, relating to it by comparing it to my own sense of perception. I look at a pillow, and then consider that I am really seeing an image of the pillow, not "it." So in a sense it seems that nimita is part of perception itself, given the way our minds work and the "photographic" way that our eyes and other senses register things. It's always a bit late when things are processed, so we are dealing with lingering images of everything, aren't we? ... S: Yes, lots of lingering "images" and "impressions" of what has been seen, touched and so on. ... > > The way that K. Sujin speaks - now talking about the nature of sound - very gentle and taking her time to explain things, I think it is a very nice teaching style. > > It happens that this tape discusses another of my favorite topics as well, the nature of sati, and K. Sujin explains it very simply as 'being aware' of what is there, pretty much the way I think of it. She explains that if one is aware of hardness with sati, the hardness is exactly the same - no difference at all. The difference is that one is aware of the hardness, which is beyond simply experiencing it without awareness. ... S: Another great summary in your own words. Yes, the experiences, the realities don't change. It's just sati can begin to be aware of what is there already, but which we're usually blind to. Do hope you continue listening and giving your summaries. > > There was an exchange on dsg today or yesterday on this subject, and the idea that one is just aware of the experience of the moment, and that is sati, that is a good confirmation. As I understand K. Sujin on the tape, there are degrees of sati, and one can be a bit more aware than usual of what is happening, or increasingly more aware, and I think the implication is that sati can develop to a stronger degree, that is my impression. ... S: As we've discussed, sati arises with all wholesome moments of consciousness. If we are talking about sati of satipatthana, then it has to be aware of a reality, a nama or a rupa, rather than "what is happening" in a conventional sense. Keep posing any notes of anymore you listen to! Metta Sarah ======= #112453 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:19 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> RE: > When were those commentaries written? --------- I think around the time of the First Council. Have a look in the Useful Posts file for details. ------------------------- <. . .> RE: > I don't necessarily see the Dhamma in general different from the commentators, and I don't think the commentators necessarily represent the only Theravadin view, -------------------------- There is only one Theravadin view. ------------- RE: > especially when it contradicts the suttas themselves. ------------- Which is never. They contradict uninformed interpretations of the suttas. ------------------ RE: > If there is not a deeper explanation, other than chosen dogma, for why the words of a sutta are interpreted to mean something completely different than what they say, then it is difficult to know what basis to accept them on. ------------------ There is a sutta in which the Buddha tells monks they must kill their parents and assassinate the king. No explanation is given. One would hope the Buddha was speaking metaphorically, but it is only in the commentaries that we are actually assured he was - and given explanations of the metaphors. -------------------------- <. . .> RE: >>> Buddha is straightforwardly talking about right effort as neither asserting volition, nor being completely passive, just as he says, but to move forward in accord with conditions. >>> KH: >> That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Although I don't know how you see it as "straightforward." It sounds like double talk to me. >> RE: > Literally, not moving forward and not striving and not standing still = not putting forth effort and not doing nothing. That's not double-talk, it's just what the Buddha is saying. You really object to that? It's not a far-reaching extrapolation to say that not standing still is not doing nothing, or not being completely passive. Isn't that what that means prior to any metaphysical interpretations? Doesn't 'not striving' mean 'not putting forth effort' literally? Where's the double-talk? --------------------------- I still can't see what you are trying to tell me. But never mind, the point is that the sutta was meant to be a paradox. The audience was expected to be puzzled as to how anyone could possibly be neither striving nor standing still. The commentaries explain that the audience was a particularly radiant deva who needed to lose some conceit before she could understand the Dhamma. ---------------- RE: > This story reminds me of an old Hasidic tale, though not as old as the suttas. The Baal Shem Tov told this story. Tell me what you think of it as a metaphor: "One day there was a man driving a carriage with three horses, a bay, a piebald and a white horse, and not one of the horses could neigh. A passing stranger said 'slacken the reins!' and when he did, all three horses began to neigh." I'm sure the three horses have some esoteric meaning, but on the face of it, it means that the man is pulling on the horses too tightly, ie, putting forth too much controlling effort. ----------------- The metaphor is OK, but the message is not profound. Anyone can teach moderation. However, only a Buddha can teach us that moderation is not something practiced by living beings but is actually something that happens in a single moment of conditioned reality. Now that's profound! ------------------------ <. . .> KH: >> Most Buddhists think the Dhamma is about getting somewhere or attaining something. It's actually about understanding the present reality. >> RE: > Yes, sir! Let's not get off track and talk about the details of the teaching. Let's just repeat the approved mantra. ------------------------- There is no point in talking about details until we know what they are for. They are for understanding the present-moment reality. Ken H #112454 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:57 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Herman, ---------- <. . .> The Theras that you go weak at the knees for were just normal people like you and me Ken H. ----------- Nonsense! They were arahants. -------------------- H: > Ven Buddhagosa, for example, acknowledged that he had no attainments. ------------------- No he didn't. At the end of the Visuddhimagga a scribe wrote a dedication which some people mistakenly attribute to Buddhagosa. ------------------------- H: > Why, oh why then, Ken, do you prefer the interpretations of the Theras, who are perhaps most (in)famous for not knowing which were the training rules that the Buddha said could be dispensed with? -------------------------- They weren't infamous for that at all! You might as well say the Buddha was infamous for not spelling it out to them. If you knew your suttas you would know there were some that needed further explanation, and there were some that didn't: "These two mis­rep­re­sent the Tatha­gata… one who shows a sutta whose meaning requires fur­ther explanation as not requiring further explanation; and one who shows a sutta whose mean­ing does not require further explanation as requiring further expla­na­tion." AN 2.3 So there had to be commentaries, didn't there? Ken H #112455 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Sarah I'm glad you like this sutta too. Perhaps your appreciation will help Ken H and Azita (both of whom recently disparaged a conventional appreciation of suttas, Ken H by saying it is not Dhamma, and Azita by throwing it together with a Koran verse) appreciate that even when the Buddha teaches something that sounds like common sense that could be taught by any wise person, it is still Dhamma, because it is part of the teaching that sets conditions for liberation. But I have a feeling you will come back and say no, the only reason this is Dhamma, is because it is about the ...um...present something or other, what the heck was it...... ;) Metta, Phil p.s thanks for the other posts too. No comment at this time. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Phil & all, > > I like this sutta too. Thx for sharing! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Ph: One of my favourite suttas is in Anguttara Nikaya, AN IV 62. > > "These, householders are the four kinds of happiness that a layperson who enjoys sensual pleasures may achieve, depending on time and occasion." #112456 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Herman > > Well, I don't know, none of my business! My business is here and now, > > dealing with a massive shitload of greed, hatred and delusion, heavy > > shifting work! > > > > Exactly right. And I wish you every success! > > Thank you Herman! The "cheering on" function of Dhamma friends is not appreciated enough here, I feel. Wishing for success!?!?! Herman aren't you aware of how much attachment must be involved in that wish, how much self is slithering through every single syllable???? Metta, Phil #112457 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Sat, 11/12/10, philip wrote: >I'm glad you like this sutta too. ... S: Yes, for me, the emphasis is on how other kinds of happiness cannot compare with the bliss of blamenessness which comes through the development of panna. You've been discussing the gradual talks. I like the reminders about the "severing of the trunk of the elephant". Having introduced the "sweet taste" and shown the way to a pleasant heavenly abiding, he severs "the trunk of the elephant he had just decorated" by showing the peril, the impermanence, the unsatisfactoriness of such heavenly abiding. He then teaches about insight. This is what I wrote/quoted before (#100804), which you may be interested to read if you didn't read it before. i'd like to hear any of your comments too: >S: In the Udaana commentary, Sona chapter, #3 "Leper", about Suppabuddha, there area lot of details on the progressive talk (aanupubbikatha.m), which we've already discussed and referred to. <...> ".....'Anyone capable of perceiving Dhamma (bhabbo dhamma.m vi~n~naatu.m)': anyone capable of attaining Dhamma in the form of the paths and their fruitions, meaning anyone endowed with the potential. 'This occurred (etad ahosi)': this occurred, viz. 'Although this Suppabuddha has been born as such after committing an offence against the Paccekabuddha Tagarasikhi, his potential as regards the paths and their fruitions nonetheless flashes forth within his heart like a golden ring covered by dust; he can easily be made to perceive', for which reason 'This one is, in the present case, one capable of perceivig Dhamma' was said. " 'A progressive talk (aanupubbikatha.m)': a talk (that proceeds) successively such that (talk) on morality is immediately preceded by that on almsgiving, (talk) on heaven is immediately preceded by that on morality, (talk) on the path is immediately preceded by that on heaven; for the Lord, having in the first instance indicated a sweet taste (assaada.m) together with its root-cause, then makes manifest by various means the peril (therein), in order to separate beings therefrom, and then finally indicates, to those whose hearts have been shocked through hearing of that peril(aadiinavasavanena), the absence of the cycle, opening with an explanation of the virtues of renunciation." <.... >"...Moreover, he talked talk on heaven immediately preceded by that on morality in order to indicate that it is dependent upon such morality that that heaven is obtained. 'Talk on heaven (saggakatha.m)': talk associated with the virtues of heaven such as 'Heaven is a name for that which is desirable, for that which is pleasing, for that which is charming. Permanently here (there is) sporting, permanent the excellences obtained: the devas belonging to the realm of the Four Great Kings acquire heavenly happiness, heavenly excellence, for ninety hundred thousand years, those of the Thirty-three for three ko.tis of years plus sixty hundred thousand years (besides)' and so on, for the mouth fails to suffice when Buddhas talk on heavenly excellence. >"And this also is said: 'In countless ways, monks, could I talk talk on heaven' and so forth. Having thus enticed him with talk on heaven together with its root-cause, he next, as though severing the trunk of the elephant he had just decorated, talked of the peril, the degradation, the corruption of sense-desires after the manner of 'Of little sweet taste are sense-desires, of much dukkha, of much despair' more so is the peril herein' (M i 130) and so on with the aim of showing even such heaven to be impermanent, unstable, (and) that yearning and lust ought not to be exercised in that direction. Herein: >" 'The peril (aadiinava.m)': the blemish. 'The degradation (okaara.m)': that which is in its own nature despicable, meaning that which is, in its own nature, base is a thing to be pursued by those other than the best (of folk), not a thing to be pursued by the best (of folk). 'The corruption (sa"nkilesam)': the defiling within sa.msaara of beings by way of these, for which same reason 'Truly, sir, do beings become defiled' was said." >S: Having talked about the danger of sense-desires, "severing the trunk of the elephant he had just decorated", the talk continues with the advantages of renunciation and when the listener was receptive, in this case Suppabuddha the leper, the teaching on the Four Noble Truths - 'Dukkha, uprising, cessation (and the) path'. >The texts refers to Suppabuddha's "swift completion of vipassanaa, his sharpness of isnsight, his ease of practice, and his rapid superknowledge." The simile of cleaning cloth is given and I like the following elaboration of it: >"(Suppabuddha's) heart is to be regarded as the cloth, his heart's being corrupted by the stains of lust and so on as the cloth's being defiled by adventitious stains, the progressive talk as the washboard, faith as the water, his initiation of energy with respect to the heart's cleansing via the faith-method and so on after first moistening it in the stream of faith and then loosening its blemishes by way of mindfulness, concentration and insight as the business of washing the cloth after first successively moistening it with water and then scouring the black specks with cow-dung or lye, suppression of the defilements by means of that initiation of energy as the departure of the black specks in the cloth by means of that business, the ariyan path as the colouring, (whilst) the thorough cleansing, by means of the path, of his heart, in which the defilements have been suppressed, as the shining bright state of the cloth that has been cleaned in that way."< ..... >S: I think that, just like now, people aspired to heavenly rebirths and in many cases, as this one, it was only after talking about the great results of daana and morality by way of such rebirths, that the trunk of the elephant could be severed and the insights into conditioned impermanent dhammaa realised. **** S: I also enjoy replying to your messages for some reason, Phil. However, no need to ever reply to any of mine or to agree on any of my comments. Metta Sarah p.s Any chance of a quick trip over to Bkk this week to meet some of us, including Han? ======= #112458 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Calm, no 4. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - In a message dated 12/11/2010 12:23:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > S: While I agree that for the attainment of jhana, naturally the lifestyle > > will be very different. > > > > However, I think that we should stress that in the beginning, the > > development of samatha can occur now in our daily lives and that the > > important factor is pa~n~naa, not a change of lifestyle. > > > > Even as we read or go about our household chores there may be conditions > > for metta to develop, for there to be wise reflection on death, breath or > > any other object depending on accumulations. It depends on pa~n~naa > > understanding the cittas, understanding moments of kusala and akusala, not > > on any wishing to develop samatha, of course. > > > > >H: You appear to be saying that "wandering on" is a condition for its ending. > If I have that right, I'd have to say that is a very silly to suggest :-) > Nowhere does the Buddha teach anyone to just keep doing whatever they've > always done. .... S: No, you have that wrong and I agree it would be silly - no need for a Buddha for that. The only condition for ending the "wandering on" is the development of insight into present realities, having heard,carefully considered and understood what those present realities are. ------------------------------------------------------ For sure we need to know the Buddha's teachings, most especially, IMO, his practice teachings, but it is important to realize that there is some danger attached to hearing, carefully considering, and "understanding" what present phenomena are said to be: That danger lies in preprogramming the mind so that what is observed accords with what has been (overly) studied. We tend to "see" what we expect to see if such expectation has been drilled into us. Even when the "facts" presented to us are really facts, the preprogramming may lead not to genuine insight but to a conditioned verification, a spurious interpreting, not unlike a devout Christian desert father, for example, slipping into a jhana and "seeing the Light of the Lord". Our seeing needs to be true seeing and not the result of inculcation. --------------------------------------------------------- The Buddha taught us to develop such insight at the present moment, regardless of the conventional circumstances we might find ourselves in? Is there ever a choice at this moment for the seeing or hearing to be other than that which has been conditioned already? ------------------------------------------------------------ And is willing and preparation not part of that conditioning, for good and for ill? ------------------------------------------------------------ Metta Sarah ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112459 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi Herman and Howard, Thanks for your explanations and the discussion so far. As I mentioned in a recent reply to KenH, I think the main difference we have at the moment is that the commentarial way of describing an instance of insight - a single dhamma (its characteristics) becoming an object of cittas with panna - is not considered a valid description of insight by you guys. So, now I'm trying to understand exactly what would be a valid description of insight according to you, but firstly to make sure that we're not talking about different things: I suspect that we might actually have a problem of comparing different stages of insight, what would account for apparent differences between us. (a) Howard's opinion that only nibbana classifies as a paramattha dhamma of sorts - i.e. something beyond formed (conditioned) things, comes in nicely in the commentarial framework at the moment of awakening - when nibbana becomes the object of cittas. So there is at least that in common. (b)But, commentaries also describe stages of insight development that happen before this moment of awakening, so up until then, insight relies on understanding conditioned dhammas (cittas, cetasikas and rupas) since panna is not yet of the strength to realize (? if that's the right word) nibbana. And yet, these are still stages of insight, necessary in order to get to the point when nibbana can be realized. So, I feel these are just as important. Finally, these stages of insight though are quite different from just thinking about things, i.e. here comes the distinction between dhammas and concepts being the object of cittas with panna - as long as a (conditioned) dhamma is not the object of panna, then it's not any of the stages of insight yet. (c) Further still, there are more advanced and there are less advanced stages of insight that come before awakening. So, in my understanding, on the advanced stages, the general characteristics and conditionality become more apparent - and this would seem to correspond somewhat to what Herman is describing in terms of conditionality and general characteristics (sankhara in his terminology). On the beginning stages of insight though, it's the individual charateristics which are getting to be known more prominently - i.e. the distinction between a nama and a rupa, etc. And this is the stage of insight that is most often spoken of here on dsg, because for beginners it's the closest thing we can speak of, everything else being a bit too advanced at the moment. Anyway, if we're in fact not talking about different stages of insight, and you both still maintain that the description of insight in the commentaries is not valid, then I'd like to ask you to present a description that seems valid to you. Also, for reference, this is where I'm at, so I'd be grateful if you can also point out how your understanding differs on these points: 1. When the Buddha says "feeling is anatta" - this refers to an instance of insight, and basically it's the same as when the commentaries say that individual characteristic of a single dhamma (feeling) and it's general charateristic (anatta) are understood by panna at the instance of insight. So, for example when Herman says that dhammas occur in the context of other dhammas, I have no problem with that in terms of the conditionality framework. But this doesn't seem to describe a direct experience of insight - I mean, are you saying for example that in an instance of insight there are more than one dhamma as objects of citta? And if this is so, how is that different from just thinking about these things? Similarly, when Howard says that paramattha dhammas are concepts, then what does an expression "feeling is anatta" really mean in practical terms? Maybe the Buddha is just encouraging thinking about feeling as anatta? I mean how would thinking about "feeling is anatta" differ from an instance of insight that's described as "feeling is anatta"? 2. I guess it's obvious by now that for me there has to be a difference between thinking and insight - i.e. concepts being objects of consciousness vs. a dhamma being the object. Otherwise, if concepts and paramattha dhammas were the same thing, then I could just think my way to enlightenment, no? But that doesn't seem to happen in practice, which would mean that's not exactly how things really are. Thanks. Best wishes pt #112460 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Herman) - I'll reply below but largely only with regard to the couple matters pertaining to me. In a message dated 12/11/2010 9:48:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Herman and Howard, Thanks for your explanations and the discussion so far. As I mentioned in a recent reply to KenH, I think the main difference we have at the moment is that the commentarial way of describing an instance of insight - a single dhamma (its characteristics) becoming an object of cittas with panna - is not considered a valid description of insight by you guys. ------------------------------------------------ I'm not a reader of the commentaries. The little that I've heard of them strikes me as a mixed bag, but my knowledge is secondhand and thus not worth much. ----------------------------------------------- So, now I'm trying to understand exactly what would be a valid description of insight according to you, but firstly to make sure that we're not talking about different things: I suspect that we might actually have a problem of comparing different stages of insight, what would account for apparent differences between us. (a) Howard's opinion that only nibbana classifies as a paramattha dhamma of sorts - i.e. something beyond formed (conditioned) things, comes in nicely in the commentarial framework at the moment of awakening - when nibbana becomes the object of cittas. So there is at least that in common. ---------------------------------------------------- I consider only nibbana to be a "reality," with all else a matter of convention. As for all the other "paramattha dhammas," I do understand why they are called such relative to things like trees and houses and people. They are varying basic qualities of experience and are the fundamental material and mental aspects of it. It is the perspective of viewing them as separate, atomistic "things" that I consider to be concept-only and even substantialist error if taken seriously in such a manner but "okay" as conventional phenomena. An individual hardness-rupa, for example, is not something I consider to be a reality, but certainly we do experience sensations which we consider to share the quality we call "hardness." Breaking up the stream of experience into conceived of (and, thus, perceived) self-existing fragments is a fundamental, construction activity of ignorance-conditioned sankhara, and it produces vi~n~nana, namely a separative/dualistic knowing, itself conceptually viewed by some as consisting of delineable consciousness fragments (cittas), these cittas observing the apparently-separate, reified object fragments. The prefix 'vi' in vi~n~nana means separative/fragmenting/splitting. The fundamental meaning of 'vi' in this context is "apart." It is similar to the English prefix of 'dis' as in 'dismember', 'dissipate', and 'distribute'. --------------------------------------------------- (b)But, commentaries also describe stages of insight development that happen before this moment of awakening, so up until then, insight relies on understanding conditioned dhammas (cittas, cetasikas and rupas) since panna is not yet of the strength to realize (? if that's the right word) nibbana. And yet, these are still stages of insight, necessary in order to get to the point when nibbana can be realized. So, I feel these are just as important. Finally, these stages of insight though are quite different from just thinking about things, i.e. here comes the distinction between dhammas and concepts being the object of cittas with panna - as long as a (conditioned) dhamma is not the object of panna, then it's not any of the stages of insight yet. (c) Further still, there are more advanced and there are less advanced stages of insight that come before awakening. So, in my understanding, on the advanced stages, the general characteristics and conditionality become more apparent - and this would seem to correspond somewhat to what Herman is describing in terms of conditionality and general characteristics (sankhara in his terminology). On the beginning stages of insight though, it's the individual charateristics which are getting to be known more prominently - i.e. the distinction between a nama and a rupa, etc. And this is the stage of insight that is most often spoken of here on dsg, because for beginners it's the closest thing we can speak of, everything else being a bit too advanced at the moment. Anyway, if we're in fact not talking about different stages of insight, and you both still maintain that the description of insight in the commentaries is not valid, then I'd like to ask you to present a description that seems valid to you. Also, for reference, this is where I'm at, so I'd be grateful if you can also point out how your understanding differs on these points: 1. When the Buddha says "feeling is anatta" - this refers to an instance of insight, and basically it's the same as when the commentaries say that individual characteristic of a single dhamma (feeling) and it's general charateristic (anatta) are understood by panna at the instance of insight. ------------------------------------------------- Understanding the truth of anatta comes from insight, but anatta itself is the fact, whether known or not, of phenomena being empty of own-being, being ungraspable in reality, being impersonal, and not being controllable by whim. -------------------------------------------------- So, for example when Herman says that dhammas occur in the context of other dhammas, I have no problem with that in terms of the conditionality framework. But this doesn't seem to describe a direct experience of insight - I mean, are you saying for example that in an instance of insight there are more than one dhamma as objects of citta? And if this is so, how is that different from just thinking about these things? Similarly, when Howard says that paramattha dhammas are concepts, then what does an expression "feeling is anatta" really mean in practical terms? ------------------------------------------------------ It means that no instance of feeling has own being, is graspable, is personal, or is controllable by whim. ----------------------------------------------------- Maybe the Buddha is just encouraging thinking about feeling as anatta? I mean how would thinking about "feeling is anatta" differ from an instance of insight that's described as "feeling is anatta"? ------------------------------------------------------- I don't follow you. A process of "thinking about" and wisdom are not one and the same. -------------------------------------------------------- 2. I guess it's obvious by now that for me there has to be a difference between thinking and insight - i.e. concepts being objects of consciousness vs. a dhamma being the object. --------------------------------------------------------- Insight includes awareness of the conventional nature of ordinary experience. ---------------------------------------------------------- Otherwise, if concepts and paramattha dhammas were the same thing, then I could just think my way to enlightenment, no? --------------------------------------------------------- No. ------------------------------------------------------ But that doesn't seem to happen in practice, which would mean that's not exactly how things really are. --------------------------------------------------------- Awakening is seeing through this world of concept and convention to the reality that is nibbana. ------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. Best wishes pt =================================== With metta, Howard Conditioned Paramattha Dhammas are Empty /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- No Reality in Samsara /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ and /He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Dreamlike Quality and False Equanimity of Sense-Door Multiplicity /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace./ (From the Potaliya Sutta) #112461 From: "ionutkrech" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:02 pm Subject: Re: New to Dhamma ionutkrech Sarah, first of all, sorry about not signing my posts. Second, about what you've said, I can't give a description or definition to that sense of being I just know that it is. "S: Do you think there can be meditation at this very moment as we reflect on the Dhamma or on what "the sense of being" is now? Can there be any other moment for meditation?" From this statement I can assume that we are in that state of being all the time but we forget about it, we forget about our natural state of being and confound our selves with the exterior world? Ionut --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: <...> > S: Can you tell us what "The sense of being" is? Is it something seen, something heard, something smelt, something tasted, something experienced through the bodysense, or something thought about? <...> #112462 From: "ionutkrech" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:14 pm Subject: Re: New to Dhamma ionutkrech Thank you Chittapala. I'll get right on it! Ionut --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chittapala" wrote: > > Hello Ionut, > I recommend these useful Dhamma study resources: > Texts http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/cpg1420/index.php?cat=3 > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/ > > Talkshttp://www.dhammatalks.org/ > http://www.dhammaloka.org.au/downloads/itemlist/category/19-dhamma-talks\ > .html > s.html> > Videos http://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA > > Buddhist centres in > Romaniahttp://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/country.php?country_id=80 > > I wish you well on your journey. <...> #112463 From: "Chittapala" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New to Dhamma chittapala Hi Sarah, Thank you for your kind words. I am still living on Magnetic Island off Townsville, but am in Sydney at present helping my mother move house to the Gold Coast. It seems the new Rich-Text Editor feature is not working properly. I used it to format my previous reply. The preview looked okay, but the resultant post looks very messy/reader unfriendly. Wishing you well in all ways, Chittapala. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Chittapala, > > Good to see you here and thanks for writing to Ionut with your recommendations. <...> #112464 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:52 pm Subject: Calm... bhikkhu5 Friends: Sweet is Verbal, Bodily & Mental Silence! The Blessed Buddha once said: Kayamunim vacamunim, manomunimanasavam, munim moneyyasampannam. Ahu ninhatapapakam. Silenced in body, silenced in speech, silenced in mind, without inner noise, blessed with silence is the sage! He is truly washed of all evil... Itivuttaka 3.67 Calm is his mind. Calm is his speech. Calm is his action. So is the tranquillity; So is the serenity; of one freed by the insight of right understanding... Dhammapada 96 Sambadhe vapi vindanti, dhammam nibbanapattiya ye satim paccalatthamsu samma te susamahita. Even when obstacles crowd in, the path to Nibbana can be won by those who establish mindfulness, and perfect focus & concentration. Samyutta Nikaya 1.88 <...> Have a nice calm & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112465 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:03 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > ---------- > H: > People who follow select commentators of the original, rather than the original, are sectarian, by nature and definition. > ----------- > > I see, and who are these people who supposedly follow commentators *rather than* the original? I believe the ancient commentaries and the original are the same. Hope you don't mind me jumping in. What does this mean, that they are the same? Do you grant the commentaries the same status as the Buddha's direct teachings? Surely, even an arahant does not have the wisdom or omniscience of a Buddha...? As for "rather than," I won't speak for Herman, but I think the implication is that you rely on the commentaries to grasp the meaning of the suttas and Abhidhamma, and if there is a seeming contradiction, you go with the interpretation of the commentaries...? Would that be fair to say, that you trust the commentaries to have the final word on what things mean? That is not to say they are wrong, but it would be a dividing line between those who take the Buddha's teachings literally, and use the commentaries to fill in gaps in understanding, and those who believe that the commentaries can explain meanings in the Buddha's words that do not seem to be there in the literal reading. There are other dividing lines that don't apply to you necessarily, that might apply to me or someone else. For instance, I take the Buddha literally when he talks about practice and teachings of Dhamma, but I don't accept certain things that seem to be artifacts of the historical time of the Buddha, such as discussions of Cloud Gods causing the bad weather. I don't believe in Cloud Gods, and it doesn't seem to be integral to the Buddha's teaching whether I do or not. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112466 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:07 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > Hm...I may look into this myself. I'd love to get a big fat translation of a major Abhidhamma book every year. Uh oh, I think "greed" is arising. :-) > > > > > Is "greed" = "pragmatism"? > > toodles, > colette > Maybe both... Robert E. = = = = = = = #112467 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Phil & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Ph: Yes, I remember we talked about this before. Unfortunately, for me, there is a need to think about whether one says "awareness of characteristics of realities" one is actually talking about awareness of a nimitta. > > > > Actually, I remember hearing Sayadaw U Silananda address this point, he said that the dhamma is actually not present, but there is a nimitta and it is enough to say the dhamma is still present although it has actually just fallen away. So he was basically agreeing with A.S and saying don't worry about it. > ... > S: And actually, they're both agreeing with what the commentaries say and of course those commentators were just agreeing with what the Buddha said - it's the present reality that is to be known, not the name. I may be confused, but it seems to me there may be more than the name at issue in this situation. If it is being said that it is equally okay to be aware of the nature of the dhamma through the nimitta, that seems to open a door for a kind of indirect discernment that can still allow you to see the nature of the dhamma as though it were direct discernment. It seems like the nimitta gives an accurate portrayal of the dhamma, as opposed to the concept which gives a kind of distorted silhouette of the dhamma. So the nimitta seems to be a kind of clearly-focused concept that can give citta the truth of the dhamma's nature, is this correct? If that is the case, then the nimitta, which does not appear and disappear at such a fast pace that only an arahant can see it, gives the ordinary, well-developed person a way to apprehend the nature of dhammas - a pretty exciting development as opposed to waiting all the way to enlightenment. If that is the case, the difference between the clear nimitta and the deluded concept would be worth knowing about. I also wonder how the nimitta is apprehended by the mind of the worldling. It must be that it lasts for a long enough time for it to be understood, so how does that work? Does it last as long as a regular concept, where we can think and talk about it for as long as necessary to understand it? And how does it arise, and under what conditions? Sorry for all the questions... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112468 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: New to Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Chittapala & Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chittapala" wrote: > Thank you for your kind words. I am still living on Magnetic Island off Townsville, but am in Sydney at present helping my mother move house to the Gold Coast. .... S: What a pity we've only just realised. We're also in Sydney (Manly), but leaving tomorrow for Bangkok via Hong Kong. Next time you're in Sydney, let us know in case we can arrange something, perhaps with Azita too, Vince if he's back. Pt also lives in Sydney and we like any excuse to encourage him to come over! (For others, we've known Chittapala since the 70s when he was a bhikkhu in Thailand and Sri Lanka). > > It seems the new Rich-Text Editor feature is not working properly. I used it to format my previous reply. The preview looked okay, but the resultant post looks very messy/reader unfriendly. ... S: It looks fine to me, but perhaps Pt (who helps us with tech issues) can take a look at the problem and contact you off-list if need be. Again, great to hear from you and hope you'll chip in on anything of interest or add any further helpful references. Metta Sarah ======== #112469 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:28 am Subject: Re: what is panna sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > So if panna is not a matter of "reading a pile of books", or "getting a PhD from accredited Buddhist University of Abhidhamma", then what is it? ... S: Understanding, directly knowing the presently appearing dhamma (in the case of satipatthana). .... > > Actually putting wisdom to action? ... S: Wisdom performs its own function without anyone or any thing putting it "to action". ... >Being aware of mental qualities that are present and wiping out akusala qualities. Now that would be wisdom in my definition. Doing the right thing even if it is very tough to do. ... S: Sati is aware, panna understands. It doesn't just understand mental qualities, but physical "qualities" too. At the moment it arises, the citta is kusala, so there's no question of akusala qualities arising. However, the latent tendencies for these akusala qualities are only "wiped out" at stages of enlightenment. As for "doing the right thing....", again it's a question of kusala cittas arising by conditions. At such times, there's nothing "tough". They are light and calm. I know what you mean, however. The path is very difficult, very subtle. Metta Sarah ======= #112470 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Rob, #111876 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > At present I guess, that is just a difference in philosophy. I am interested in understanding conditionality and the way in which past kamma and present conditions combine to support one or another experience, but I cannot accept a situation in which such combinations and the arising of such are arbitrary and not accumulated in a fashion that someone can understand. .... S: There is nothing arbitrary about the way in which conditions work or the way in which present dhammas are conditioned to arise. We need to distinguish between those dhammas primarily conditioned by past kamma, such as seeing or hearing, and those dhammas which accumulate, even now as we speak. Examples of these are the kusala and akusala cittas and cetasikas. So we can say that attachment or aversion or wisdom accumulate, but we cannot say that the sense experiences, vipaka cittas, accumulate. .... >It seems that a lot of the conditionality discussed regards past conditions of like kind, eg, that present kusala is the kammic result of past kusala. ... S: Not qute. Present kusala is *not* the kammic result of past kusala at all. Present kusala arises because kusala has been accumulated in the past. The main condition for it's arising is natural decisive support condition. In this way, we can see the distinction between results of kamma which have been conditioned by past kamma, such as the sense experiences, sometimes called "passive" and the "active" responses, the kusala or akusala that accumulates on account of/in reaction to these experiences. ... >The question of how kusala is created now to become the past condition for future kusala is not discussed, it seems to me. .... S: Simply, lobha now will lead to more lobha in future. On and on and on, unless eradicated. ... > Somehow the conditionality is always in the past, never being formed up in the present. ... S: Not so - see above. ... >But of course kamma exists now as well, not just in the past - it is being created by current action, not just by past action. So how is kamma formed now? ... S: Kamma is actually cetana (intention) cetasika. When it arises in the javana processes, the kamma also accumulates. When it is strong enough, it conditions particular deeds, speech and mental activity which may bring results in future. ... >Current kamma cannot merely be the continuation of past kamma, it is a recurrent process. To say that none of the systematic things that we do create conditions does not make sense to me. .... S: We just have to be preciise about what is meant by "systematic things". For example, if someone kills an insect, the kamma involved (which is likely to bring its result) is actually the particular intention at such a time, which conditioned the rupas. ... >To say that what does create conditions for awakening are not only uncontrollable, but also arbitrary and not understandable or sensible, does also not make sense to me. ... S: No one has said this. ... >Just because we have a conceptual understanding of why sitting and following breath may condition samatha, as the Buddha explicitly taught, does not mean that on the level of dhammas this is not the case, even though we are not in control of it. .... S: It is the understanding at such a time, not just sitting and following of breath, that conditions samatha. ... >The way I understand it, what we do creates kamma, so the activities we do and how we do them creates the conditions that cause skill, sati, samatha, enlightenment factors to arise or not to arise, even though in truth this is happening on the level of dhammas and is not being controlled. When someone sits down to read sutta or commentary, or sits down to meditate on the breath, they are doing this because of conditions, not because of will, and so there is no self involved. The thought "there is self" is itself wrong thinking, because the activities are also conditionally based. Even though there are only namas and rupas and these need to be discerned, the namas and rupas associated with those activities will still have their effects. > > I guess this is a different way of seeing "non control and non self," but I don't think it is promoting self-view. I just don't see accumulations as forming in a vaccuum, or the factors that lead to enlightenment hitting like lightning out of the blue because of accumulations that had no reason to form in the first place. There are reasons why the path factors arise and develop or fail to arise and develop and those reasons are embedded in the way that we think and live. ... S: I agree with this last sentence and there's been no suggestion of "lightning" enlightenment. Even when we read of someone having been enlightened seemingly like "lightning out of the blue", when we read the texts carefully, we find this is never the case. The necessary qualities have always been accumulated for aeons. For the Buddha and his key disciples, the kalpas and aeons in which the enlightenment factors have been accumulated are pretty well uncountable for us. This was due to the degree of wisdom and perfections necessary. Not sure now whether we're agreeing or disagreeing, but always enjoyable to discuss Dhamma with you! Metta Sarah ========= #112471 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:26 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- <. . .> KH: >> who are these people who supposedly follow commentators *rather than* the original? I believe the ancient commentaries and the original are the same. >> RE: > Hope you don't mind me jumping in. ---------- Be my guest; it's a wet Sunday morning and I am glad of the company. ----------------- RE: > What does this mean, that they are the same? ----------------- They are the same teaching. ---------------------- RE: > Do you grant the commentaries the same status as the Buddha's direct teachings? ---------------------- No, but beginners like me find the commentaries easier to understand. --------------------------- RE: > Surely, even an arahant does not have the wisdom or omniscience of a Buddha...? --------------------------- Even while the Buddha was alive, his arahant disciples taught the Dhamma. Some of Sariputta's and Ananda's (and others) discourses are in the Tipitaka. There are records of where the Buddha has said a particular monk or nun had explained a point of Dhamma exactly the way he would have explained it. ----------------------- RE: > As for "rather than," I won't speak for Herman, but I think the implication is that you rely on the commentaries to grasp the meaning of the suttas and Abhidhamma, and if there is a seeming contradiction, you go with the interpretation of the commentaries...? ------------------------ Years ago, a DSG member tried to convince us that anatta did not mean no self. As proof, he gave us a string of quotes where the Buddha had referred to 'myself' 'yourself' 'men' 'women' 'I' 'you' 'he' 'she' and so on. Is that what you mean by 'the literal meaning' of the suttas? ------------------------------- RE: > Would that be fair to say, that you trust the commentaries to have the final word on what things mean? ------------------------------- Yes, of course! It's all the same teaching. ----------------------- RE: > That is not to say they are wrong, but it would be a dividing line between those who take the Buddha's teachings literally, and use the commentaries to fill in gaps in understanding, and those who believe that the commentaries can explain meanings in the Buddha's words that do not seem to be there in the literal reading. ------------------------ Yes, we see that sort of thing quite often; people have their own interpretations of the Dhamma and accordingly accept some Pali texts and reject others. Obviously there is something very wrong, but there is no way of telling them. ------------------------ RE: > There are other dividing lines that don't apply to you necessarily, that might apply to me or someone else. For instance, I take the Buddha literally when he talks about practice and teachings of Dhamma, ------------------------ So, for example, when he refers to a "monk" who is practising satipatthana, you take that to mean a sentient being? ------------------------------ RE: > but I don't accept certain things that seem to be artifacts of the historical time of the Buddha, such as discussions of Cloud Gods causing the bad weather. I don't believe in Cloud Gods, ------------------------------ Well, I don't believe *any* sentient being is an absolute reality. Therefore, the difference between men and gods is of no significance to me. ----------------------------------- RE: > and it doesn't seem to be integral to the Buddha's teaching whether I do or not. ----------------------------------- The only things that are integral to the Buddha's teaching are paramattha dhammas. Ken H #112472 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:06 am Subject: Re: what is panna truth_aerator Hello Sarah, Thank you for your reply to this and other posts. With metta, Alex #112473 From: Herman Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wisdom, Ignorance - Is there intermediate stage? egberdina Hi Alex, On 11 December 2010 01:31, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Dear All, > > An interesting question. Is there a middle step between ignorance and > wisdom, or is it always either/or? > > Ex: if one didn't acted with wisdom, does it mean that one acted with > ignorance (and nothing else)? > > If one did't acted with ignorance, does it mean that one acted with Wisdom > (and nothing else)? > > My take on this is that ignorance in general doesn't mean anything much, just like wisdom in general. Ignorance is ignorance of something specific. One can be ignorant of something, and be not ignorant of other things at the same time. Cheers Herman #112474 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. I'll address below only the points where I think we differ or where I don't understand your points, since on all else I think I agree. > Howard: It is the perspective of viewing them as > separate, atomistic "things" that I consider to be concept-only and even > substantialist error if taken seriously in such a manner but "okay" as > conventional phenomena. pt: If I understand you right, by "conventional phenomena" you mean conditioned phenomena? And, conditioned phenomena are still different from concepts, right? > Howard: Breaking up the stream of experience into conceived of (and, thus, > perceived) self-existing fragments is a fundamental, construction activity of > ignorance-conditioned sankhara, and it produces vi~n~nana, namely a > separative/dualistic knowing, pt: Hm, I agree that prior to awakening (and the experience of the unconditioned nibbana) all experiences will necessarily have to do with conditioned phenomena, which probably can be described as "construction activity of ignorance-conditioned sankhara, and it produces vi~n~nana, namely a separative/dualistic knowing". However, then I ask you, how are insight and understanding supposed to progress towards nibbana, since we cannot jump straight to nibbana? Surely, it must be first by understanding of the conditioned phenomena, even though it is all still conditioned? Or is there some other way? > Howard: itself conceptually viewed by some as consisting of > delineable consciousness fragments (cittas), these cittas observing the > apparently-separate, reified object fragments. pt: That's the thing though - when commentaries say that a single dhamma is the object of cittas with panna which knows its characteristics - I take it that is the description of an actual instance of insight taking place (on stages before awakening). So, if it is insight, then they are not talking about reifying, conceptual views, etc. Now, I take it you are basically saying - no, that's not insight yet, that's just reifying, etc. So, then I'm still trying to get a detailed description of an instance of insight as it happens according to you. > > pt: Similarly, when Howard says that paramattha dhammas are concepts, then > > what does an expression "feeling is anatta" really mean in practical terms? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: It means that no instance of feeling has own being, is graspable, is > personal, or is controllable by whim. pt: Okay, but when you say feeling - then I assume there's understanding that it's the feeling that's being experienced, right? Not anger, not metta, but feeling. And when you say that it has no own being, isn't graspable, etc, then I assume that there's understanding of anatta. So, in essence you are then saying the same thing that the commentaries are saying - there's the experience of the individual characteristic of a single dhamma (feeling - so not anger, nor metta, but feeling) and the understanding of its general characteristic of anatta. > > pt: Maybe the Buddha is just encouraging thinking about feeling as anatta? I > > mean how would thinking about "feeling is anatta" differ from an instance of > > insight that's described as "feeling is anatta"? > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: I don't follow you. A process of "thinking about" and wisdom are not > one and the same. pt: That's the bit that really interests me - how would you actually define the difference between the two? Thanks. Best wishes pt #112475 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:24 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi RobE, Re 112232 > RobE: I'm going to stick to my guns on this one a bit, as I think the important point is that a single-moment view of kusala can lead to a disempowerment of a kusala process that necessarily includes the arising of defilements and disturbances as part of the process. While it may be important to recognize when an arising experience is wholesome or not, it is equally important to acknowledge that the process itself involves "working through" defilements and not just avoiding them. I think the single-moment kusala/akusala divide can very easily dismiss the organic nature of this process of development. pt: No problems, I think we're just emphasizing different aspects of the "process". A certain aspect will seem quite important on a certain stage of the path. For me, it's the distinction between a/kusala that seems very important now, so as to actually be able to tell what's that path and what's not. > RobE: In fact, the most valuable kusala result may come from the biggest arising of akusala, and working it through, undoing the knots as it were. pt: Sure, I think Nina, Sarah and others often refer to this when they explain that akusala is just that - just another reality that has to be understood for what it is when it arises - conditioned and anatta. > RobE: The idea that only the kusala moments are worthwhile and that kusala is based on past kusala, rather than dealing with akusala, appears to be a very rigid and polarizing view. It does not do justice to the connected and organic nature of development, in which kusala and akusala moments may both play their part. pt: Well, I think that's a bit of a strawman. I was being technical and precise, while you're being general and holistic. I think both description can be utilised to show different aspects of the "process". > RobE: I realize you partially acknowledge this when you acknowledge the kusala view of akusala as part of bhavana, but I think it's more intertwined than even that, and separating the moments out and judging them separately seems artificial to me. pt: I'd say that the distinction has its purpose - to help the understanding to differentiate between the two - e.g. know what's an instance with mindfulness and what's an instances without it, which then extends to knowing what's the path and what's not, etc. Sure, it can then be said that both the instance with and without mindfulness is important so that there can be the actual differentiation, but that's more of a post facto explanation I feel. Anyway, I think this is becoming just a discussion about semantics, since I think we agree on most that's actually important. Best wishes pt #112476 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, pt - In a message dated 12/11/2010 10:40:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. I'll address below only the points where I think we differ or where I don't understand your points, since on all else I think I agree. > Howard: It is the perspective of viewing them as > separate, atomistic "things" that I consider to be concept-only and even > substantialist error if taken seriously in such a manner but "okay" as > conventional phenomena. pt: If I understand you right, by "conventional phenomena" you mean conditioned phenomena? And, conditioned phenomena are still different from concepts, right? --------------------------------------------- By a conventional phenomenon, I mean something merely spoken of as a separate, delineable entity. On the macroscopic level, a rainbow is a perfect example. 'Conventional' and 'conceptual' are largely the same as I use the terms. -------------------------------------------- > Howard: Breaking up the stream of experience into conceived of (and, thus, > perceived) self-existing fragments is a fundamental, construction activity of > ignorance-conditioned sankhara, and it produces vi~n~nana, namely a > separative/dualistic knowing, pt: Hm, I agree that prior to awakening (and the experience of the unconditioned nibbana) all experiences will necessarily have to do with conditioned phenomena, which probably can be described as "construction activity of ignorance-conditioned sankhara, and it produces vi~n~nana, namely a separative/dualistic knowing". However, then I ask you, how are insight and understanding supposed to progress towards nibbana, since we cannot jump straight to nibbana? ------------------------------------------------ Insights weaken the defilements, ultimately leading to realization of nibbana, which uproots them - in stages, of course. ----------------------------------------------- Surely, it must be first by understanding of the conditioned phenomena, even though it is all still conditioned? Or is there some other way? ----------------------------------------------- Clearer and clearer observing together with calming the mind by sila and samadhi, lead to direct understanding of the nature of conditioned phenomena, then to disenchantment, and then to relinquishment. --------------------------------------------- > Howard: itself conceptually viewed by some as consisting of > delineable consciousness fragments (cittas), these cittas observing the > apparently-separate, reified object fragments. pt: That's the thing though - when commentaries say that a single dhamma is the object of cittas with panna which knows its characteristics - I take it that is the description of an actual instance of insight taking place (on stages before awakening). So, if it is insight, then they are not talking about reifying, conceptual views, etc. Now, I take it you are basically saying - no, that's not insight yet, that's just reifying, etc. So, then I'm still trying to get a detailed description of an instance of insight as it happens according to you. --------------------------------------------------------- Whatever is being known at any time is referred to as the object of consciousness, whether wisdom is operative or not. ------------------------------------------------------ > > pt: Similarly, when Howard says that paramattha dhammas are concepts, then > > what does an expression "feeling is anatta" really mean in practical terms? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: It means that no instance of feeling has own being, is graspable, is > personal, or is controllable by whim. pt: Okay, but when you say feeling - then I assume there's understanding that it's the feeling that's being experienced, right? Not anger, not metta, but feeling. --------------------------------------------------------------- H: Of course, just as rainbows aren't frogs at the macroscopic level. Elements of experience do not all have the same quality. ------------------------------------------------------------- And when you say that it has no own being, isn't graspable, etc, then I assume that there's understanding of anatta. ----------------------------------------------------------- H: By whom? I don't follow you. I was indicating what I mean by "Feeling is anatta". --------------------------------------------------------- So, in essence you are then saying the same thing that the commentaries are saying - there's the experience of the individual characteristic of a single dhamma (feeling - so not anger, nor metta, but feeling) and the understanding of its general characteristic of anatta. --------------------------------------------------------- H: Experience varies in quality/flavor, for sure, and we apply the same verbal tag to what we consider to be similar in type. Of course we distinguish quality of experience. An analogy: A river has deeps and shallows, calm areas and rapids, straight runs and whirlpools and falls, but these are seamlessly interconnected and are all just river. ------------------------------------------------------- > > pt: Maybe the Buddha is just encouraging thinking about feeling as anatta? I > > mean how would thinking about "feeling is anatta" differ from an instance of > > insight that's described as "feeling is anatta"? > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: I don't follow you. A process of "thinking about" and wisdom are not > one and the same. pt: That's the bit that really interests me - how would you actually define the difference between the two? --------------------------------------------------------- I'll have to wait until some wisdom arises first, before answering that! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. Best wishes pt ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112477 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:44 am Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[b] sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > It would seem to me that if one is in the habit of observing the breath with a degree of mindfulness, that this will tend to focus on the breath as experience rather than concept. Rather than thinking about the breath - wisely or otherwise - one would be inclined to experience the movement, smoothness, rapidity, longness/shortness, inner lung-inner body sensation, etc., which would be more or less of an experience of rupa. .... S: The only rupas experienced through the body-sense are temperature, motion and softness. Unless, having heard the Buddha's teachings, it is the direct awareness of one of these, the object is a concept/nimitta. So, if we are talking here about samatha (as we are, under "1.Breath as object of samatha"), the object is invariably a concept. Even for those who attained jhana with this object, the object is a nimitta (concept) of breath, not the reality of the rupa. .... >Although it might not be direct, it would not need reflection as much as mindful perception that is appreciative of the experiential quality of the breath. Even though the rupas of the breath as they pass might only be experienced as nimita, or even as concept of the rupas, it would still be pointing towards a direct experience of the breath as experiential rupas, rather than as concept. I think this is what Buddha had in mind, by my reading of the suttas, rather than a reflective experience *about* the breath, or about the meaning of the breath. .... S: I agree - concepts or nimitta pointing to the direct experience of breath, but considered with awareness and panna in a wholesome, calming manner. .... <...> > So I'm not really disagreeing, but just saying that it seems maybe more useful to me to see samatha and vipassana as two separate elements that come together, rather than saying that if there is not an element of wisdom in the samatha, then it is not samatha at all. .... S: There is samatha during the day whenever the citta is kusala. However, in order for it to be samatha bhavana, the development of samatha, there has to be panna, wisdom. The panna understands those moments of calm, those moments of awareness and those moments without calm or awareness. Let's also be clear that at moments of vipassana, at moments of even beginning satipatthana, there is calm, samatha. ... <....> > The question is whether samatha is a supporting condition for development of wisdom, or merely the result of moments of understanding. We seem to see this in slightly different ways, though I think we'd agree that ultimately they have to appear together to be a fully formed knowing that would be both detached - peaceful - and wise - directly experiencing. ... S: The greatest samatha is that which accompanies moments of insight, moments of enlightenment. This is why it is said that samatha and vipassana are yoked together at such times. .... > Thanks for discussing this with me! :-) ... S: Likewise. Thx for your other comments I've read with interest, but had to snip for the cause of getting through some of my big bundle of unanswered mail:-)) Metta Sarah ======== #112478 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:16 am Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[a] sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: ...Isn't it sobering, calming, when we reflect wisely? > > I like this idea, and agree that a moment of wise reflection on death or breath can be sobering and calming. I can relate to your example. However, I would distinguish between the sobering aspect of this, and the calming aspect. The "wise reflection" is not the same as the "calm," and I also find it difficult to accept the idea that "wise reflection" is the main method for development of samatha, as opposed to a more yogic approach to the breath as described by Buddha himself in the anapanasati sutta. ... S: I think that if you read the sutta carefully, possibly with any commentary assistance, you'll find that panna, wise reflection or knowing, is there throughout. If you look in "Useful Posts" under "Anapanasati", you'll find an extensive series of posts by Nina and others on this topic. .... >As in your example below, one may or may not be inclined to play the piano regularly enough to create music, but even if one is so inclined, doing a bit of casual piano playing when you feel like it will also not lead to becoming a skilled piano player. Only sitting down and practicing regularly and systematically will do this, and we all know that this can be done, despite the possible non-existence of pianos and piano-players in absolute reality. Similarly with samatha, the real development of deep calm and peacefulness for sustained periods of time that lead to a real sustained wholesome experience of samatha, and potentially leading to even deeper sustained peaceful states in jhana, cannot arise arbitrarily and must be cultivated systematically. .... S: Cultivated only through a development of right understanding of calm, of kusala and akusala cittas. ... <...> > Buddha is saying to observe the breath as concrete key to deeper states of consciousness, by following the rupas of the breath, not the concept. Long and short breath are observations of movement, pressure, etc. - they are known through rupas. Bodily fabrications are known through rupas. And it develops from there, but is a concrete process of perceiving the breath as rupa or nama. The idea that Buddha is ever saying to develop breath as everyday life concept seems quite contradictory to these instructions, and this pathway. ... S: As with all suttas, the aim is to point to the realities that appear for the audience in order that satipatthana may develop. With regard to the anapanasati sutta, we read that the audience included large numbers of arahats and other ariyans as well as those who already appreciated what the development of satipatthana was. They could understand that even the development of samatha, even the attainment of jhana (daily life for most of this audience), consisted of impermanent, unsatisfactory, self-less elements. Again, for me, it's like the example I gave to Phil yesterday, of the "severing of the elephant's trunk" after beautifully decorating it. All the heavenly, rupa and arupa brahma existences, are not worth a finger-snap of direct understanding of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and anattaness of any nama or rupa now. ... > I cannot see the idea that more and more wise reflection *is* samatha. Wise reflection may lead to calm, and continued wise reflection may lead to deeper calm, but there wise reflection is not synonymous with calm. Calm is calm, and is cultivated by calming actions and their cultivation. ... S: Calm is passaddhi cetasika. Without panna, understanding, it cannot develop. <...> > So in playing the "piano keys" it is "panna that is the key" and you say "no pun intended?" I find that equally hard to contemplate! ;-) In fact it's an excellent pun. So I'll just say: "Well played!" ... S: ;-) Play On! Your qus for K.Sujin last time were excellent and led to some great discussion there and here. If you'd like to review your long responses to me on this thread and raise any further questions (maybe restrict them to half a page!), that would be great. Any other qus welcome. I have one from Scott. Metta Sarah ====== #112479 From: Herman Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 10 December 2010 18:41, sarah wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Good qus in #111974! > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > I still don't understand the distinction you are making, I'm afraid. You > say > > visible object is real, when it is seen. > ... > S: True or not true? > ... > True. I'll just flag here that real and true are quite different, though. > >H:Yet an idea is not real, when it is > > thought. > ... > S: True or not true? > Not true. It's a real idea, when it is thought. > The thinking at that moment is real and can be known, > True. but surely the idea is just that - an idea. > Yes, it's a real idea. Whether it is true, to any degree, is another matter. > ... > >H:I don't get it, what else does one expect from an idea? When > > > thinking a thought, it is a real thought, isn't it? > .... > S: It may be a good thought, a bad thought, a thought about something real, > a thought about an idea, a thought about some fantasy. What such thoughts > have in common is that they are just concepts, ideas conceptualised by > thinking. So the cittas which think are real. The accompanying mental > states, such as the memory, the intention, the concentration and so on are > real. But the ideas, the dreams, are just figments of the imagination. > I think that what you are saying is that thoughts are real, but not true. > I think that appreciating the distinction between the real thinking and > the ideas thought about is one of the major "break-throughs" in the > understanding of the Dhamma. > In a meditative environment, true, in a daily-life environment, not true. Thoughts of oncoming cars, while at the foot of a tree, are not to be compared to thoughts of oncoming cars when crossing a highway at peak hour. In the first case such thoughts, any thoughts actually, are symptomatic of the anxiety and delusion and attachment of monkey mind, in the second case such thoughts show a degree of understanding of cause and effect. > Now I'm thinking about the sunshine and waves I can see through the windows > in Manly. The thinking is very real. The sunshine and waves are ideas > thought about on account of various visible objects seen in between the > thinking. > > Does that make sense? > > Yes, it does. While you're standing on your balcony, looking at the waves, you are not wet. No need for a towel to dry yourself when only thinking about water. Nevertheless, your expectation that if you were to go downstairs, across the road, across the beach and into the water, you would then be wet, shows quite an accurate understanding of cause and effect, doesn't it? Cheers Herman > Metta > > Sarah > p.s Again, apologies to all for the slow replies. Trying to catch up a > little before the next trip on Monday. > No worries. I hope on your return that you find yourself in Sydney, Australia, not Sydney, Canada :-) #112480 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:59 am 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, "Robert E" wrote: > > All sorts of specific things cause various conditions and results. No reason why a psychophysical activity should not do so as well. Meditation as a chosen method for developing sati and samatha is given by Buddha - whether instruction or description he did not warn against it in any way, shape or form, and seemed to be in favor of it in all his talks. > .... > S: We need to consider those talks carefully. Quoting what I wrote in a previous message as a little short of time (for a change!): > > >Remember Meghiya, the Buddha's attendant who saw a secluded mango grove which he considered perfect for living and meditating alone and for making an effort on the Path in spite of the Buddha's discouragement. Once there, he was overwhelmed by thoughts of sense-desire, ill-will and cruelty. When he returned, the Buddha said" > > "When liberation of heart is not fully mature , Are you saying that one is not supposed to meditate until *after* enlightenment? That wouldn't make much sense, would it, since the development of jhana and insight are on the path *to* enlightenment...? Certainly others who are not yet enlightened have meditated with good results. Maybe he was just saying that since Meghiya was having trouble, he would give him a good rundown of how to work on the problem. > Meghiya, five things conduce to full maturity." > > These five in brief are: > > 1. The good friend > 2. Morality. > "seeing fear in sins even the size of an atom" > 3. Talk concerned with the Dhamma and development of wholesome states > 4. the 4 Right Efforts > 5. Insight leading to the destruction of dukkha. Well, it seems like a good mix of factors there, to be cultivated either together or in order, depending on how you take the list. I think that one of the ways of developing the 4 Right Efforts can be through meditation for one whose temperament lends itself to this kind of development. And Vipassana is also developed through meditation. So maybe he was saying to Meghiya that he needed some other sorts of support, but I am not sure if he was dismissing meditation as part of the process, at the right time. I note that in the sutta Buddha mentions that "respiration-mindfulness should be cultivated for cutting off (discursive) thinking" in his additional things to cultivate. That's anapanasati, which I'm always happy to see. :-) And the last verses seem like a meditation instruction to me too, a pretty neat one: "Trivial thoughts, subtle thoughts, Mental jerkings that follow one along: Not understanding these mental thoughts, One runs back and forth with wandering mind. "But having known these mental thoughts, The ardent and mindful one restrains them. An awakened one has entirely abandoned them, These mental jerkings that follow one along." Is the commentary online? I'd enjoy looking at it. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #112481 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: Yes, the experiences, the realities don't change. It's just sati can begin to be aware of what is there already, but which we're usually blind to. Do hope you continue listening and giving your summaries. Thanks for the reminder! I really enjoyed that tape, and will try to go back and listen some more. It is nice to touch base with everyone in sound and hear the voices. And I did get a lot out of a relatively small amount of listening. I think the tapes are quite rich. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112482 From: Herman Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" egberdina Hi Ken H, On 11 December 2010 20:57, Ken H wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman, > > ---------- > <. . .> > > The Theras that you go weak at the knees for were just normal people like > you and me Ken H. > ----------- > > Nonsense! They were arahants. > You didn't say whether you agreed or disagreed with my evidence for the early suttas being quite different to the commentaries from around 500 AD. Anyway, I think that the notion of someone "being an arahant" has been well addressed in the suttas. The arahant is not to be found. > -------------------- > > H: > Ven Buddhagosa, for example, acknowledged that he had no attainments. > ------------------- > > No he didn't. At the end of the Visuddhimagga a scribe wrote a dedication > which some people mistakenly attribute to Buddhagosa. > > ------------------------- > H: > Why, oh why then, Ken, do you prefer the interpretations of the > > Theras, who are perhaps most (in)famous for not knowing which were the > training rules that the Buddha said could be dispensed with? > -------------------------- > > They weren't infamous for that at all! You might as well say the Buddha was > infamous for not spelling it out to them. > > If you knew your suttas you would know there were some that needed further > explanation, and there were some that didn't: > > "These two mis­rep­re­sent the Tatha­gata… one who shows a sutta whose > meaning requires fur­ther explanation as not requiring further explanation; > and one who shows a sutta whose mean­ing does not require further > explanation as requiring further expla­na­tion." AN 2.3 > > So there had to be commentaries, didn't there? > > Well, if you insist there have to be commentaries (and there have been many), it now comes down to you to choose the real Buddhism. Here are some of the others that have come and gone before you who fancied their hand at knowing what was path. - SthaviravÄda - PudgalavÄda ('Personalist') (c. 280 BCE) - SarvÄstivÄda - VibhajjavÄda (prior to 240 BCE; during AĹ›oka ) - TheravÄda (c. 240 BCE) - TheravÄda subschools (see below ) - MahÄ«Ĺ›Äsaka (after 232 BCE) - Dharmaguptaka (after 232 BCE) - KÄĹ›yapÄ«ya (after 232 BCE) - VatsÄ«putrÄ«ya (under AĹ›oka ) later name: SaáąmitÄ«ya - DharmottarÄ«ya - BhadrayÄnÄ«ya - SannÄgarika - MĹ«lasarvÄstivÄda (third and fourth centuries) - SautrÄntika (between 50 BCE and c. 100 CE) - MahÄsaáąghika ('Majority', c. 380 BCE) - EkavyahÄrikas (under AĹ›oka ) - LokottaravÄda - Golulika (during AĹ›oka ) - BahuĹ›rutÄ«ya (late third century BCE) - PrajñaptivÄda (late third century BCE) - CetiyavÄda - Caitika (mid-first century BCE) - Apara Ĺšaila - Uttara Ĺšaila [edit ]Twenty sects The following lists the twenty sects described as HÄ«nayÄna in some MahÄyÄna texts: SthaviravÄda (上座é¨) split into the 11 sects: - 說一ĺ‡ćś‰é¨(SarvÄstivÄdin ) - 雪山é¨(Haimavata ) - 犢ĺ­é¨(VatsÄ«putrÄ«ya ) - ćł•ä¸Šé¨ (Dharmottara ) - 賢冑é¨(BhadrayÄnÄ«ya ) - 正量é¨(Sammitiya ) - 密林山é¨(Channagirika ) - ĺŚ–ĺś°é¨ (MahÄ«Ĺ›Äsaka ) - ćł•č—Źé¨(Dharmaguptaka ) - 飲光é¨(KÄĹ›yapÄ«ya ) - 經量é¨(SautrÄntika ) Cheers Herman #112483 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:32 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > --------- > <. . .> > RE: > When were those commentaries written? > --------- > > I think around the time of the First Council. Have a look in the Useful Posts file for details. > > ------------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > I don't necessarily see the Dhamma in general different from the commentators, and I don't think the commentators necessarily represent the only Theravadin view, > -------------------------- > > There is only one Theravadin view. You have a habit of saying things as if true without any supporting evidence or explanation. You realize that makes it an unsubstantiated opinion, no matter how firmly you may believe it. Belief is not a proof of anything. If you have any interest in being convincing when you make a blanket statement like that, you have to provide some support. If you just want to enjoy saying it though, that it is not necessary. > ------------- > RE: > especially when it contradicts the suttas themselves. > ------------- > > Which is never. They contradict uninformed interpretations of the suttas. Well, the example you gave that I was rather rude about seemed arbitrary and removed from what was actually said. I don't think you can expect everyone to have your faith that whatever far-out or dogmatic thing appears in a commentary must necessarily be true, even if no explanation is given for why it makes any sense. But again, you can say what you like, just as I can say that unicorns are making the world rotate by pulling on a number of hydraulic pulleys connected to the moon. > ------------------ > RE: > If there is not a deeper explanation, other than chosen dogma, for why the words of a sutta are interpreted to mean something completely different than what they say, then it is difficult to know what basis to accept them on. > ------------------ > > There is a sutta in which the Buddha tells monks they must kill their parents and assassinate the king. Which sutta is that? Never heard of it, and I'd love to look it up. > No explanation is given. One would hope the Buddha was speaking metaphorically, but it is only in the commentaries that we are actually assured he was - and given explanations of the metaphors. Would need to see that before commenting. I'm not against commentaries, by the way. I just don't subscribe to whatever they say without any explanation. If something seems sound, I can consider it and come to understand it. But I don't believe in cloud-Gods making it rain, even though it is in a sutta. Do you? > -------------------------- > <. . .> > RE: >>> Buddha is straightforwardly talking about right effort as neither asserting volition, nor being completely passive, just as he says, but to move forward in accord with conditions. > >>> > > KH: >> That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Although I don't know how you see it as "straightforward." It sounds like double talk to me. > >> > > RE: > Literally, not moving forward and not striving and not standing still = not putting forth effort and not doing nothing. That's not double-talk, it's just what the Buddha is saying. You really object to that? It's not a far-reaching extrapolation to say that not standing still is not doing nothing, or not being completely passive. Isn't that what that means prior to any metaphysical interpretations? Doesn't 'not striving' mean 'not putting forth effort' literally? Where's the double-talk? > --------------------------- > > I still can't see what you are trying to tell me. Really? Well I will say it again: Not standing still means not falling into non-action. That is literal. Not striving means not to put forth effort. That is also literal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that those are the two poles of action, volitional effort and passively not doing anything. And Buddha is rejecting both of them. Buddha is saying that one should neither do nothing nor put forth effort. So what is left? What is the right way of crossing the stream in that case? Maybe you might think about that rather than dismissing the Buddha's paradox for some other different explanation about a Deva that has nothing to do with the Buddha's message in this sutta, which is about Right Effort. > But never mind, the point is that the sutta was meant to be a paradox. The audience was expected to be puzzled as to how anyone could possibly be neither striving nor standing still. > Well it doesn't puzzle me. I guess I'm too simple-minded to be puzzled by it. The Buddha says "don't strive," and "don't stand still." Where's the paradox? When you don't stand still you are continuing to cross the stream. When you don't strive, there's no effort. What is left is another way of crossing the stream, without volitional effort. The Buddha's message is clear. > The commentaries explain that the audience was a particularly radiant deva who needed to lose some conceit before she could understand the Dhamma. That is fine, but does not seem like the main point to me. You take a specific statement of the Buddha's and reduce it to a "whatever" paradox to get rid of a particular Deva's conceit. But the reason the sutta resonates is because it challenges the view of effort and passivity, whatever you may say about it as a metaphor. It's a powerful statement in its own right. I don't subscribe to the idea, commentary or not, that the actual words of the Buddha cannot be comprehended without someone else's commentary reinterpreting it into something else. Context, sure. Reinterpretation into a wholly different subject? - why read the suttas at all in that case? Let's just skip to the commentary and dismiss the Buddha's own statements. Then we can talk about the great opportunity of having Commentators come into the world, rather than the auspicious arising of a Buddha. > ---------------- > RE: > This story reminds me of an old Hasidic tale, though not as old as the suttas. The Baal Shem Tov told this story. Tell me what you think of it as a metaphor: > > "One day there was a man driving a carriage with three horses, a bay, a piebald and a white horse, and not one of the horses could neigh. A passing stranger said 'slacken the reins!' and when he did, all three horses began to neigh." > > I'm sure the three horses have some esoteric meaning, but on the face of it, it means that the man is pulling on the horses too tightly, ie, putting forth too much controlling effort. > ----------------- > > The metaphor is OK, but the message is not profound. Anyone can teach moderation. And anyone can make up a riddle to annoy a conceited Deva. The Sphinx had an equally astounding riddle, if that's all you take it for. > However, only a Buddha can teach us that moderation is not something practiced by living beings but is actually something that happens in a single moment of conditioned reality. > > Now that's profound! You're fixated on your conceptual point of dhamma theory. Does it help you see any dhammas? I'm interested in what the Buddha has to say, not my own repeated conceptual mantra about "realities." It's like a security blanket, isn't it? > ------------------------ > <. . .> > KH: >> Most Buddhists think the Dhamma is about > getting somewhere or attaining something. It's actually about understanding the present reality. > >> > > RE: > Yes, sir! Let's not get off track and talk about the details of the teaching. Let's just repeat the approved mantra. > ------------------------- > > There is no point in talking about details until we know what they are for. > > They are for understanding the present-moment reality. Have a nice day, penpal Ken H. Enjoy your mantra and your comfort zone. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112484 From: Herman Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. egberdina Hi Sarah, On 11 December 2010 16:43, sarah wrote: > > > HI Phil & Herman, > > > .... > S: What about detachment rather than attachment now, very briefly, at a > moment of kindness, at a moment of sharing, at a moment of wise > consideration, at a moment of sila? Alobha (non-attachment) arises with > every kusala citta. So for me, it's a reminder that there can be kusala at > this very moment and at such moments there is detachment, there is calm from > harming of any kind. > > Perhaps the ignorant or blind cannot see, but any reminders which > help/encourage us to see, to understand a little more clearly, can be > appreciated. Looking for blemishes in the messenger will not help us to see > the message. > ... > > > As long as the house needs vacuuming, there's not a hope in hell of > moving beyond pleasure and pain. > ... > S: Well, our flat needs a lot of vacuuming after all the beach runs, but > being concerned about others vacuuming needs won't get the job done:-) > > Khun Sujin says this: "When we see and we are then attached to the visible object and enjoy it, it seems that there is just “normal” attachment, which is not harmful. However, we should realize that even “normal” attachment is a dhamma that is harmful. Its result is suffering, dukkha, and little by little the conditions are being accumulated for more dukkha later on." Sorry if you don't want to hear it, but the house doesn't need vacuuming, even the house itself is not necessary. Things become necessary through craving / attachment. Sorry if you don't want to hear it, but the sage you follow recommended the forest floor as a bed. Presumably, he knew a bit more about attachment than we do. It seems to me that the characterising of one message as a helpful reminder, and another one as finding fault in the messenger, is simply a reflection of personal attachments. And, no, I'm not upset :-) > Cheers Herman #112485 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? sarahprocter... hi Phil, #111128 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > This morning in my notebooks, I found reference to three suttas in which the Buddha lays out the proper contents of thinking, but I'm sure there are many others: 1) SN56:7, "when you think, you should think 'this is suffering,' etc. 2) SN 9:78(78 sounds odd, wrong I think) "Becaus of attending carelessly, you are being eaen by your thoughts, by basing your thoughts on the teacher, the Dhamma, the Sangha and your own virtues.." etc 3) Of course MN 19, on the three kinds of kusala vitaka. > > There is a lot in the suttanta about what are the right topics to think about and what are wrong. I have heard A.S students deny that the content of thinking is important, that is wrong. ... S: I think you'll find that the Buddha always stressed the value of what is wholesome, rather than the topic. For example, we may think of friends with kindness or with attachment. Clearly the topic, the friends in this case, is the same, but it's the kind of thinking that matters. When it's wholesome thinking there is sati, detachment and calm, when there's unwholesome thinking, there's no sati, no detachment and no calm. In the Sabbaasava Sutta, MN2, we read about the person who is ignorant of the Dhamma not understanding what is fit for attention and unfit for attention. What is unfit for attention? "They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire increases....". The commentary stresses, as summarised by Bodhi/Nanamoli, "that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." In other words, it's not about seeking/avoiding particular situations, but about yoniso manasikaara (wise attention) at the present moment. In another note, the translators add a note on yoniso manasikaara here; "Wise attention (yoniso manasikaara) is glossed as attention that is the right means (upaaya), on the right track (patha). it is explained as mental advertence, consideration, or preoccupation that accords with the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. Unwise attention (ayoniso manasikaara) is attention that is the wrong means, on the wrong track (uppatha), contrary to the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as permanent, the painful as pleasurable, what is not self as self, and what if foul as beautiful." They continue to add that the commentary says that unwise attention "is at the root of the round of existence, for it causes ignorance and craving to increase; wise attention is at the root of liberation from the round, since it leads to the development of the Noble Eightfold Path." Metta Sarah ===== #112486 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > S: Exactly, he is pointing out that the world is not a world of people and > > things, but a world of visible objects, sounds and so on - no people or > > things in them at all. > > .... >H: And surely that world is also a world of processing and thinking about what > is sensed, resulting in a world of meanings and values. As I said at our > meeting, if we lived as though we can ignore all the meanings we think, we > would be negligent towards others. Rather, the Buddha taught the very > opposite. In relationship to other people, one has to take exceeding great > care (see eg patimokkha). .... S: I agree that we need to take great care in our relationships. Understanding that the meanings and values, the ideas that are thought about are not the realities, doesn't mean they should be ignored. There's been no suggestion of that. If concepts should be ignored, there'd be no use in listening to the Buddha's teachings for a start. We're discussing what are the worlds of realities which there can be direct insight into, not just wise thinking about. .... > > S: The Buddha conveyed the meaning, just as we do, because different cittas > > condition different rupas so that different sounds are uttered and heard. No > > titillating paradox, just sounds to be understood for what they are - rupas > > experienced through the ear-door by hearing. ... >H: A siren is still a siren to be understood as "get out the way, someone is in > greater need than you", and a red light still means "stop if you value your > life and the life of others". It is only when one is meditative that one can > safely dispense with greed and distress with reference towards the world. If > one did so in daily life, that would be extremely negligent. ... S: What about when you show your friends or family some kindness or consideraton? At such moments of true kindness, is there any greed or distress? Is there any negligence? Is it not possible to get out of the way of an ambulance without greed and distress for a moment at least? Metta Sarah ====== #112487 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. sarahprocter... hi Pt (& Herman), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > One difficulty I'm not quite sure how to put into perspective is the fact that, conventionaly speaking, at birth there's (usually) no memory of what has been learned previously (presumably in previous life, in conventional terms). E.g. in this life we've had the opportunity to come in touch with Dhamma teachings which could have lead to some modification of behavior in this life as you say. But in the next life, say the rebirth is somewhere where there's no access to Dhamma, and in fact, the moral grounds are somewhat different - say it's ok to kill people of one race, but not of another. Well, would I not be then likewise influenced by those teachings as well, since I already have the predisposition towards killing (thanks to anusaya)? Tricky subject. ... S: If the anusaya haven't been eradicated, we don't know what accumulations may manifest when influenced by different teachings, as you say. Even the Bodhisatta was influenced to behave very badly and break various precepts (except lying) in various rebirths. That's why it's so important to develop understanding while we have the opportunity in this life, to condition more of the same in future. ... >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. ... S: We don't just forget what occurred in past lives, even what occurred in this life. Do you remember your first 3 years for example? No conditions for sanna to recall events, but it was accumulating at each moment, as was the lobha, ignorance and other mental factors. Metta Sarah ======= #112488 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Chris & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >C: Would this sutta have any relevance to the matter under discussion - > ''Change while standing''? > > Friends, the arising of matter [...of feelings; ...of perception; ...of > conditions; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, change > while standing is manifest. â€" S. XXII,37: iii,38. > ================================= >H: Yes, thanks, Chris. I thought of such suttas. The trouble is that the > nature of the change isn't specified. If, indeed, for a cetasika such as > perception, it indicates processing over time, that would make sense to me, > but would contradict the Abhidhammic perspective as I have understood it to > have been expressed on DSG. ..... S: I wonder if the following text helps (which I've posted before): Sarah: >On this point, B.Bodhi et al give this Guide note in C.M.A. (translation of Abhidhammattha Sangaha): Ch VI, guide to #6 "The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. Nevertheless, though seemingly infinitesimal, each mind-moment in turn consists of three sub-moments - arising (uppaada), presence (.thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Within the breadth of a mind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted like the waters in a stream. "....The Vibhaavinii [S: commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha] points out that the sub-moment of presence is a stage in the occurrence of a dhamma separate from the stages of arising and dissolution, during which the dhamma 'stands facing its own dissolution' (bhangaabhimukhaavathaa)......Many commentators take the presence moment to be implied by the Buddha's statement: 'There are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned: arising, passing away, and the alteration of that which stands' (A.3:47/i,152). Here the presence moment is identified with 'the alteration of that which stands' (.thitassa a~n~nathatta)." ***** Metta Sarah ======== #112489 From: Herman Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. egberdina Hi Phil, On 11 December 2010 22:06, philip wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > > > Well, I don't know, none of my business! My business is here and now, > > > dealing with a massive shitload of greed, hatred and delusion, heavy > > > shifting work! > > > > > > > Exactly right. And I wish you every success! > > > > > Thank you Herman! The "cheering on" function of Dhamma friends is not > appreciated enough here, I feel. Wishing for success!?!?! Herman aren't you > aware of how much attachment must be involved in that wish, how much self is > slithering through every single syllable???? > Yes, I am, Phil. Unashamedly so. I urge you on, in your quest for mastery of yourself. It is in the same vein as the following, not necessarily at the foot of trees, but in your daily comings and goings. I can think of nothing more ridiculous than a householder trying to dispense with self-view as a first step anywhere. AN 3:40 "There are these three governing principles. Which three? The self as a governing principle, the cosmos as a governing principle, and the Dhamma as a governing principle. "And what is the self as a governing principle? There is the case where a monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, reflects on this: 'It is not for the sake of robes that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness; it is not for the sake of almsfood, for the sake of lodgings, or for the sake of this or that state of [future] becoming that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness. Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" Now, if I were to seek the same sort of sensual pleasures that I abandoned in going forth from home into homelessness — or a worse sort — that would not be fitting for me.' So he reflects on this: 'My persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having made himself his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the self as a governing principle. Cheers Herman #112490 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava is just an Annihilationist Atta view applied to micro s... sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, #108710 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: >... Sometimes people don't understand the roots people are born with. People > born with a root of dosa can be said to be "hateful" people. This means they > have a lot of aggression and aversion. .... S: Actually, in this human realm, we're all born with either wholesome roots (sahetuka kusala vipaka) or with no roots (ahetuka kusala vipaka), never with dosa. It's kusala vipaka to be born as a human. Because of the latent tendency of dosa, accumulated for aeons, there can be "a lot of aggression and aversion" manifesting during this life, however. Usually humans are born with either two or three roots. If a human is born with no roots, it is still the result of kusala kamma, but of a weaker degree and these people are handicapped in some way from the first moment of life. ... >Other people are born with roots that > are alobha, amoha, and adosa. Those people can attain jhanas if I remember > correctly (I am open to correction here). ... S: Yes, not everyone is born with 3 wholesome roots. If we're not born with the amoha root, jhana or enlightenment are said to be impossible in this life. ... > Even people born with a root of dosa > and also have a root of wisdom (amoha). ... S: Er no. It is akusala vipaka to be born in a woeful plane, for example as an animal, peta or in a hell plane. In these cases the being is born with an ahetuka (no roots) citta. Unwholesome and wholesome roots cannot arise together. ... >This means, they can be aggressive but > can attain the noble paths and fruits. How do you think an Sotapanna that had > not yet eradicated lobha and dosa and who is born with a root of dosa might act? ... S: Impossible! You may find it helpful to read Ch 11 of Nina's "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" for more details on this topic. Metta Sarah ======= #112491 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana still possible? sarahprocter... Hi Mike, #107472 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: >Perhaps discussing the motivation to read or listen would be useful, since there are a lot of examples of that in the Suttas. > > For example, MN 95 Canki Sutta: With Canki > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html > ----------- > ... > "But what quality is most helpful for contemplating?..." > > "Being willing... If one weren't willing, one wouldn't contemplate..." > > "But what quality is most helpful for being willing?..." > > "Desire... If desire didn't arise, one wouldn't be willing..." > > "But what quality is most helpful for desire?..." > > "Coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas... If one didn't come to an agreement through pondering dhammas, desire wouldn't arise..." > ... > ------------- > Presumably the "desire" there is chanda (my grasp of Pali is not good). .... S: Chanda - wholesome interest or zeal in this context. On the Bodhi/Nanamoli translation it has; "Zeal is most helpful for application of the will, Bhaaradvaaja. if one does not arouse zeal, one will not apply one's will; but because one arouses zeal, one applies one's will. That is why zeal is most helpful for application of the will." S: This has nothing to do with desire arising with attachment. This translation continues to say that the following is most helpful for this zeal: "A reflective acceptance of the teachings is most helpful for zeal, Bharaadvaaja. If one does not gain a reflective acceptance of the teachings, zeal will not spring up...." S: And then we read that what is useful for the reflective acceptance is "examination of the meaning" and for this, "memorising of the teachings", for this, "hearing the Dhamma", for this, "Giving Ear", for this, "Paying Respect", for this, "Visiting (a teacher)", for this "Faith". Hope you're still reading, my reply is over 6 months late, I know! Metta Sarah ======= #112492 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:57 am Subject: Re: Metta Meditation sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, #107713 Many thanks for supplyin some helpful quotes on the value of metta bhavana. > > S: Metta bhavana without the development of insight does not lead >to nibbana. However, metta itself can be an object of insight. In >such a way, any dhamma can lead to nibbana if it's understood as >being conditioned and anatta. There's a sutta in MN about the >development of metta in this regard. ... S: Now I have a copy of MN open, so the following would be an example of what I was referring to, of metta (jhana)as a basis for insight. From MN 52, A.t.thakanaagara Sutta " 'Again, a bhikkhu abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will. he considers this and understands it thus: 'This deliverance of mind through loving-kindness is conditioned and volitionally produced. But whatever is conditioned and volitionally produced is impermanent, subject to cessation.' Standing upon that, he attains the destruction of the taints. but if he does not attain the destruction of the taints, then because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma*, with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously [in the Pure Abodes] and there attain final Nibbaana without ever returning from that world." [*"Dhammaraagena dhammanandiyaa. MA: These two terms signify desire and attachment (chandaraaga) with respect to serenity and insight. If one is able to discard all desire and attachment concerning serenity and insight, one becomes an arahant; if one cannot discard them, one becomes a non-returner and is reborn in the Pure Abodes."] Metta Sarah ======== #112493 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:59 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction nilovg Hi Howard, Op 11-dec-2010, om 16:56 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The prefix 'vi' in vi~n~nana > means separative/fragmenting/splitting. The fundamental meaning of > 'vi' in > this context is "apart." It is similar to the English prefix of > 'dis' as in > 'dismember', 'dissipate', and 'distribute'. ------- N: vi has several meanings, depending on trhe context. what you say is true in a sense. We have vijaanati: discriminate. It can also have an intensifying sense: seeing things from all sides. Once Jim gave us a very good rendering of vipassii, the name of a Bodhisatta. Clearly seeing. Vi~n~naa.na is the same in meaning as citta: it clearly knows an object. ------ Nina. #112494 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:09 am Subject: Re: Buddah's saying sarahprocter... Hi Ryan, Hope you're still around! I don't think anyone replied to this message: #108823 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Brawn wrote: > Buddah says "All that we are is the result of what we have thought", Being as I am Very, Very beginer stage, I understand this quote but then again what is the context? ... S: Here is the first verse of the Dhammapada which you are quoting from: "1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage." Here is another translation of the same verse by Narada: "Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of that, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox." In other words, citta (mind) is the leader, leading all the various mental states in good or bad ways. .... >I mean what is buddah saying here. Aren't we to realize that there is no self? Is that what he is saying. That there is no self and who we think we are is the result of what we have thought we were? I don't know, anyone?? ... S: Yes, you'r right. No self at all. Just mind (citta) leading the various mental states and conditioning various deeds. Happy to discuss further, but will wait for your response first. Metta Sarah ======= #112495 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:23 am Subject: Re: Makunkyaputta Sutta, Commentarial Question sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, (Nina & all) #108739 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > In the Makunkyaputta Sutta the Buddha talks about the path to the destruction of > the five lower fetters as having restraint in body, in speech, in mind, and > attaining the jhanas and so forth. At the end of the sutta, though, the Buddha > states: > > "Venerable sir, when this is the path and the method for the destruction of the > five lower bonds for the sensual world, why does a certain bhikkhu talk of a > release of mind and a release through wisdom? Ananda, that is the difference > in the maturity of the mental faculties. > > > The Blessed One said that and venerable Ananda delighted in the words of the > Blessed One." > > Is it possible that anyone knows the Commentary for this section of the sutta? .... S: I think I can help here. Bodhi/Nanamoli give the following note to this from the commentary: "MA: Among those who proceed by way of serenity, one bhikkhu emphasises unification of mind - he is said to gain deliverance of mind; another emphasises wisdom - he is said to gain deliverance by wisdom. Among those who proceed by way of insight, one emphasises wisdom - he is said to gain deliverance by wisdom; another emphasises unification of mind - he is said to gain deliverance of mind. The two chief disciples attained arahantship by emphasising both serenity and insight, but Ven. Saariputta became one who gained deliverance by wisdom and Ven. Mahaa Moggallaana became one who gained deliverance of mind. Thus the reason (for the different designations) is the difference in their faculties, i.e., between the predominance of the concentration faculty and of the wisdom faculty." Metta Sarah ===== #112496 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:41 am Subject: Re: Signless concentration, Mundane or supramundane? sarahprocter... Dear Alex, #107996 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Is signless concentration (animitta cetosamadhi) mundane or supramundane? ... S: I understand it to be mundane. Here is a note I found about it referring to a commentary to a sutta: " 'Signless Concentration of Mind' (animitta-ceto- samadhi). The Comy. explains it as a high level of insight-concentration (vipassana-samadhi) that keeps the mind free from the delusive 'signs' of permanency etc. and of greed etc. This explanation appears plausible in view of the fact that the Ven. Maha-Moggallana was 'liberated in both ways,' through concentration and insight." However, the term signless deliverance of mind, (animitta- cetovimutti) is supramundane, referring to the attainment of fruition (phala citta). Here the 'signs' are objects such as forms, etc and the 'signless element' is Nibbana. See the Mahaavedalla Sutta, MN 43 which Herman and Jon have been discussing. Does that make sense? Metta Sarah ======== #112497 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:50 am Subject: Re: Cittas - sub-moments sarahprocter... hi Rob E, #110281 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > Continuing to work my way backwards through commentarial threads, I found this segment from B. Bodhi translation quite illuminating. There is a particular expression that is significant to me: > > ""The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkha.na)." > > This is obviously very basic, but you never know what's going to hit you. The idea of a "mind-moment" makes clear to me what a citta is in a way that I hadn't understood before. Rather than being abstract, this connects the citta to the passage of mental experience, a unit of apprehension, which makes sense to me. ... S: Thanks for mentioning it. It may be helpful to others as well. Metta Sarah ======= #112498 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I think in Abhidhamma it is said that there are intrinsically pleasing sense objects, favourably received by all.... ... S: It just depends on kamma whether pleasant or unpleasant objects are experienced at any moment. > > ...seriously, interesting point. One man's (or woman's) beefcake, is another woman (or man's) slowly festering nest of ageing, disease and death. ... S: Exactly....:) metta Sarah p.s about to sign off for a couple of days, you'll be relieved to hear! ========= #112499 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:55 am Subject: Re: present moment/ phil/depression sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Ari, #111002 This was a kind and understanding post, Rob. I appreciated it: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I sense that you have the feeling that you are somehow guilty of creating the depression and that somehow you should be able to get rid of it by brute force of will. Both the medical and the Buddhist perspective should relieve you of this responsibility. From a Buddhist perspective, conditions cause everything, so "you" are not responsible for creating anything. You can just observe what comes up, add as little drama to it as possible - but not blame yourself for that either - and take the appropriate actions: meditate if it helps and not worry about whether you are doing it "well" or not; observe the symptoms with as much detachment as you can, which I think helps to soften them a bit; and take your medicine! If it's a tumor, get it removed. When you look at it that way, it's much more simple. > > There's a zen story. The monk asks the Master: "What is the essence of enlightenment" and the Master answers "Eat when hungry, sleep when tired" or something like that. In other words, you do what's appropriate at the moment, without adding a story or explanation or drama. It's just what it is. ... S: Good story. Yes, medicine is food too. Ari, hope to hear from you over Xmas and the New Year. metta Sarah ======== #112500 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:58 am Subject: Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & Pt, #108847 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > That's why I am sure jhana meditators have never practiced meditation in a deliberate or "formal" manner. Right view comes first - the associated behaviour follows after. And that goes for the samatha kind of right view just as much as the vipassana right view. ... S: My understanding too! Look forward to hearing more from you both and everyone else while we travel.... Metta Sarah ====== #112501 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Sarah > Sarah > p.s about to sign off for a couple of days, you'll be relieved to hear! Ph: Just one of those timing things, I don't feel like posting so much these days (this day?) but when I come back to it I'll start with one of your posts, thanks for showing interest, you always make such a diligent effort to reach out to people, fantastic! Phil #112502 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" nilovg Dear Rob E, I thought it good to consult the commentary to the Crossing over sutta. For your book list, Ven. Bodhi's'translations: the Middle Length Discourses and the Connected Discourses (Sam. Nikaya) are good to have. He adds in notes parts of the commentaries. Op 9-dec-2010, om 17:39 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I don't doubt that right view and wrong view of self are *always* > important, but I think it's a mistake to reduce every single thing > the Buddha talked about to one factor. When he is talking about > right effort, and how to navigate the path successfully through the > middle way between action and inaction, that is a very subtle and > important teaching of its own. For Ken H. to reduce this very > specific teaching to "right view" and "discernment of dhammas" is > like having a parrot or tape recorder make the same comment over > and over again, no matter what the teaching happens to be. One can > always add "and also, right view is necessary," but it is not the > main point of this sutta. ------ N: We have the word ogha, flood. There are four oghas: the flood of sense desire, the flood of desire for existence, the flood of wrong view (di.t.thi) and the flood of ignorance. The Buddha had crossed these and we also should cross these. We should not forget the flood of wrong view! As I said before, this one is the first that has to be overcome. You may think of parroting, but we have to hear the same things many times before it sinks in, and this is because of our accumulated ignorance, since aeons and aeons. As Sarah said: Call this parroting if you like, but I cannot hear this often enough. We may get lost in maes and terms, but only the characteristic of the present reality can be investigated. --------- From Ven. Bodhi's notes (p. 343): the Co enumerates seven dyads:< (1) "halting" by way of defilements, one sinks; "straining" by way of volitional formations, one gets swept away; (2) by way of craving and views, one sinks; by way of the other defilements, one gets swept away; (3) by way of craving, one sinks; by way of views, one gets swept away; (4) by way of the eternalist view, one sinks; by way of the annihilationist view, one gets swept away (see It 43,12,-44, 4); (5) by way of slackness one sinks, by way of restlessness, one gets swept away; (6) by way of devotion to sensual pleasures one sinks, by way of devotion to self- mortification one gets swept away; (7) by way of all unwholesome volitional formations one sinks, by way of all mundane wholesome volitional formations one gets swept away.> -------- Nina. #112503 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: in Ayutthaya nilovg Dear Sarah, Thank you for the post on the cheating dhammas. We do not dare open our mouth, but even when silent they appear. Nina. Op 11-dec-2010, om 6:07 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Plenty of food for wise reflection....or for cheating dhammas, > taking the unwise reflection for wise reflection? #112504 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Signless concentration, Mundane or supramundane? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > #107996 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Is signless concentration (animitta cetosamadhi) mundane or supramundane? > ... > S: I understand it to be mundane. Here is a note I found about it referring to a commentary to a sutta: > > " 'Signless Concentration of Mind' (animitta-ceto- samadhi). The Comy. explains it as a high level of insight-concentration (vipassana-samadhi) that keeps the mind free from the delusive 'signs' of permanency etc. and of greed etc. This explanation appears plausible in view of the fact that the Ven. Maha-Moggallana was 'liberated in both ways,' through concentration and insight." > > However, the term signless deliverance of mind, (animitta- cetovimutti) is supramundane, referring to the attainment of fruition (phala citta). Here the 'signs' are objects such as forms, etc and the 'signless element' is Nibbana. See the Mahaavedalla Sutta, MN 43 which Herman and Jon have been discussing. > > Does that make sense? > > Metta > > Sarah > ======== > Yes. Thank you very much, Sarah. With metta, Alex #112505 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:46 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? truth_aerator Hi RobertE, > Are you saying that one is not supposed to meditate until *after* >enlightenment? That wouldn't make much sense, would it, since the >development of jhana and insight are on the path *to* >enlightenment...? What it seems to say is that samatha meditation can be required after stream-entry, but not prior (though it could be great support, as long as one doesn't involve wrong views). Metta/Asubha are great at lowering anger/greed, which are eliminated only at Anagami/Arhat level. Stream entry doesn't require elimination of greed/anger, except for those big enough for heineous actions and wrong views. IMHO, With metta, Alex #112506 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 12-dec-2010, om 15:30 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > to Sarah: thanks for showing interest, you always make such a > diligent effort to reach out to people, fantastic! ------- N: Yes, thanks for the useful quotes from commentaries etc, I saved several in my files, Nina. #112507 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New to Dhamma nilovg Dear Chittapala, Can you refresh my memory? Then I must have met you too before? In Thailand, in Sri Lanka? Nina. Op 11-dec-2010, om 20:59 heeft Chittapala het volgende geschreven: > I am still living on Magnetic Island off Townsville, but am in > Sydney at present helping my mother move house to the Gold Coast. #112508 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:49 pm Subject: Feeding Tranquillity! bhikkhu5 Friends: Feeding the Tranquillity Link to Awakening! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, just as this body, is sustained by feeding, exists in dependence on feeding and cannot survive without food, exactly & even so are these 7 Links to Awakening also sustained by feeding, they can also only exist in dependence on feeding and they cannot survive without feeding... And what, Bhikkhus, is the feeding the emergence of any yet unarisen Tranquillity Link to Awakening & also feeding of already arisen & present Tranquillity? Just this very notion: There are 2 kinds of Calm: There is Tranquillity of the Body (kaya-passaddhi) and there is Tranquillity of the Mind (citta-passaddhi)! Frequently giving careful & rational attention to them both, is feeding the arising of any unarisen tranquillity and indeed also feeding of the gradual fulfillment of any already arisen tranquillity... And what, Bhikkhus, is the starving that obstructs all emergence of any yet unarisen tranquillity and which also hinders any already arisen tranquillity in reaching fulfillment by development? There are these 2 kinds of composed calm, which should be differentiated: Tranquillity of the Body and Tranquillity of the Mind! Not giving frequent careful and rational attention to them; not considering them much & often; is the starving that prevents an unarisen tranquillity from arising and also blocks any already arisen tranquillity from reaching complete fulfillment by mental training and progressive development by meditation... Comments from the classical commentaries: Peace is the characteristic of the Tranquillity Link to Awakening (Passaddhi-sambojjhanga). Stilling of all bodily activity, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness is the purpose of tranquillity. Settled, serene and solidified calm (samatha) is the excessively pleasant manifestation of tranquillity. A smiling mountain! When the mirror moves & vibrates, then one cannot see anything clearly in it. So also with the mind: When stressed and agitated, then mind cannot figure out what is good and what is bad on the long term. But when imperturbably stilled, then mind can cut right through any distraction and attain absolute certainty and understanding both spontaneously and instantaneously... Further conditions helpful for the emergence of the Tranquillity are: 1: Eating good and fine food... 2: Living in a pleasant climate... 3: Maintaining a comfortable posture without pain or distress... 4: Staying evenly ballanced in all situations and regarding all aspects... 5: Avoidance of restless, anxious, agitated, worried and stressed people... 6: Friendship with bodily and mentally calm people, who meditates much! 7: Commitment to calm down the mind by cultivating quiet and tranquillity! There is Tranquillity of the Body and there is Tranquillity of the Mind! These mutually depend upon and enhance each other into deeper calmness. <...> Sources (edited extracts): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 65-6+102-8] 46: Links. 2+51: Group & Nutriments.... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112509 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change farrellkevin80 Hi Ken, all, Ken: That's why I am sure jhana meditators have never practiced meditation in a deliberate or "formal" manner. Right view comes first - the associated behaviour follows after. And that goes for the samatha kind of right view just as much as the vipassana right view. Kevin: You are *sure*? Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin #112510 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. egberdina Hi pt, On 11 December 2010 16:38, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > pt: It occurred to me that reminders about detachment should work the > same > > > way as reminders about sila. > > > H: I think that the re in remind makes it clear that one can only be > reminded > > about things already known. > > pt: I think I agree here, though it's possible we invest somewhat different > meanings in the term "known". > > The way I understand it in a bit more detail: > > 1. there's no discernible beginning to samsara, so we all have wholesome > and unwholesome tendencies (the term being asayaanusaya I think), which > enable the arising of actual un/wholesome cittas and actions when conditions > are there. So, this would mean we all have the capacity for sila (with or > without panna), as well as panna itself, no matter how rudimentary or > developed. > > 2. Every time unwholesome or wholesome cittas and actions arise, it is that > very arising that strengthens/develops the tendencies. So the same applies > to development of both sila and panna. And so, at this point it is possible > to start wondering about determinism. E.g. if everything that's arising now > is in essence conditioned by one's tendencies, which are in essence past > actions, then you get a closed or deterministic system of sorts. However, > > 3. What makes this a non-deterministic system is the actual possibility of > a reminder (about the value of sila and panna for example) coming from > outside the system so to speak - i.e. someone else. And this reminder > basically becomes possible with the arising of a Buddha. So, it's the > teachings a Buddha that essentially open the system - through his teachings > one is reminded (i.e. conditions are there) for developing sila and > (particular to a Buddha's teaching) panna. And so, when these are developed > to a certain degree, they bring about the cutting off of the fetters. So, no > more samsara. > > Thank you for expanding on reminders, knowing and the like. As usual, you have discussed in a very balanced and thorough fashion. Good on ya :-) Cheers Herman #112511 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Calm, no 4. egberdina Hi Sarah, On 11 December 2010 16:23, sarah wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > S: While I agree that for the attainment of jhana, naturally the > lifestyle > > > will be very different. > > > > > > However, I think that we should stress that in the beginning, the > > > development of samatha can occur now in our daily lives and that the > > > important factor is pa~n~naa, not a change of lifestyle. > > > > > > Even as we read or go about our household chores there may be > conditions > > > for metta to develop, for there to be wise reflection on death, breath > or > > > any other object depending on accumulations. It depends on pa~n~naa > > > understanding the cittas, understanding moments of kusala and akusala, > not > > > on any wishing to develop samatha, of course. > > > > > > > >H: You appear to be saying that "wandering on" is a condition for its > ending. > > > If I have that right, I'd have to say that is a very silly to suggest :-) > > Nowhere does the Buddha teach anyone to just keep doing whatever they've > > always done. > .... > S: No, you have that wrong and I agree it would be silly - no need for a > Buddha for that. The only condition for ending the "wandering on" is the > development of insight into present realities, having heard,carefully > considered and understood what those present realities are. > > The Buddha taught us to develop such insight at the present moment, > regardless of the conventional circumstances we might find ourselves in? Is > there ever a choice at this moment for the seeing or hearing to be other > than that which has been conditioned already? > > Yes, there is definitely a choice. Regardless of what the situation is, it will be either seen as sukkha or dukkha, permanent or impermament, as an extension of oneself or not. What is clear from the Suttas is that how folks tend to see whatever occurs is reflected in the lifestyle they adopt. Typically, the householder is characterised as repeatedly investing in the one kind of worldview, and the one that forsakes the householders life is characterised as investing in the other world view. Cheers Herman #112512 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi pt, On 12 December 2010 01:46, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman and Howard, > > Thanks for your explanations and the discussion so far. As I mentioned in a > recent reply to KenH, I think the main difference we have at the moment is > that the commentarial way of describing an instance of insight - a single > dhamma (its characteristics) becoming an object of cittas with panna - is > not considered a valid description of insight by you guys. > > So, now I'm trying to understand exactly what would be a valid description > of insight according to you, but firstly to make sure that we're not talking > about different things: > > To me, insight is experience without one or more of the perversions / vipallasa. I am sure you know them, but here they are as represented in AN 4:49 "Monks, there are these four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view. Which four? 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful... 'Self' with regard to not-self... 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. These are the four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view. "There are these four non-perversions of perception, non-perversions of mind, non-perversions of view. Which four? 'Inconstant' with regard to the inconstant is a non-perversion of perception, a non-perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view. 'Stressful' with regard to the stressful... 'Not-self' with regard to not-self... 'Unattractive' with regard to the unattractive is a non-perversion of perception, a non-perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view. These are the four non-perversions of perception, non-perversions of mind, non-perversions of view." Perceiving constancy in the inconstant, pleasure in the stressful, self in what's not-self, attractiveness in the unattractive, beings, destroyed by wrong-view, go mad, out of their minds. Bound to Mara's yoke, from the yoke they find no rest. Beings go on to the wandering-on, leading to birth & death. But when Awakened Ones arise in the world, bringing light to the world, they proclaim the Dhamma leading to the stilling of stress. When those with discernment listen, they regain their senses, seeing the inconstant as inconstant, the stressful as stressful, what's not-self as not-self, the unattractive as unattractive. Undertaking right view, they transcend all stress & suffering. I hope that clarifies, and if not, feel free to ask some more questions :-) Cheers Herman #112513 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change kenhowardau Hi Kevin, Yes, I am sure. A jhana mediator knows the meaning of contentment. He is content with whatever life dishes out. To want something else would be akusala and quite foreign to him. Ken H > > Ken: That's why I am sure jhana meditators have never practiced meditation in a > deliberate or "formal" manner. Right view comes first - the associated > behaviour follows after. And that goes for the samatha kind of right view just > as much as the vipassana right view. > > Kevin: You are *sure*? > #112514 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. on Nimitta. nilovg Dear Rob E, After your mail to Sarah I listened to a recording on nimitta, perhaps it can be of help, meanwhile, when awaiting Sarah's answer. Op 12-dec-2010, om 1:15 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > ..... So the nimitta seems to be a kind of clearly-focused concept > that can give citta the truth of the dhamma's nature, is this > correct? If that is the case, then the nimitta, which does not > appear and disappear at such a fast pace that only an arahant can > see it, gives the ordinary, well-developed person a way to > apprehend the nature of dhammas - a pretty exciting development as > opposed to waiting all the way to enlightenment. ------ N: Kh Sujin would stress knowing the characteristic of a reality like seeing or visible object. She warned against thinking of all those terms like nimitta or concept. She explained that we first should correctly understand just visible object as that which is seen through the eyesense. She said: ------ > > R: If that is the case, the difference between the clear nimitta > and the deluded concept would be worth knowing about. I also wonder > how the nimitta is apprehended by the mind of the worldling. It > must be that it lasts for a long enough time for it to be > understood, so how does that work? Does it last as long as a > regular concept, where we can think and talk about it for as long > as necessary to understand it? And how does it arise, and under > what conditions? ------ N: It does not arise. Realities arise and fall away very fast and what is left is a nimitta. There is the nimitta of ruupakkhandha, the khandha of feeling, etc. of all khandhas, and that is in short sa"nkhaara nimitta, the nimitta op conditioned dhammas. An example: hardness appears through the bodysense, but is it only one unit of hardness that is experienced? No. There are many groups of ruupas containing hardness and we do not know which one is the present one. It does not matter. Just know the characteristic of hardness as only a dhamma, not a self or belonging to a self. What I get from this talk is that we need not worry whether a nimitta is a concept or not or what is the difference between nimitta and concept. All that is only thinking. Instead of this, :-)).... (shall I parrot this?) ------- Nina. #112515 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:41 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: There is nothing arbitrary about the way in which conditions work or the way in which present dhammas are conditioned to arise. We need to distinguish between those dhammas primarily conditioned by past kamma, such as seeing or hearing, and those dhammas which accumulate, even now as we speak. Examples of these are the kusala and akusala cittas and cetasikas. So we can say that attachment or aversion or wisdom accumulate, but we cannot say that the sense experiences, vipaka cittas, accumulate. > .... > >It seems that a lot of the conditionality discussed regards past conditions of like kind, eg, that present kusala is the kammic result of past kusala. > ... > S: Not quite. Present kusala is *not* the kammic result of past kusala at all. Present kusala arises because kusala has been accumulated in the past. The main condition for it's arising is natural decisive support condition. In this way, we can see the distinction between results of kamma which have been conditioned by past kamma, such as the sense experiences, sometimes called "passive" and the "active" responses, the kusala or akusala that accumulates on account of/in reaction to these experiences. I'm going to come back to the above, because it is a little confusing to me and seems important and good information. I'll break it down in a separate post and see if I can figure out how to ask you about it. > >The question of how kusala is created now to become the past condition for future kusala is not discussed, it seems to me. > .... > S: Simply, lobha now will lead to more lobha in future. On and on and on, unless eradicated. > ... > > Somehow the conditionality is always in the past, never being formed up in the present. > ... > S: Not so - see above. > ... > >But of course kamma exists now as well, not just in the past - it is being created by current action, not just by past action. So how is kamma formed now? > ... > S: Kamma is actually cetana (intention) cetasika. When it arises in the javana processes, the kamma also accumulates. When it is strong enough, it conditions particular deeds, speech and mental activity which may bring results in future. This is helpful. > >Current kamma cannot merely be the continuation of past kamma, it is a recurrent process. To say that none of the systematic things that we do create conditions does not make sense to me. > .... > S: We just have to be precise about what is meant by "systematic things". For example, if someone kills an insect, the kamma involved (which is likely to bring its result) is actually the particular intention at such a time, which conditioned the rupas. Referencing what you said above, what is the difference between the "deeds" and the "mental activity" and what kinds of results do each bring? I think Jon was saying fairly strongly that in a sense there were no deeds, or at least they were not significant, and only mental events really qualified as kusala or akusala, which I assume would also create kusala or akusala kamma...? And maybe you can help me understand what happens to this intention once the intention/act takes place, and how it leads to future vipaka, and what kinds of tendencies or accumulations leads to kamma in the future. > >To say that what does create conditions for awakening are not only uncontrollable, but also arbitrary and not understandable or sensible, does also not make sense to me. > ... > S: No one has said this. I guess I'm confused about how earlier kammas or accumulations give rise to events in the present. There must be a describeable set of types of conditions, such as decisive support condition [which I also don't understand too well] which come together to cause a delayed event to arise at a given time. When I say "arbitrary" I don't mean it's necessarily *really* arbitrary, but that's it's hard to see why a moment of akusala arises here, a moment of panna arises there. It would make more sense to me [not that what makes sense to me necessarily means anything] that there would be a longer series of moments that have some relation to what is going on, or that if there was a time delay, that you could see how the deferred phenomena would arise at a specific time, not just as a single moment but as a series of moments that have some sort of relation to each other. For instance, to use a worldly analogy, if I see someone every day and they do something irritating to me, a recurrent sort of thing that annoys me, and I feel anger but I don't express it, this builds up over time, and then when one more irritating event occurs I explode and yell at the person. To the other person it may seem that it came out of nowhere, as they were unaware that I was annoyed in the first place and that this was building up. I can see this as a good analogy for a "tendency" or "accumulation" that would eventually express itself as a discernible event, when before it was only experienced below the surface. Or if I have an insight into something, an "aha" moment - maybe for me it would be understanding how a car motor works, or something equally foreign to me, there would be a series of related moments. It may be that I looked at the spark plugs and the carburator several times but never saw how they were connected, and one day it comes together and I see how the thing works. That might be an analogy for accumulation of panna and it coming forward as an experience at a later time after a number of exposures, efforts, contemplations, etc. So I wonder if the types of moments - kusala, akusala, panna, moha and dosa - that may arise later than the conditions that form them, or may accumulate over time, have some sort of sensible relation to events like the examples above. > >Just because we have a conceptual understanding of why sitting and following breath may condition samatha, as the Buddha explicitly taught, does not mean that on the level of dhammas this is not the case, even though we are not in control of it. > .... > S: It is the understanding at such a time, not just sitting and following of breath, that conditions samatha. If I pacify the breath and it leads to greater calm, why does this in itself not qualify as samatha? Is there an additional necessary characteristic that samatha has other than calm? I understand that calm + understanding is better than just calm, especially as regards the Buddhist path, but I am just wondering what makes it samatha as opposed to generic calm. Usually I see samatha spoken of as separate from insight, that they are two factors to be developed in order to reach a better mental state, but that insight does not have to be a component of samatha, as opposed to an accompaniment, or a separate arising once samatha has been established. Whereas a lot of discourses seem to talk about establishing jhana and then establishing insight in relation to jhana, you seem to turn it around and say that insight is a condition for samatha. Is that right? ... > Not sure now whether we're agreeing or disagreeing, but always enjoyable to discuss Dhamma with you! Thank you, Sarah. I appreciate your clear understanding and communication. When I re-read some of what I wrote, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with myself, but I also enjoy these exchanges very much. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112516 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. Part II of this reply, breaking down kamma and vipaka a bit more. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: There is nothing arbitrary about the way in which conditions work or the way in which present dhammas are conditioned to arise. > We need to distinguish between those dhammas primarily conditioned by past kamma, such as seeing or hearing, Here I think you are saying that sense experiences are primarily conditioned by past kamma. > and those dhammas which accumulate, even now as we speak. > Examples of these are the kusala and akusala cittas and cetasikas. Here you are saying that kusala and akusala cittas and cetasikas accumulate [kamma?] > So we can say that attachment or aversion or wisdom accumulate, Here you are identifying cetasikas[?] which accumulate kusala or akusala within the citta...? > but we cannot say that the sense experiences, vipaka cittas, accumulate. Here you are saying that sense experiences do not themselves accumulate qualities, that rather - I think you are saying - they are the result [vipaka] of past kammas and accumulations...? My conclusion so far is that sensory experience is vipaka - the result of accumulations and kamma, while cittas and cetasikas do accumulate kamma, which continues to roll out further kamma and corresponding vipaka in the future...? Still not sure how accumulations eventually pop out in vipaka. How does a particular experience of seeing or hearing relate to the accumulations of kusala or akusala cittas and cetasikas? Also, just a question of confusion: what is the difference between kammas and accumulations? It seems that both can accumulate. Are they two different things? > >It seems that a lot of the conditionality discussed regards past conditions of like kind, eg, that present kusala is the kammic result of past kusala. > ... > S: Not quite. Present kusala is *not* the kammic result of past kusala at all. Present kusala arises because kusala has been accumulated in the past. What exactly is the difference here? How does past kusala lead to further kusala? Why is kamma the wrong term to use for this relation? > The main condition for it's arising is natural decisive support condition. What is it that has natural decisive support condition to cause kusala to arise? Is it the natural support of kusala that has already been developed, or some other factors? > In this way, we can see the distinction between results of kamma which have been conditioned by past kamma,... That would be vipaka, I guess. >...such as the sense experiences, sometimes called "passive" So again, you are affirming that sensory experience is the result of kamma and is passive vipaka, meaning, I guess, that it happes purely as a result of past kamma... > ...and the "active" responses, the kusala or akusala that accumulates on account of/in reaction to these experiences. So one reacts to experience, which experience is itself vipaka related to past kamma; and new kamma develops based on the intentions that arise in response to this vipaka, whether it is kusala or akusala. These reactions give rise to present kamma - or are present kamma - and plants seeds for future vipaka. Could you say a bit more about why seeing and hearing are passive vipaka - is it because they are a kammic dead end, not themselves resulting in any further kamma? And a bit more about why the kusala/akusala reactions to experience are "active" vipaka - is it because they lead to further kamma due to their leading to new intentional formations? Great information, and fun to try to figure out what you are saying! :-) Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112517 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:49 pm Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > KH: >> who are these people who supposedly follow commentators *rather > than* the original? I believe the ancient commentaries and the original are the same. > >> > > RE: > Hope you don't mind me jumping in. > ---------- > > Be my guest; it's a wet Sunday morning and I am glad of the company. Well, thanks. If I was there in person, I would enjoy having a cup of tea with you. > ----------------- > RE: > What does this mean, that they are the same? > ----------------- > > They are the same teaching. But you would not say that they have exactly the same message and the exact same understanding. Even a commentator's interpretation is going to be less perfect a teaching than what the Buddha's wisdom originally led him to say. Don't you think that even though it is a very high tier, it is still a lower rung than the Buddha himself? I don't think that anyone would want to say that the Buddha's dissemination of the path on earth was done by committee. Although the committees that meet and interpret afterwards may be exceedingly important, they are not the "font of wisdom" itself. We need to keep going back to the source and making sure even the most brilliant commentaries are true to the sense of the Buddha's own message, not take that for granted - in my opinion. In my experience, going back to single packed sentence in the satipatthana sutta, after reading discussion and commentary, is very important. Sitting with the real sentence he spoke and seeing how deep and rich it is, is different than going off to the commentary and just staying there. The return back to Buddha himself I think is an important way to keep touching base with the Master. > ---------------------- > RE: > Do you grant the commentaries the same status as the Buddha's direct teachings? > ---------------------- > > No, but beginners like me find the commentaries easier to understand. I don't think that's a bad thing at all; as long as we go back to Buddha regularly and compare what we're learning to his original words and intentions. There's always a danger of going off onto another sub-track. Each commentator had things that they emphasized, perhaps because of their time and place, perhaps because of gaps that needed to be explained, but the original teaching is more complete in a sense, even when it's not filled in. it's the original. > --------------------------- > RE: > Surely, even an arahant does not have the wisdom or omniscience of a Buddha...? > --------------------------- > > Even while the Buddha was alive, his arahant disciples taught the Dhamma. Some of Sariputta's and Ananda's (and others) discourses are in the Tipitaka. There are records of where the Buddha has said a particular monk or nun had explained a point of Dhamma exactly the way he would have explained it. That is great when you have the Buddha standing by to verify that. That is a true collaboration, with the Master in charge of the process. I think even I would be a tiny bit smarter if I were standing next to the Buddha - unless of course I just fainted. > ----------------------- > RE: > As for "rather than," I won't speak for Herman, but I think the implication is that you rely on the commentaries to grasp the meaning of the suttas and Abhidhamma, and if there is a seeming contradiction, you go with the interpretation of the commentaries...? > ------------------------ > > Years ago, a DSG member tried to convince us that anatta did not mean no self. As proof, he gave us a string of quotes where the Buddha had referred to 'myself' 'yourself' 'men' 'women' 'I' 'you' 'he' 'she' and so on. Is that what you mean by 'the literal meaning' of the suttas? No, I include the sense and purpose of what is being said, on a common-sense level. In other words, I would not take away all slack to use conventional language, since the language is constructed that way. But when the Buddha makes a statement that is clear with a beginning, middle and end, not taken out of context, such as "without striving, and without standing still" it is a different thing to give substitute objects for the things he mentioned and say "it really meant this." Whether right or wrong, that is a different level of interpretation, all the way to substitution. When the Buddha says "I am not part of the All," the "I" in that sentence is obviously not a personal reference, since there is no "I"-sense outside of the All. So we can maybe distinguish between pure semantics and sentences that have clear meanings. When Buddha says there is a radiant consciousness that is boundless and outside of the All, I think it's my job to figure out what he was talking about based on what he said, not translate that into some other thing that he didn't say, such as "he was really talking about bhavanga cittas," when there is nothing in the sutta that suggests that this was the context. Do you see where I sort of draw the line? In that sort of case, I at least need a little more evidence or a better explanation for why the Commentator is saying the Buddha is not saying what he seems to be saying. > ------------------------------- > RE: > Would that be fair to say, that you trust the commentaries to have the final word on what things mean? > ------------------------------- > > Yes, of course! It's all the same teaching. Well it's not that obvious. The commentators are not the Buddha, so you have to have faith that the commentators are spot on in everything they say. If they take a wrong turn, it is *not* the same teaching. So you are saying you have *no* doubt that they were 100% on top of the Buddha's complete teaching, which I find hard to swallows, since it is clearly stated that *only* a Buddha has the Buddha's level of wisdom. There's no one alive that can match his understanding. So I personally would always hold out that there are going to be some things that even other arahants are not going to totally get. I guess you don't feel that way. > ----------------------- > RE: > That is not to say they are wrong, but it would be a dividing line between those who take the Buddha's teachings literally, and use the commentaries to fill in gaps in understanding, and those who believe that the commentaries can explain meanings in the Buddha's words that do not seem to be there in the literal reading. > ------------------------ > > Yes, we see that sort of thing quite often; people have their own interpretations of the Dhamma and accordingly accept some Pali texts and reject others. Obviously there is something very wrong, but there is no way of telling them. That is not responsive to what I said. I was not talking about people who pick and choose among teachings, but between those who follow the Buddha as the final source, and those who believe the commentators, on behalf of the Buddha, have the last word. > ------------------------ > RE: > There are other dividing lines that don't apply to you necessarily, that might apply to me or someone else. For instance, I take the Buddha literally when he talks about practice and teachings of Dhamma, > ------------------------ > > So, for example, when he refers to a "monk" who is practising satipatthana, you take that to mean a sentient being? Of course I take it to be a sentient being. More importantly I take it to be a monk. If I am not a monk, I have to think about how this may apply to a householder - or a condo-holder in my case. As for it being a sentient being, the Buddha said explicitly that his teaching was *for* sentient beings, and for the benefit of all sentient beings. He's the one who came up with that phrase, so yeah, I believe him. What you are saying is that a sentient being is not really a sentient being. I can agree with that, but I think both levels are important, a point which we may argue for many lifetimes. > ------------------------------ > RE: > but I don't accept certain things that seem to be artifacts of the historical time of the Buddha, such as discussions of Cloud Gods causing the bad weather. I don't believe in Cloud Gods, > ------------------------------ > > Well, I don't believe *any* sentient being is an absolute reality. Therefore, the difference between men and gods is of no significance to me. What about cloud-God dhammas? Hmn......? > ----------------------------------- > RE: > and it doesn't seem to be integral to the Buddha's teaching whether I do or not. > ----------------------------------- > > The only things that are integral to the Buddha's teaching are paramattha dhammas. I am surprised you ended this way! NOT! ;-) Nice to have tea with you on a rainy day. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #112518 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:54 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > RobE: I realize you partially acknowledge this when you acknowledge the kusala view of akusala as part of bhavana, but I think it's more intertwined than even that, and separating the moments out and judging them separately seems artificial to me. > > pt: I'd say that the distinction has its purpose - to help the understanding to differentiate between the two - e.g. know what's an instance with mindfulness and what's an instances without it, which then extends to knowing what's the path and what's not, etc. Sure, it can then be said that both the instance with and without mindfulness is important so that there can be the actual differentiation, but that's more of a post facto explanation I feel. Anyway, I think this is becoming just a discussion about semantics, since I think we agree on most that's actually important. Well I appreciate thrashing it out with you. It's a fine point in some ways, but important to me in looking process vs. individual moments, and the idea that "the path" occurs in only certain moments. What I do think we agree on and I think is valuable is seeing that development involves both acknowledging kusala moments and clearly seeing akusala moments and "dealing with them" [in my terms.] Maybe I am not as focused on kusala as I should be. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112519 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:24 pm Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Herman, -------- <. . .> KH: >> They were arahants. H: > You didn't say whether you agreed or disagreed with my evidence for the early suttas being quite different to the commentaries from around 500 AD. -------- Disagreed. ------------------ H: > Anyway, I think that the notion of someone "being an arahant" has been well addressed in the suttas. The arahant is not to be found. ------------------- ? ----------------------------------- <. . .> H: > Well, if you insist there have to be commentaries ----------------------------------- Doesn't everyone? Even Ven Thanissaro, who casts doubt on so many commentaries, uses them in his translation work. He also uses them in his interpretation work, where it suits him. --------------------------------------------- H: > (and there have been many), it now comes down to you to choose the real Buddhism. Here are some of the others that have come and gone before you who fancied their hand at knowing what was path. - SthaviravÄda - PudgalavÄda ('Personalist') (c. 280 BCE) ----------------------------------- Each of us has had to choose which version of the Dhamma we were going to study. Oh, and then there were those of us who decided they would pick and choose bits from different versions, effectively creating their own. They must be the least likely of all to find the right path. Ken H #112520 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:31 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------- <. . .> KH: >> There is only one Theravadin view. >> RE: > You have a habit of saying things as if true without any supporting evidence or explanation. You realize that makes it an unsubstantiated opinion, no matter how firmly you may believe it. Belief is not a proof of anything. If you have any interest in being convincing when you make a blanket statement like that, you have to provide some support. If you just want to enjoy saying it though, that it is not necessary. --------- I don't know what you are trying to say. Surely there can only be one Theravada! Or are you suggesting the Theras gave us a range of alternative Dhammas to choose from? ---------------- <. . .> RE: > Well, the example you gave that I was rather rude about seemed arbitrary and removed from what was actually said. ---------------- You said it sounded straightforward to you, but I think you will eventually agree that the initial reading of the sutta wasn't meant to sound straightforward. It was meant to sound paradoxical. The Buddha ruled out all the conventional ways of crossing a flood, and so his audience had to stop thinking in conventional ways and see the world as a single moment of nama and rupa. The ways of crossing the flood could then be seen as the various cetasika-functions that were performed in a moment of Magga citta. And the ways of failing to cross the flood could be seen as the cetasika functions that were performed in other kinds of citta. ---------------------- RE: > I don't think you can expect everyone to have your faith that whatever far-out or dogmatic thing appears in a commentary must necessarily be true, even if no explanation is given for why it makes any sense. But again, you can say what you like, just as I can say that unicorns are making the world rotate by pulling on a number of hydraulic pulleys connected to the moon. ---------------------- I suppose if the commentaries are seen as 'far out' and 'lacking in explanation' then there can't be any faith in them. I'm glad I don't see them that way. ------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> There is a sutta in which the Buddha tells monks they must kill their parents and assassinate the king. > Which sutta is that? Never heard of it, and I'd love to look it up. --------------------------------------- I don't know the name. I was thinking of a sutta that Jon had mentioned a few times - including just recently. I am sure he will give you the reference if you ask nicely. :-) ---------------------- <. . .> RE: >> Would need to see that before commenting. I'm not against commentaries, by the way. I just don't subscribe to whatever they say without any explanation. If something seems sound, I can consider it and come to understand it. But I don't believe in cloud-Gods making it rain, even though it is in a sutta. Do you? ----------------------- I tried to warn you rejecting commentaries was the thin edge of the wedge. Now you are rejecting suttas! :-) There should be no problem understanding cloud gods in terms of conditioned dhammas. However, understanding conditioned dhammas literally in terms of conventional beings is a different matter. I don't think it needs to interest us Dhamma students at all. Ken H #112521 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:09 am Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[a] epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Your qus for K.Sujin last time were excellent and led to some great discussion there and here. If you'd like to review your long responses to me on this thread and raise any further questions (maybe restrict them to half a page!), that would be great. Any other qus welcome. I have one from Scott. Thanks, Sarah - do you mean the things we have been talking about in these last few posts? About kamma and accumulations and samatha? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #112522 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[a] sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Tue, 14/12/10, Robert E wrote: S:> Your qus for K.Sujin last time were excellent and led to some great discussion there and here. If you'd like to review your long responses to me on this thread and raise any further questions (maybe restrict them to half a page!), that would be great. Any other qus welcome. I have one from Scott. ... >R:Thanks, Sarah - do you mean the things we have been talking about in these last few posts? About kamma and accumulations and samatha? .... S: No, I meant the ones you raised when we were last in Bkk which lead to the long and detailed discussions on breath and anapanasati (see subject heading), but anything you'd like to raise which you feel we have different views on, perhaps. I'll get back to the discussions on kamma and accumulations later - lots more to run on them. Just arrived in Bkk. On the flight from Syd to HK yesterday evening, we were sitting at the back of the plane. Jon had his laptop on his tray and was keying in a response to you (I think), when he fell asleep over it:-) We both need to catch up for a couple of days... Metta Sarah ====== #112523 From: "philip" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:29 am Subject: Two questions on Ch.8 of "Conditionality of Life." philofillet Dear Nina (p.s to all) I am continuing to read the book with pleasure (and attachment to having contact with such deep teachings.) A couple of questions. 1) On this passage: "We have an interest in the Dhamma because this has been accumulated. We may have listened to the Dhamma in past lives, but we do not remember this anymore. Interest in the Dhamma and also the inclination to develop right understanding can be carried on from life to life because of promiximate decisive support condition." Does this mean that each citta that gives way to the next in a series contains an understanding of and interest in Dhamma? I really can't wrap my head around this. To my shallow understanding, it seems that Dhamma teachings are concepts that have come to have powerful conditioning power and when conditions are there to bring them within the range of our attention, they are powerful decisive support conditions. But I can't get the proximate part. I guess this brings us back to something we discussed a few years ago. Rob Moult told me that qualities etc are not accumulated "in" the citta, but you have said they are. Very difficult topic, too deep for me really, but... 2) I was wondering why you decided to end the chapter with a verse from the suttanta that described how one of awakened understanding perceives sense door objects. (e.g "By pleasures' impact not inebriate/nor yet distracted by the touch of pain, to pain and pleasure both indifferent, let him be free from likings and dislikings." ) Was it just for poetic inspiration that you included this verse that described an Ariyan response to objects? I would wonder if it might not cause people to aspire to perceive in such a way. I think talking about the dome of lobha (our almost invariably akusala response to objects) is more in line with the way we perceive objects in daily life. Well, it's your book! But I don't think we can have both appreciation of the inevitability of lobha and an appreciation of responding to objects without liking and disliking. If we have an appreciation of the latter, we had better be sure we understand it is nothing to do with us, it is not our understanding being described. Thanks again for sending me the book. Metta, Phil p.s sorry all, I can only respond to Nina's response....but please feel free to add your comments, I'm sure they will be coming... :) #112524 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two questions on Ch.8 of "Conditionality of Life." nilovg Dear Philip, thanks for your good questions. Just a remark for all. Each time there is in the text a reference to a former chapter, the number should be one higher. Thus, 'see Ch 5' should become 'see Ch 6'. In printing Alan shifted the numbers of the titles, but this was omitted as to the references within the text. Op 14-dec-2010, om 8:29 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > 1) On this passage: "We have an interest in the Dhamma because this > has been accumulated. We may have listened to the Dhamma in past > lives, but we do not remember this anymore. Interest in the Dhamma > and also the inclination to develop right understanding can be > carried on from life to life because of promiximate decisive > support condition." > > Does this mean that each citta that gives way to the next in a > series contains an understanding of and interest in Dhamma? ------ N: It is not as complicated as you think. The proximity-condition indicates that our whole life is a long series of cittas succeeding one another. It indicates that there is a connection of the past to the present and of the present to the future. All the different inclinations, good and bad, we have accumulated appear when there are the right conditions for them. They do not become manifest at each moment. -------- > Ph: I really can't wrap my head around this. To my shallow > understanding, it seems that Dhamma teachings are concepts that > have come to have powerful conditioning power and when conditions > are there to bring them within the range of our attention, they are > powerful decisive support conditions. ------ N: The *understanding* of the Dhamma (not a concept) is accumulated and can be a powerful condition, even to the degree of enlightenment. -------- > Ph: But I can't get the proximate part. I guess this brings us back > to something we discussed a few years ago. Rob Moult told me that > qualities etc are not accumulated "in" the citta, but you have said > they are. Very difficult topic, too deep for me really, but... ------ N: Accumulated in the citta: we can also express this differently, carried on from citta to citta. All expressions with regard to this are rather defective. -------- > > Ph:2) I was wondering why you decided to end the chapter with a > verse from the suttanta that described how one of awakened > understanding perceives sense door objects. (e.g "By pleasures' > impact not inebriate/nor yet distracted by the touch of pain, to > pain and pleasure both indifferent, let him be free from likings > and dislikings." ) -------- N: To show that when the doorways are not guarded there will be dukkha, and when they are guarded one will be free. Like an exhortation. Yes, even at this very moment. Many objects are experienced through the different doorways, and how is the response? -------- > Ph: Was it just for poetic inspiration that you included this verse > that described an Ariyan response to objects? I would wonder if it > might not cause people to aspire to perceive in such a way. I think > talking about the dome of lobha (our almost invariably akusala > response to objects) is more in line with the way we perceive > objects in daily life. ----- N: And that leads to more dukkha. -------- > Ph: Well, it's your book! But I don't think we can have both > appreciation of the inevitability of lobha and an appreciation of > responding to objects without liking and disliking. If we have an > appreciation of the latter, we had better be sure we understand it > is nothing to do with us, it is not our understanding being described. ------ N: If the right Path is being developed it leads to this freedom. So, we listen to the Dhamma to have more understanding what this Path is and how it is developed. The Buddha preached the Dhamma not to people who would say: this has nothing to do with us. Nina. #112525 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:25 pm Subject: Serenity! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Tranquillity Link to Awakening? The Tranquillity Link to Awakening (passaddhi-sambojjhanga) has the characteristic of peace, and the function of stilling, which manifests as absence of restless trembling. Stillness of feeling, perception and mental construction is the factor that induces bodily Tranquillity. Stillness of consciousness itself induces mental Tranquillity. The proximate cause of Tranquillity is the satisfaction within Joy! The resulting effect of Tranquillity is the bliss within Happiness! The Buddha once said: What mental fermentations (asava) should be overcome by development? If a Bhikkhu by careful & rational attention develops the Tranquillity Link to Awakening based on seclusion, based on disillusion, based on ceasing, and culminating in cool relinquishment, then neither can mental fermentation, nor any fever, nor any discontent ever arise in him. MN2 [i 11] In one who is joyous, the body becomes calm & the mind becomes calm. The Tranquillity Link to Awakening emerges right there. He develops it, & for him it goes to the culmination of its development. MN118 [iii 85] CALMED Calm is his thought, calm is his speech, and calm is his deed, who, truly knowing, is wholly freed, perfectly tranquil and wise. Dhammapada 96 CONTENT The one who eliminates discontent, tearing it out by the roots, utterly cuts it out, such one spontaneously becomes absorbed in the calm of tranquillity both day & night. Dhammapada 250 COMPOSED The one who is tranquil in movement, calmed in speech, stilled in thought, collected & composed, who sees right through & rejects all allurements of this world, such one is truly a 'Peaceful One'. Dhammapada 378 Inspirations on the calming & soothing of serene Tranquillity (Passaddhi): Tranquillity_Passaddhi , Feeding_Tranquillity , The_Tranquil_One Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Tranquillity! #112526 From: "philip" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Two questions on Ch.8 of "Conditionality of Life." philofillet Hi Nina Thank you for your speedy response to my questions, much appreciated. > > Does this mean that each citta that gives way to the next in a > > series contains an understanding of and interest in Dhamma? > ------ > N: It is not as complicated as you think. The proximity-condition > indicates that our whole life is a long series of cittas succeeding > one another. Ph: This I can understand, somehow. It indicates that there is a connection of the past to > the present and of the present to the future. All the different > inclinations, good and bad, we have accumulated appear when there are > the right conditions for them. They do not become manifest at each > moment. Ph: I can't understand how this happens, how this works, it is beyond me. But that's ok. > > Ph: I really can't wrap my head around this. To my shallow > > understanding, it seems that Dhamma teachings are concepts that > > have come to have powerful conditioning power and when conditions > > are there to bring them within the range of our attention, they are > > powerful decisive support conditions. > ------ > N: The *understanding* of the Dhamma (not a concept) is accumulated > and can be a powerful condition, even to the degree of enlightenment. Ph: Yes, I can see this on paper. But I just don't *get* it. I guess that is why people discuss the various difficult topics that get discussed at length at DSG, related to cittas, people make the effort to wrap their understanding around the difficult topics. I have spoken against doing so in the past, but it would be good for my understanding to exercise it a bit more. No pain, no gain, as they say in gym talk. But not now. (snip) > > Ph: Well, it's your book! But I don't think we can have both > > appreciation of the inevitability of lobha and an appreciation of > > responding to objects without liking and disliking. If we have an > > appreciation of the latter, we had better be sure we understand it > > is nothing to do with us, it is not our understanding being described. > ------ > N: If the right Path is being developed it leads to this freedom. So, > we listen to the Dhamma to have more understanding what this Path is > and how it is developed. The Buddha preached the Dhamma not to people > who would say: this has nothing to do with us. Ph: Right you are. Do you remember from your days in Japan how people say "hai" in a contrite, concessionary way? I say it now. Thanks again. I read on... Metta, Phil #112527 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:19 pm Subject: Problem of other minds truth_aerator Dear all, How do we know that other minds exist? Whatever one cognizes, the cognition happens within one's own mind. The known is inseparable from the knowing mind. So how does one fulfill that aspect of satipatthana that calls for knowing of external mind? ""In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html With metta, Alex #112528 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:22 pm Subject: Re: Problem of other minds kenhowardau Hi Alex, If I remember the explanation correctly, the monk understands at those times that all conditioned dhammas (his own, others', past, present and future) are the same as the one he is currently experiencing - they are all anicca, dukkha and anatta. Ken H > > ""In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of > itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally > & externally on the mind in & of itself." #112529 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:23 pm Subject: Bluish Victory! bhikkhu5 Friends: Seeing the Body as it really is disables desire! The Buddha explained how to regard the body in order to reduce greed: Whether going or standing, sitting or lying, bending or stretching, then one should note fully aware: this is movement of the body, which is a frame of bones joined with sinews, plastered with skin and flesh, full of intestines, stomach, liver, bladder, heart, lungs, kidneys, spleen, slime, mucus, sweat, pus, lymph, blood, joint-fluid, bile, and fat. Filth oozes from its nine holes as tears, earwax, snot, spittle, vomit, bile, urine, semen and excrement. Sweat and dirt stick the body, and its hollow skull is filled with a fatty brain... Only a fool, overwhelmed by ignorance, regards it as beautiful, but when it lies dead, swollen up and bluish, cast away, eaten by dogs, jackals, wolves, worms, crows and vultures nobody cares anymore about it. This impure, and evil-smelling two-footed body is cherished by many and adored as a temple. However: Whoever would be proud of such a body, or would belittle others for their less attractive body, what is this, except lack of genuine insight? The bhikkhu possessing knowledge here, having heard the Buddha's word, indeed understands it, for he sees this body as it really is. As this corps is, so is that body of mine also, understanding this, one can relinquish desire for the body, both one's own and other's. Having eliminated desire, lust & passion, the bhikkhu possessing knowledge here, has arrived at the undying, at imperturbable peace, at the unshakable state of quenching. Sn 193-205 <...> Have a nice desireless day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112530 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:19 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: If I remember the explanation correctly, the monk understands at >those times that all conditioned dhammas (his own, others', past, >present and future) are the same as the one he is currently >experiencing - they are all anicca, dukkha and anatta. How does one know that there are other's cittas? What distinguishes them from one's own cittas? With metta, Alex #112531 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Problem of other minds upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Ken) - In a message dated 12/14/2010 8:20:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi KenH, all, >KH: If I remember the explanation correctly, the monk understands at >those times that all conditioned dhammas (his own, others', past, >present and future) are the same as the one he is currently >experiencing - they are all anicca, dukkha and anatta. How does one know that there are other's cittas? What distinguishes them from one's own cittas? With metta, Alex =================================== When I was a child I used to (almost obsessively) contemplate the question of what makes "me" me, and not someone else! It was a kind of natural koan for me. What I didn't break through to then, though, was that there is no thing that is the experiencer involved in what I call "me" nor is there one for what I call "others". A given stream of experiencing, of consciousness and content of consciousness, is just that, a stream of experiencing, all instants of which are connected by kamma and memory, but with no hidden observer "doing" the observing. As for the "problem" of the existence of other experiential streams, well, we cannot in fact *know* whether there are or not, it seems to me. We do plausibly infer the existence of others, and I do believe in them, but I also think it is only a matter of inferring and believing rather than of knowing. I suspect that this is not the case for arahants, though. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112532 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:54 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds kenhowardau Hi Alex > How does one know that there are other's cittas? What distinguishes > them from one's own cittas? > I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas from one's own, because there is no concept of self in satipatthana. As far as satipatthana is concerned, you see one citta and you've seen them all. Ken H #112533 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:06 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, > I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas >from one's own, because there is no concept of self in satipatthana. >As far as satipatthana is concerned, you see one citta and you've seen >them all. But even when it comes to different streams of cittas, how does on distinguish between one stream of cittas and and another? How does "one" know that these were conventionally called "my" cittas and those were conventionally called someone else's cittas? After all KenH's cittas (conventionally speaking) are not the same as Alex's. With metta, Alex #112534 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:22 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds kenhowardau Hi Alex and Howard, ------- KH: >> I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas from one's own, because there is no concept of self in satipatthana. As far as satipatthana is concerned, you see one citta and you've seen them all. >> A: > But even when it comes to different streams of cittas, how does one distinguish between one stream of cittas and and another? ------- When you are talking about "streams" of cittas you are talking about concepts. The difference between one concept and another can be known by thinking. Thinking is something we do all the time, and so there is no problem in distinguishing between streams. Ken H #112535 From: "philip" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:28 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds philofillet Hi Alex > But even when it comes to different streams of cittas, how does on distinguish between one stream of cittas and and another? I wonder if this could be one of those topics that can only lead to distraction? At first glance no, because as you say, satipatthana sutta includes external cittas. It's hard to understand how another person's cittas can be anything but a concept. (It's hard enough for me to understand how my awareness of my own cittas can be anything but a concept, but that is my problem.) I think I have heard Bhikkhu Bodhi address this in his talks on MN10 and he said it was difficult to fathom for him, but he said one explanation is that it comes down to making suppositions based on body intimation etc. E.g, if someone grimaces, awareness of that person't aversion. But if I recall correctly he went on to say that that didn't sound right to him, and he couldn't really explain it. So Bhikkhu Bodhi couldn't explain it in a way that was satisfactory for himself and skipped over it pretty quickly in his talk, maybe that is a good hint for us too... Metta, Phil #112536 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I can think of nothing > more ridiculous than a householder trying to dispense with self-view as a > first step anywhere. > > > > AN 3:40 > > "There are these three governing principles. Which three? The self as a > governing principle, the cosmos as a governing principle, and the Dhamma as > a governing principle. > > "And what is the self as a governing principle? There is the case where a > monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty > dwelling, reflects on this: 'It is not for the sake of robes that I have > gone forth from the home life into homelessness; it is not for the sake of > almsfood, for the sake of lodgings, or for the sake of this or that state of > [future] becoming that I have gone forth from the home life into > homelessness. Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, > lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with > stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & > stress might be known!" Now, if I were to seek the same sort of sensual > pleasures that I abandoned in going forth from home into homelessness — or a > worse sort — that would not be fitting for me.' So he reflects on this: 'My > persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not > confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having > made himself his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, > develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is > unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the > self as a governing principle. Just jumping in to note "the self as a governing principle" as a possible middle stage between self-view as master or myth, and a future time of perhaps abandoning self-view, with self here turned from hungry monkey to guardian of the principles of the path - a worthy intermediate stage of maturity. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #112537 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:07 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: We have the word ogha, flood. There are four oghas: the flood of > sense desire, the flood of desire for existence, the flood of wrong > view (di.t.thi) and the flood of ignorance. The Buddha had crossed > these and we also should cross these. We should not forget the flood > of wrong view! As I said before, this one is the first that has to be > overcome. Thanks, Nina, that gives a good context to the "flood." > You may think of parroting, but we have to hear the same > things many times before it sinks in, and this is because of our > accumulated ignorance, since aeons and aeons. I only call it parroting when it is Ken H. saying it. :-) We have a "special" relationship... As Sarah said: commentators were just agreeing with what the Buddha said - it's the > present reality that is to be known, not the name.> Call this > parroting if you like, but I cannot hear this often enough. We may > get lost in names and terms, but only the characteristic of the > present reality can be investigated. I agree with that basic idea - sometimes though, making a general point can obscure a specific point, even if the general point is correct. > --------- > > From Ven. Bodhi's notes (p. 343): > the Co enumerates seven dyads:< (1) "halting" by way of defilements, > one sinks; "straining" by way of volitional formations, one gets > swept away; (2) by way of craving and views, one sinks; by way of the > other defilements, one gets swept away; (3) by way of craving, one > sinks; by way of views, one gets swept away; (4) by way of the > eternalist view, one sinks; by way of the annihilationist view, one > gets swept away (see It 43,12,-44, 4); (5) by way of slackness one > sinks, by way of restlessness, one gets swept away; (6) by way of > devotion to sensual pleasures one sinks, by way of devotion to self- > mortification one gets swept away; (7) by way of all unwholesome > volitional formations one sinks, by way of all mundane wholesome > volitional formations one gets swept away.> Seeing these sets of opposites together is helpful and helps the sutta to make more sense. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112538 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:10 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, > > > Are you saying that one is not supposed to meditate until *after* >enlightenment? That wouldn't make much sense, would it, since the >development of jhana and insight are on the path *to* >enlightenment...? > > What it seems to say is that samatha meditation can be required after stream-entry, but not prior (though it could be great support, as long as one doesn't involve wrong views). > > Metta/Asubha are great at lowering anger/greed, which are eliminated only at Anagami/Arhat level. Stream entry doesn't require elimination of greed/anger, except for those big enough for heineous actions and wrong views. Thanks, Alex, that's a helpful clarification. I can't keep track of all the interesting places and contexts in which samatha and jhana appear! Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #112539 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Kevin, > > Yes, I am sure. A jhana mediator knows the meaning of contentment. He is content with whatever life dishes out. To want something else would be akusala and quite foreign to him. > > Ken H > > > > > Ken: That's why I am sure jhana meditators have never practiced meditation in a > > deliberate or "formal" manner. You are happily ignoring Buddha's teachings on the jhanas, in which they are shown to be specific attainments of deep meditation. To think that jhana is a general quality or is defined by contentment with whatever life dishes out shows the kind of new-age watering-down of spiritual understanding that you often complain about. Here are examples. See if you can adopt the Buddha's view about this: "There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that... "...there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that ... "Again, there is the case where an individual, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that... "Again, there is the case where an individual, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — From AN 4.123- the Jhana Sutta: Mental Absorption - - - - - - - - - - - "And I have also taught the step-by-step cessation of fabrications. When one has attained the first jhana, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second jhana, directed thought & evaluation have ceased. When one has attained the third jhana, rapture has ceased. When one has attained the fourth jhana, in-and-out breathing has ceased. When one has attained the dimension of the infinitude of space, the perception of forms has ceased. When one has attained the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space has ceased. When one has attained the dimension of nothingness, the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness has ceased. When one has attained the dimension of neither-perception nor non-perception, the perception of the dimension of nothingness has ceased. When one has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, perception & feeling have ceased. When a monk's effluents have ended, passion has ceased, aversion has ceased, delusion has ceased. "Then, monk, I have also taught the step-by-step stilling of fabrications. When one has attained the first jhana, speech has been stilled... "There are these six calmings. When one has attained the first jhana, speech has been calmed. When one has attained the second jhana, directed thought & evaluation have been calmed. When one has attained the third jhana, rapture has been calmed. When one has attained the fourth jhana, in-and-out breathing has been calmed. When one has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, perception & feeling have been calmed. When a monk's effluents have ended, passion has been calmed, aversion has been calmed, delusion has been calmed." From: SN 36.11, Rahogata Sutta: Alone - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112540 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----------- <. . .> KH: >>> That's why I am sure jhana meditators have never practiced meditation in a deliberate or "formal" manner. >>> RE: > You are happily ignoring Buddha's teachings on the jhanas, in which they are shown to be specific attainments of deep meditation. ------------- And you are ignoring what I said. I said 'in a deliberate or "formal" manner.' -------------------- RE: >To think that jhana is a general quality or is defined by contentment with whatever life dishes out shows the kind of new-age watering-down of -------------------- I know what jhana is, thank you. It is a very high level of kusala concentration. My remarks about contentment were with regard to the question of "formal" meditation. Formal meditation is what you practice; it is not what jhana meditators practice. The real jhana meditators meditate because they have a highly developed knowledge of kusala consciousness. Therefore, meditation comes naturally to them. They don't do it in an unnatural way. They don't do it because of an akusala desire to be something they aren't. That is the way of modern-day pretend-jhana meditation (which would be funny if it wasn't such an appalling travesty). :-) Ken H #112541 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Problem of other minds nilovg Dear Alex, Op 14-dec-2010, om 21:19 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > How do we know that other minds exist? Whatever one cognizes, the > cognition happens within one's own mind. The known is inseparable > from the knowing mind. So how does one fulfill that aspect of > satipatthana that calls for knowing of external mind? > > ""In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of > itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both > internally & externally on the mind in & of itself." -------- N: I had a similar question before and we discussed it. I was wondering about 'knwoledge of other minds', acquired as one of the superpowers. Another explanation: certainly we know more or less others' cittas, because their conduct appears through body, speech and mind. Citta is the source of conduct. When someone else cries, we may be feeling sad also, or we may have true compassion. This is daily life and it is an example that can remind us of reality now, it brings us back to our citta at this moment, and it can be known as just a dhamma, not self, not belonging to anyone. Actually the satipa.t.thaanasutta gives many examples with the aim to bring us back to the reality at this moment. This sutta is full of daily life reminders. Nina. #112542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 15-dec-2010, om 6:07 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I only call it parroting when it is Ken H. saying it. :-) > We have a "special" relationship... ------ N: No, No. Better to just discuss dhamma, no persons :-)) I thank you for bringing this short sutta to my attention, so that this motivated me to look up the commentary. Nina. #112543 From: "revtriple" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:10 am Subject: What type of philosophy would we say that Buddhism subscribes to? revtriple Subjectivist or Objectivist? WHY? Both? If BOTH How could that be? Thank You! Rev.Triple #112544 From: "philip" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:07 am Subject: Friends and dwelling place as natural decisive support condition philofillet Hi Nina (and all) When it is said that friends and dwelling place are natural decisive support condition, does it mean that rupas that constitute "friends and dwelling place" are the conditioning factors, or is it concepts about friends and dwelling place that are the conditioning factors, or both. If it is rupas, one would wonder why rupas associated with dwelling place and friends are any different from rupas associated with other places and people. Of course certain friends have better understanding and appreciation of dhamma, so is it their understanding that is conditioning factor? As for dwelling place, Vism says that when our place is tidy it is a good factor for samadhi (correct me if I'm wrong) so is that the sort of thing that is meant? Thanks Metta, Phil #112545 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Problem of other minds upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Alex) - In a message dated 12/14/2010 8:54:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Alex > How does one know that there are other's cittas? What distinguishes > them from one's own cittas? > I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas from one's own ----------------------------------------------------------- How about the fact that you have no idea of what I am experiencing & vice-versa?? Ken, not everything is trivial. This is exactly the problem of personal identity, and it is fundamental to the grasping of no self. ----------------------------------------------------------- , because there is no concept of self in satipatthana. As far as satipatthana is concerned, you see one citta and you've seen them all. Ken H ===================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112546 From: "philip" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Herman and all (p.s to Sarah) Herman aren't you > > aware of how much attachment must be involved in that wish, how much self is > > slithering through every single syllable???? > > > > > Yes, I am, Phil. Unashamedly so. I urge you on, in your quest for mastery of > yourself. It is in the same vein as the following, not necessarily at the > foot of trees, but in your daily comings and goings. I can think of nothing > more ridiculous than a householder trying to dispense with self-view as a > first step anywhere. The way I see it is that we are stuck with it whether we like it or not. Good to be reminded about understanding that sees through it, but we are stuck with it. I feel that if we form ideals about what kind of people we want to be, and behave in line with them (and the ideals come from the Dhamma, of course) the self that we are stuck with is less entangled in sticky webs of lust and less feverish with hatred and resentment and regret and so on, and the mind that is not disturbed by excess of lust and regret and fear and anxiety and so on related to bad behaviour can settle down and see through self better. That is no news to anybody, it's stated in many different ways in many different suttas. I came across this from B.B in a notebook, he describes how we can understand this "self" which we know of course is a fabrication of the distorted perceptions etc... "The Buddha does consider to use the word self as a valid notion, a valid idea in reference to the empirical person as an agent of action in the sense of one bearing a personal responsibility for one's deeds, as is the need for one to make a personal effort for one's purification, liberation....a valid idea with a limited reference, as long as it's not taken to signify a permanent basis for individual identity..." Metta, Phil p.s Hi Sarah, was hoping that I would respond to at least one of your posts to me....please wait. I guess you're on the road now anyways... #112547 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What type of philosophy would we say that Buddhism subscribes to? nilovg Venerable Triple, Welcome to this list. Op 15-dec-2010, om 10:10 heeft revtriple het volgende geschreven: > Subjectivist or Objectivist? WHY? > > Both? If BOTH How could that be? ------- N: I would rather answer: neither. Both these notions are loaded with certain associations found in philosophies. Buddhism is different. The Buddha speaks about the conditioned realities of citta (consciousness), cetasika (mental factors accompanying citta) and ruupa (material phenomena) and the unconditioned reality nibbaana, but I do not speak about that now. Citta knows an object through one of the senses or the mind. But citta itself can also be an object of another (following) citta. Citta can know both mental phenomena and physical phenomena. Each citta falls away immediately, there is not one citta that lasts. Also what is known by citta falls away, it does not last. Before I continue, I would like to know whether this makes any sense to you. With respect, Nina. #112548 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends and dwelling place as natural decisive support condition nilovg Dear Phil, Op 15-dec-2010, om 11:07 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > When it is said that friends and dwelling place are natural > decisive support condition, does it mean that rupas that constitute > "friends and dwelling place" are the conditioning factors, or is it > concepts about friends and dwelling place that are the conditioning > factors, or both. ------ N: When we say, we associate with good Dhamma friends it means that we associate with their kusala cittas and wisdom. We learn from them. We know that friends are not persons that last, but we know from experience that we can learn from them. I think we do not have to wonder: to what extent is this a concept or not. As to dwelling place, it shows again that the natural decisive support-condition is very daily. An example is the favorable climate in Kuru and the fact that it could help people to absorb deep Dhamma. Here in this case it is the ruupa temperature that conditions a pleasant body-consciousness. When shivering from cold it may be distracting, but not necessarily so. I am not inclined to think much over these things. The favorable climate in Kuru is just mentioned as an example. Kh Sujin, when explaining this on a recording, added: no need to wait for a favorable temperature, there can be awareness now. -------- > Ph: If it is rupas, one would wonder why rupas associated with > dwelling place and friends are any different from rupas associated > with other places and people. Of course certain friends have better > understanding and appreciation of dhamma, so is it their > understanding that is conditioning factor? ------- N: It is more our listening to them, considering, learning. --------- > As for dwelling place, Vism says that when our place is tidy it is > a good factor for samadhi (correct me if I'm wrong) so is that the > sort of thing that is meant? ------ N: Yes, and the Vis. also adds: bodily cleaneliness, such as cutting one's nails. All these things can influence the cittas. Long nails are bothersome and may distract from concentration. Or a messy dwelling place. Sitting in a place full of dirt. All this shows again that we do not only know paramattha dhammas but that we also think of meanings of what is perceived, just daily life. The Buddha taught natural decisive support-condition so that we would not be negligent in our daily life. Not forgetting the aim: less clinging to an idea of self who controls. There are just phenomena arising because of their appropriate conditions. And there are many kinds of conditions operating at the same time, it is all very intricate. ----- Nina. #112549 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:42 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Two questions on Ch.8 of "Conditionality of Life." nilovg Op 14-dec-2010, om 15:37 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > It indicates that there is a connection of the past to > > the present and of the present to the future. All the different > > inclinations, good and bad, we have accumulated appear when there > are > > the right conditions for them. They do not become manifest at each > > moment. > > Ph: I can't understand how this happens, how this works, it is > beyond me. But that's ok. ------ N: You remember things from your schooldays, long ago. How could you remember this if there were not this long unbroken series of cittas, each one accompanied by sa~n~naa, succeeding one another? There is a connection in our life from moment to moment. ------- N: The *understanding* of the Dhamma (not a concept) is accumulated > and can be a powerful condition, even to the degree of enlightenment. Ph: Yes, I can see this on paper. But I just don't *get* it. I guess that is why people discuss the various difficult topics that get discussed at length at DSG, related to cittas, people make the effort to wrap their understanding around the difficult topics. ------ N: You are now reading my book on conditions, but you can only do so because you accumulated some understanding of citta and ruupa. There is more understanding now than a few years ago. Thus, it can grow. We need not talk on enlightenment now. -------- The Buddha preached the Dhamma not to people > who would say: this has nothing to do with us. Ph: Right you are. Do you remember from your days in Japan how people say "hai" in a contrite, concessionary way? I say it now. -------- N: Hai, so desuka. ------ Nina. #112550 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:47 pm Subject: Re: Problem of other minds kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> KH: >> I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas from one's own. >> H: > How about the fact that you have no idea of what I am experiencing & vice-versa? ------ There is that, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that all cittas are alike. They are all realities, not concepts, they are all namas, not rupas, they all conditioned, not unconditioned, and they are all anicca, dukkha and anatta, not nicca, sukha or atta. -------------------- H: > Ken, not everything is trivial. This is exactly the problem of personal identity, and it is fundamental to the grasping of no self. -------------------- I am not saying it is trivial. It is profound and wonderful to know that all cittas are alike. My cittas are no more "mine" than your cittas are mine. They are all equally, and completely, without self of any kind. Ken H #112551 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Problem of other minds upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/15/2010 2:47:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> KH: >> I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas from one's own. >> H: > How about the fact that you have no idea of what I am experiencing & vice-versa? ------ There is that, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that all cittas are alike. They are all realities, not concepts, they are all namas, not rupas, they all conditioned, not unconditioned, and they are all anicca, dukkha and anatta, not nicca, sukha or atta. -------------------- H: > Ken, not everything is trivial. This is exactly the problem of personal identity, and it is fundamental to the grasping of no self. -------------------- I am not saying it is trivial. It is profound and wonderful to know that all cittas are alike. My cittas are no more "mine" than your cittas are mine. They are all equally, and completely, without self of any kind. Ken H =================================== The question of the reality of separate cittas notwithstanding, and the matter of cittas all doing the same sort of thing notwithstanding, you are not penetrating the issue at hand, namely identity and it's lack. This is a deep matter, the grasping of which requires deep introspection. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112552 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:07 pm Subject: Disgust Evaporates Greed! bhikkhu5 Friends: Seeing Disgusting Objects Dispels Greed! The Blessed Buddha once said: Awareness of the Body induces all advantageous qualities including clear comprehension! The ancients said: Protect the sign, protect the nimitta...! The Asubha Nimitta is a Disgusting Sign fixed in memory by meditation, that one can redirect mind to whenever overcome by lust, greed and desire. This sign detaches the mind from clinging to mere forms of foul impurities... One then gain an 'off' button to turn 'off' desire and craving... This indeed is the very KEY to disable suffering, since craving is the primary cause of all suffering. Corpse Meditation (Asubha-Bhavana) effectively reduces desire! How to cure compulsive over-eating, bulimia, and anorexia: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_32_Parts.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Body_as_only_Form.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Fire_of_Sense-Desire.htm How to cure sex obsession, porno addiction and gross perversions: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Corpse_Meditation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Body_Contemplation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_9_Corpse_Meditations.htm How to cure any greed, lust, desire, voracity, lewdness, longing and craving: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Skeleton.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Disgust.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.ht m Clever Disgust cools all obsessive greed and addictive lust: For Inspiration: A collection of Corpse Pictures Warning: Only for Adults http://s914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/Asubha/ Password: corpses Pick out the most disgusting picture and memorize it firmly and vividly. Remember it whenever greedy! Then the greed will instantly vanish! And the frustrating urge and tearing longing therefore subsides! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Disgust Evaporates Greed and Lust! #112553 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:24 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------- <. . .> H: > The question of the reality of separate cittas notwithstanding, and the matter of cittas all doing the same sort of thing notwithstanding, you are not penetrating the issue at hand, namely identity and it's lack. This is a deep matter, the grasping of which requires deep introspection. --------- I have no doubts about the separate reality of cittas, and I am sure that cittas function in the same ways for all of us. As for "deep introspection" however, that depends on your definition. If satipatthana (right understanding of conditioned dhammas) is deep introspection then I'm OK with that too. :-) Ken H #112554 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:56 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Two questions on Ch.8 of "Conditionality of Life." philofillet Hi Nina Thank you for your feedback. > > Ph: I can't understand how this happens, how this works, it is > > beyond me. But that's ok. > ------ > N: You remember things from your schooldays, long ago. How could you > remember this if there were not this long unbroken series of cittas, > each one accompanied by sa~n~naa, succeeding one another? There is a > connection in our life from moment to moment. Ph: It is not so important, but I don't understand how memories from childhood could be carried along if we know that each citta rises and falls away, and there is definition in Vism or CMA that it leaves no trace and ...maybe..."has no storehouse" or something like that. If I studied a little neurology I could quickly understand how the brain stores memories, but in Dhamma I can't understand how cittas carry them along. It doesn't really matter. These days I am starting to feel that the purpose of the Dhamma is to liberate us, it provides a model for understanding/perception/cognition etc that, if understood, and to the degree to which it is understood, provides a way to liberation. So I guess that is called "soteriological." I think there are some areas that Dhamma can't explain as well as modern science, and probably memory is one of them. But I refuse to think about this issue hard enough and long enough that it will interfere with my ability to stay open to the Dhamma and wait for it to just sink in. I think if we pay too much attention to the areas in which modern science trump the Dhamma, it can interfere, because I am suspecting that the true purpose of the Dhamma is not to provide a perfect explanation of the way things work, but to provide a model for the way things work that can help to liberate our minds from samsara. Of course the Dhamma contradicts this fledgling suspicion of mine, it says that the way the Dhamma says things work would work that way whether there had been a Buddha to explain them or not, so I don't know. Really beyond me. Really, not important. What is important to me is much more mundane. But I appreciate the opportunity to brush up against deep topics, and this exchange we are having in which I do not push my strident views is good for me, so thank you. Metta, Phil #112555 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:05 am Subject: Re: Q. on Nimitta. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ...Realities arise and fall away very fast and > what is left is a nimitta. There is the nimitta of ruupakkhandha, the > khandha of feeling, etc. of all khandhas, and that is in short > sa"nkhaara nimitta, the nimitta op conditioned dhammas. An example: > hardness appears through the bodysense, but is it only one unit of > hardness that is experienced? No. There are many groups of ruupas > containing hardness and we do not know which one is the present one. > It does not matter. Just know the characteristic of hardness as only > a dhamma, not a self or belonging to a self. How does one "know" the characteristic of hardness through the nimita, which is like watching the rupas on television? It seems that this secondary understanding is okay as long as it is *about* the real dhamma? Even if the dhamma is not directly discerned. My question is whether there is panna in clear discernment of a nimita, and of what kind? > What I get from this talk is that we need not worry whether a nimitta > is a concept or not or what is the difference between nimitta and > concept. All that is only thinking. > Instead of this, :-)).... (shall I parrot this?) I think the nimita is already parroting paramatha dhammas. Probably not necssary to parrot the parrot. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112556 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends and dwelling place as natural decisive support condition philofillet Hi Nina > N: When we say, we associate with good Dhamma friends it means that > we associate with their kusala cittas and wisdom. We learn from them. > We know that friends are not persons that last, but we know from > experience that we can learn from them. I think we do not have to > wonder: to what extent is this a concept or not. Thanks, of course, it is not rupas but the cittas of friends that are the n.d.s.c I have a question about the difference between decisive support condition of object and natural decisive support condition. Let's say a friend who is usually not particularly more or less generous than other friends demonstrates a really wonderful moment of generosity that impresses on me greatly. And let's say there is a friend who is consistently generous, day in, day out [ like you, for example. If I had found a Dhamma book in my post box sent by a person who was usually indifferent to me, it would leave a more outstanding impression. But when I found a book from you in my post box, I was happy but not surprised. Would the first case be decisive support condition of object (or just plain object condition?) because it stands out more, and the second natural decisive support condition because it happens often, and particular instances don't stand out, it is more like a general blanket condition....? Thanks Nina Metta, Phil #112557 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:38 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Each of us has had to choose which version of the Dhamma we were going to study. > > Oh, and then there were those of us who decided they would pick and choose bits from different versions, effectively creating their own. They must be the least likely of all to find the right path. Do you seriously believe that focusing on certain commentaries and certain sub-commentarial interpretations is not "picking and choosing?" When you have one latter-day interpretation of both the sutta body and the Abhidhamma - none of it direct, but filtered through the selected commentators and sub-commentators, you do not have the whole Dhamma, but a particular view of the Dhamma. This is not to say it is the wrong view, but to say it is not a selective view defies common sense. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112558 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:49 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > KH: >> There is only one Theravadin view. > >> > > RE: > You have a habit of saying things as if true without any supporting evidence or explanation. You realize that makes it an unsubstantiated opinion, no matter how firmly you may believe it. Belief is not a proof of anything. If you have any interest in being convincing when you make a blanket statement like that, you > have to provide some support. If you just want to enjoy saying it though, that it is not necessary. > --------- > > I don't know what you are trying to say. Surely there can only be one Theravada! Or are you suggesting the Theras gave us a range of alternative Dhammas to choose from? You don't seem to stick to your own philosophy very well, when it doesn't suit you that is. Do you really think our own interpretation of Dhamma can possibly be free of bias? So the question is not whether we are right or wrong, but whether we understand what principle to follow. My principle is that there is only one hub of the wheel, and that is the Buddha. You seem to think that the Dhamma was created by committee and that the whole committee knows everything equally well. I guess you would think that the law clerks at the Supreme Court [in whatever country] have as dependable a view of the legal opinions of the Justices as those who wrote those opinions. No matter how smart the clerks are, they have their own standpoint and their own emphases in defining the context in which the opinions were composed, valuable but not conclusive. So I respect the role of the spokes, but not without going back to the hub on every point. As an example, there is a tradition now in the Theravada community that the Visudhimagga is considered authoritative on meditation technique, even though it provides explanations on very technical points, such as the focus on the nose tip/upper lip area as the meditation object, the "whole body" referring to the "breath-body" etc., which in some cases contradict the Buddha's literal word, eg, "the whole body," and also contradict some parts of the earlier Vimuttimagga, sometimes by emphasis and sometimes by omission. So tell me, in what way do these contradictions and changes constitute "one Dhamma," a unified Dhamma that is shared by all who observe the Buddha's word? As you said above, we all choose what version of the Dhamma to follow. That statement in itself acknowledges that while there may be only one Dhamma, there is no definitive interpretation among worldlings that one can certify, other than the Buddha's own words, which is why we are obligated to take what we can from commentaries and then go back to the suttas. If you don't do this, you are choosing a version of the Dhamma, among various emphases and interpretations, that is not the Buddha's version. The "Theras" didn't give us a range of anything, and they are not the authors of the Dhamma. Buddha is. There is indeed one Dhamma, the Buddha's. Everything else is commentary, and that is interpretation, not the words from the Buddha's mouth. As valuable as it is, to confuse it with the words that come from the mouth of a Buddha is an error. You can't substitute the commentary for the original words and say that it is all the same. > ---------------- > <. . .> > RE: > Well, the example you gave that I was rather rude about seemed arbitrary and removed from what was actually said. > ---------------- > > You said it sounded straightforward to you, but I think you will eventually agree that the initial reading of the sutta wasn't meant to sound straightforward. It was meant to sound paradoxical. We'll see if I eventually agree. I feel I understand the sense of it on its face, as I have explained, so I don't see it as a paradox. > The Buddha ruled out all the conventional ways of crossing a flood, and so his audience had to stop thinking in conventional ways and see the world as a single moment of nama and rupa. The ways of crossing the flood could then be seen as the various cetasika-functions that were performed in a moment of Magga citta. And the ways of failing to cross the flood could be seen as the cetasika functions that were performed in other kinds of citta. Well, that is a far-flung interpretation, with all your personal belief and dogma thrown in to take the place of the Buddha's words. That is what I mean, but you won't see that, as it doesn't bother you to do this habitual substitution of the Buddha's words with the words you prefer. > ---------------------- > RE: > I don't think you can expect everyone to have your faith that whatever far-out or dogmatic thing appears in a commentary must necessarily be true, even if no explanation is given for why it makes any sense. But again, you can say what you like, just as I can say that unicorns are making the world rotate by pulling on a number of hydraulic pulleys connected to the moon. > ---------------------- > > I suppose if the commentaries are seen as 'far out' and 'lacking in explanation' then there can't be any faith in them. > > I'm glad I don't see them that way. You are an expert at missing the point. Seeing the commentaries as "far out" does not come first. There are many commentaries that clearly refer to the original and shed light on it. It is only *when* a particular explanation is far off from the original that I need an explanation of why this substitution is being made. Please try to get the sense of what is being said, rather than picking out a word and making up your own version even of *my* words, let alone the Buddha's. Again, I am saying that *if* something that seems arbitrary or far-out happens to appear in a commentary, I am not going to assume that it is true without some kind of bridge explanation as to why it makes sense. That just seems like common sense to me. You don't believe everything you're told, do you, unless it adds up to you? If someone told you that 2 + 2 = 5, you would question it wouldn't you? > ------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> There is a sutta in which the Buddha tells monks they must kill their parents and assassinate the king. > > > Which sutta is that? Never heard of it, and I'd love to look it up. > --------------------------------------- > > I don't know the name. I was thinking of a sutta that Jon had mentioned a few times - including just recently. I am sure he will give you the reference if you ask nicely. :-) Do you think I'm capable of that? In any case I think there's a difference between a sutta that the commentator appears to contradict or interpret in a broadly divergent way from the original, and the Buddha contradicting himself. If the Buddha says something opposite of his own principles, we can question why he is using that device. Sometimes though, what seems a rhetorical device is literal, and the Buddha is just being honest. There is a sutta that shocked me when I saw it, where a King or someone prominent offers the Buddha his daughter as a wife, and the Buddha says "Why would I want that disgusting container of pus and bile?" or something to that effect. I thought that was pretty cruel on first glance, but months later it came back to me and I realized that the Buddha was giving a really strong teaching on the real status of the physical world and sensual desire. The Buddha wasn't being cruel but he was doing the equivalent of major surgery, cutting off the King's gesture at the knees and pointing out the ignorance and attachment it was based in. > ---------------------- > <. . .> > RE: >> Would need to see that before commenting. I'm not against commentaries, by the way. I just don't subscribe to whatever they say without any explanation. If something seems sound, I can consider it and come to understand it. But I don't believe in cloud-Gods making it rain, even though it is in a sutta. Do you? > ----------------------- > > I tried to warn you rejecting commentaries was the thin edge of the wedge. Now you are rejecting suttas! :-) It's a very short sutta about the weather. I haven't rejected any other suttas that I can think of. Can't I have *one* exception for cloud-Gods? > There should be no problem understanding cloud gods in terms of conditioned dhammas. However, understanding conditioned dhammas literally in terms of conventional beings is a different matter. I don't think it needs to interest us Dhamma students at all. Well, once you've reduced all the Gods to momentary dhammas, you don't have much of a God problem left, do you? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #112559 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:50 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[a] epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Just arrived in Bkk. On the flight from Syd to HK yesterday evening, we were sitting at the back of the plane. Jon had his laptop on his tray and was keying in a response to you (I think), when he fell asleep over it:-) We both need to catch up for a couple of days... :-) You are running around a lot! I wish you both a nice rest! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112560 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:52 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting)[a] epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > >R:Thanks, Sarah - do you mean the things we have been talking about in these last few posts? About kamma and accumulations and samatha? > .... > S: No, I meant the ones you raised when we were last in Bkk which lead to the long and detailed discussions on breath and anapanasati (see subject heading), but anything you'd like to raise which you feel we have different views on, perhaps. I'll get back to the discussions on kamma and accumulations later - lots more to run on them. Oh, okay - I will look through the thread and see if there are new questions. I have some questions about satipatthana too, but for some reason my mind's not clear on them right now. I'll try to focus and see what happens! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112561 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:46 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear all, > > How do we know that other minds exist? Whatever one cognizes, the cognition happens within one's own mind. The known is inseparable from the knowing mind. So how does one fulfill that aspect of satipatthana that calls for knowing of external mind? > > ""In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself." I may be totally ignorant on this, but it seems to me that one would not say "in and of itself" with regard to other people's minds. One would be penetrating the other's mind with one's own mind, so that would seem to defy "in and of itself," as it would refer to a solitary mind that is being seen in its own right. So it may be that "external" refers to the view of one's own mind from an external standpoint - that is, looking at the mind as an object of contemplation, ie, what is the mind? What are its characteristics? etc. Whereas the internal view of the mind might be an experiential view of the mental states. But I think it's a difficult issue to determine this. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112562 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:51 am Subject: Re: Problem of other minds epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi KenH, all, > > > > I would say there was nothing to distinguish other people's cittas >from one's own, because there is no concept of self in satipatthana. >As far as satipatthana is concerned, you see one citta and you've seen >them all. > > But even when it comes to different streams of cittas, how does on distinguish between one stream of cittas and and another? > > How does "one" know that these were conventionally called "my" cittas and those were conventionally called someone else's cittas? > > After all KenH's cittas (conventionally speaking) are not the same as Alex's. My vague understanding is that Buddha would be aware of all the streams of cittas, and be able to distinguish them, yet would not see any of them as "mind" or "not mine." Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #112563 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some ideas about dhamma starting to change epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I know what jhana is, thank you. You are welcome, but perhaps you do not realize that it is always attained by years of formal meditation in order to develop concentration. You can see monks practicing it today. The idea that the monks of old had special accumulations that exempted them from practice is not factually based and is just a made-up story on your part. Of course someone who practice jhana would have to have strong accumulations for it as it is an arduous practice. They weren't naturally sitting around going into jhana without practice. They were practicing because they had the accumulations, and it is noted that these monks were practicing all the time in the introductions to suttas and Buddha's descriptions of those practicing jhana. > It is a very high level of kusala concentration. My remarks about contentment were with regard to the question of "formal" meditation. Formal meditation is what you practice; it is not what jhana meditators practice. You have no basis for saying this, either about me, or about them. You like to say things, but you have little regard for whether you actually know what you are saying or not. You don't know who does or doesn't have the accumulations for meditation, and your distinction between natural and formal meditators is a totally made-up device to make up "bad" meditators of today as opposed to the "good" meditators of yesteryear. It's nonsense. > The real jhana meditators meditate because they have a highly developed knowledge of kusala consciousness. Therefore, meditation comes naturally to them. They don't do it in an unnatural way. How do you know how anyone practices meditation, and who it's natural for? It's awfully presumptuous for you to wave your hand around and say whose practice is kusala and akusala. Perhaps you should mind your own recurrent attachment to this view that you have invented. > They don't do it because of an akusala desire to be something they aren't. How do you know who is or isn't a natural meditator? Anyone who spends time sitting in meditation is most likely a natural meditator, as no one in their right mind would sit silently and focus on breath or other objects unless they had the natural inclination to do so. > That is the way of modern-day pretend-jhana meditation (which would be funny if it wasn't such an appalling travesty). What is appalling is that you think you know what another community is doing without any actual knowledge. I don't know what your meditation background was or whether you were attempting to practice jhana in your old bygone years, but you seem to have a prefabricated view of what others are doing that is not backed up any evidence. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112564 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 15-dec-2010, om 6:07 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I only call it parroting when it is Ken H. saying it. :-) > > We have a "special" relationship... > ------ > N: No, No. Better to just discuss dhamma, no persons :-)) I'm sure you are right. > I thank you for bringing this short sutta to my attention, so that > this motivated me to look up the commentary. I am glad too, as I enjoyed the commentary. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112565 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:37 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Two questions on Ch.8 of "Conditionality of Life." nilovg Dear Phil, Op 16-dec-2010, om 2:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > N: You remember things from your schooldays, long ago. How could you > > remember this if there were not this long unbroken series of cittas, > > each one accompanied by sa~n~naa, succeeding one another? There is a > > connection in our life from moment to moment. > > Ph: It is not so important, but I don't understand how memories > from childhood could be carried along if we know that each citta > rises and falls away, and there is definition in Vism or CMA that > it leaves no trace and ...maybe..."has no storehouse" or something > like that. ------- N: Correct, nothing is "stored", there is no "store-consciousness". But each citta that falls away conditions the following one, by contiguity-condition, anantara-paccaya. Also the last citta of the past life, cuti-citta, conditions the citta that immediately succeeds it, the rebirth-consciousness of the following life. We can notice that we are born with different inclinations, different temperaments. This must come from somewhere, not without conditions. It comes from the past. --------- > Ph: .... I think if we pay too much attention to the areas in which > modern science trump the Dhamma, it can interfere, because I am > suspecting that the true purpose of the Dhamma is not to provide a > perfect explanation of the way things work, but to provide a model > for the way things work that can help to liberate our minds from > samsara. -------- N: Excellent, you put this very well. It is very true. There is no contradiction, but science has a different aim and sees things from a different angle. ***** Nina. #112566 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi pt (112187) > pt: Could you please expand on this last bit a little? I'm wondering about three things in specific: > > 1. how "being an object of hearing consciousness" actually classifies as a characteristic of a dhamma (rupa in this case) > =============== J: I perhaps should have said "being that which is experienced by hearing consciousness". At the grossest (i.e., beginning) level, sound is simply that which appears to hearing consciousness. There's no more that needs to be said/known about it. It may be suggested that this is not the conventional understanding of what a 'characteristic' is; after all, there are plenty of those dhammas that arise but are not actually experienced by hearing consciousness. In answer to that I would say that the teachings are concerned primarily with dhammas that are actually present, so for example the characteristic of the sound that arises in the forest where there is no-one to hear it is not of particular interest in most cases. > =============== > 2. i assume since it is not one of the 3 general characteristics, then it must be some sort of an individual characteristic. > =============== J: Yes. Each dhamma is said to have a specific characteristic (visesa lakkhana), being that characteristic by which it is distinguishable from all other dhammas. > =============== > 3. i'm in general confused about what exactly are individual characteristics of a sound (as in ruupa - audible data). I mean, for a tactile object it's easy - I think the individual characteristic would be one of the great elements that's experienced at the time. But for sound, i'm not sure... > =============== J: If you want a text-book answer, there's always the Atthasaaalini, as quoted in Ch. 4 of Nina's "The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena" (available at http://www.zolag.co.uk/BTPP/978189633250_text.pdf): "... all sounds have the characteristic of striking the ear, the function and property of being the object of auditory cognition, the manifestation of being the field or object of auditory cognition ..." To my understanding, 'striking the ear' is a reference to the fact that it is the sound appearing now, and that sound only, that can be the object of awareness (although not at a time of our choosing). Jon #112567 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:10 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi pt (112191) > pt: I've seen some experienced meditators say that "meditation" in essence cannot be equated with those instances when hindrances arise, regardless of whether that happens during a "sitting" or a "washing dishes". > =============== J: As I see it 'meditation' is used in 2 in different senses here: one in the expression "experienced mediators", the other as meaning only those moments when the hindrances are absent (i.e., the kusala moments). I'm wondering if anyone has a definition for meditation as in the expression "experienced mediators" (I suspect not ;-)). > =============== Hence, I conclude that meditation for them is only equated to kusala moments, which then in my mind becomes the same as equating bhavana to development of kusala. > =============== J: As before, I would say that if what is meant is the bhavana/development of kusala which may occur while washing dishes (for example), why use the term 'meditation' which has other connotations (as in the expression 'experienced mediators')? Jon #112568 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:14 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi Robert E (and pt) (112202) > There is a funny contradiction here, in that it is often considered more "in the moment" and more attuned to anatta to *not strive for a result,* and instead to trust in a correct *process.* In what is being said above, one is only really honoring the *result* one wants, and *not* honoring the process, which seems to me to also be the opposite of the dsg philosophy of understanding the arising of dhammas in the moment without any choice or sense of personal volition, [ie, coming from self-view.] > =============== J: Just a correction. Nobody here has been advocating an approach of "understanding the arising of dhammas in the moment". That would be no different to, for example, an approach of understanding a particular chosen dhamma. > =============== > If one says that meditation, bhavana, development only represent the "good," "kusala" moments and the rest is akusala, that is the opposite of a process-view. In fact it seems to me to be self-view, pushing through the process to get to the result one desires. > > Good meditators do the opposite, and in fact are more in line with what folks here would normally profess as "choiceless" understanding of conditions-based arising of moments - these meditators have given up wishing and hoping for only kusala moments and instead understand that whatever conditions and tendencies have developed they will experience in due order, according to current conditions and accumulations. So if akusala arises, they treat it with openness and mindfulness, understanding that it is discernment and equanimity that create kusala, not judging "good and bad," "good and bad," [kusala and akusala] for every arising moment. To know kusala and to accumulate kusala is one thing - to say that the process is not kusala when the moments are not kusala and that the process is only kusala when the moments are kusala is a very different thing. > =============== J: What you are describe above is still a 'practice' that is undertaken with the idea of inducing awareness to arise. So it's not really 'in line with' anything talked about here ;-)) Jon #112569 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:14 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Colette (112208) > Do I detect a bit of tension in Robert E's response to you, Jon? > =============== J: Robert E and I have been crossing swords (as it were) on dhamma issues for as long as I care to remember; it's just the way we hold a conversation ;-)) > =============== I believe the situation you're discussing here rests entirely upon CAUSE & CONDITIONS, both are outside forces having an influence on the internal consciousness of the person in question. > =============== J: Included in those causes and conditions are previously accumulated tendencies. These also have a marked bearing on present mental states and actions performed. > =============== > Jon suggests a behavior to examine. He suggests that a person do something to another person. The first person reconsiders their upcoming behavior based upon the presence of a WITNESS, another consciousness that will also be part of the behavior. Is the "witness" the creator performing the process of creating the consciousness within the person in question that Jon was speaking of? Or is it the person in question that is the creator performing the creative process? > =============== J: The only witnesses I know anything about are those that appear in my court cases ;-)) > =============== > Maybe I should have asked if I can play before playing here in the sandbox with you boys. I think we should consider what the issues really are before we continue. > =============== J: You're welcome any time (no personal sandboxes on this list) Jon #112570 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:16 pm Subject: Breakfast discussion with Han sarahprocter... Dear Han & All, It was lovely to see you again when you came over with your grandson, Thet Oo, to join Jon and I for breakfast at our hotel, by the river. The first big surprise for me, and also for Jon when he joined us a little later, was to find you looking so very well. If you hadn't told us, we'd have had no idea that you'd recently undergone major surgery. There was no sign of weight loss or lack of strength - quite the contrary. You had no need of assistance up and down the many steps and there was no question of anyone selecting your food for you from the buffet table! I know you enjoyed the occasion as did we. For Thet Oo, the reaction was a little different:-)) Discussion topics which you may care to elaborate on; 1. Dhammacakkana - turning of the wheel and whether the 4NT are always taught first. What else, as you said. From Madhuratthavilaasini (PTS The Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning, PTS transl by I.B. Horner), Commentary to the Buddhavamsa (Chronicle of the Buddhas). Extract from the final chapter concerning what is common to all Buddhas, p429: ***** "15) the turning of the Wheel of Dhamma in a seers’ resort in a deer-sanctuary;" As you said, not much use if someone doesn't accept the commentaries. 2. Puggala Pannatti - why included in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? You gave us a hand-out with some comments by various scholars on this topic. We were in agreement that whichever part of the Tipitaka we're reading, any kind of language may be used to convey the Truths, the convey the paramattha dhammas. For me, I don't mind where I find any of the texts - they are all pointing to the same Teaching. So we can have paramattha language in the Suttanta and conventional language in the Abhidhamma. Perhaps you'd care to share the extracts here with everyone as you already have them typed out. 3. Some discussion on anatta. Always controversial. A new theory to me - "partial kamma". Perhaps you'd elaborate! I think you said we cannot control outcomes, but can control activities:-)) Anatta-less seeing and hearing. We were mostly in agreement, but Thet Oo has his own very distinct theories and I appreciated that ehe questions anything we say. I think he and you listen to very different Sayadaws:-) He also rejects the Abhidhamma as not providing the taste of the pudding, so we end up with very different understandings of some basics, such as the meaning of rupa or khandha. Everyone can follow what makes sense. 4. Vipassana and samatha. You mentioned that you "can do" vipassana anytime, but that for samatha, it is "on the cushion", clearing the mind, without panna, emptying "the trash bin" as we say on our computers. You mentioned anapanasati as used for samatha and vipassana. In samatha, you mentioned peace, removing stray thoughts at the end of breath, modifying the breath so that there's "no gap". I understood what you were saying. We had some discussion about panna and samatha and here your grandson, Thet Oo, and I were in agreement - panna in samatha bhavana as being essential. As you mentioned, no need to refer to bhavana then or any labels. Clearing the mind of thoughts, no need to call it anything. I must say, it's always amicable when you and we disagree on anything. 5. Discussions with Thet Oo on paramathta dhamma- existence, "everything is Dhamma", but what is "everything"? You've learnt to keep quiet and not try to argue with him. Some discussion on paramattha and sammutti sacca, but no agreements. I kept trying to discuss the present moment and dhammas such as seeing and thinking now, but he wouldn't agree that there is only the present dhamma or that there were any of the realities I mentioned:-). I have a nephew who has an interest in Buddhism but who also disagrees with almost everything we say on the subject! Makes DSG discussions seem easy:-) 6. We discussed pain and how when it's extreme there may not be any reflection or understanding of the Dhamma at all. This moment is precious because there can be some understanding now. The Kurus lived in pleasant conditions - just one condition that may have an effect. 7. Vipassana in daily life - you mentioned that if you meditate by following a particular technique, there will be more evil thoughts, so better spend the time reading a book, developing understanding in daily life. Studying Dhamma, have a chop ready! Joke - in Burmese, the same word 'dhamma' is used for a chop. Hope I got that right! [I always laugh a lot with Han. We understand each other so well.] 8. Thet Oo - his aim is to have more calmness, whereas for us, the aim is to develop more understanding of whatever dhamma is conditioned. If one is so concerned about calmness, one becomes very concerned about being agitated or about a lack of calm at the present moment. 9. Dhamma arguments and discussions - different accumulations....all anatta. It all comes back to the present moment - the clinging now, the agitation now, the seeing, hearing and other dhammas now. No other time, no other world exits. Thet Oo felt he was not "at this level yet", but it's not a matter of being at any "level", but just beginning to understand life better now. Panna has to develop... Thank you, Htoo. It's always a joy to see you and share Dhamma together in person. Metta Sarah ======== #112571 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Herman (112213) > > OK, a somewhat contrived example perhaps, but you get the picture. > > Restraint from akusala is only kusala to the extent that the accompanying > > mental states are kusala ... > > > > I wonder if you would change your evaluation based on the following: > > AN 3:40 > > "And what is the cosmos as a governing principle? There is the case where a > monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty > dwelling, reflects on this: 'It is not for the sake of robes that I have > gone forth from the home life into homelessness; it is not for the sake of > almsfood, for the sake of lodgings, or for the sake of this or that state of > [future] becoming that I have gone forth from the home life into > homelessness. Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, > lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with > stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & > stress might be known!" Now if I, having gone forth, were to think thoughts > of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, or thoughts of harmfulness: great is > the community of this cosmos. And in the great community of this cosmos > there are priests & contemplatives endowed with psychic power, clairvoyant, > skilled [in reading] the minds of others. They can see even from afar. Even > up close, they are invisible. With their awareness they know the minds of > others. They would know this of me: "Look, my friends, at this clansman who > — though he has in good faith gone forth from the home life into > homelessness — remains overcome with evil, unskillful mental qualities." ... > > ===== > > It seems to me that shame in the face of being known by others is not at all > discounted as being unwholesome. > =============== J: Thanks for the sutta passage. On my reading, the reflections being described are the kusala reflection of a monk who is living the holy life with purity. They support his continued living of the monk's life with purity. The 'shame' of being known by others referred to here is hypothetical rather than actual: "If I were to think thoughts of sensuality, ill-will ... priests & contemplatives endowed with psychic power would know this of me: "Look, my friends, at this clansman remains overcome with evil, unskillful mental qualities."" Reflection on the salutory effect of being known by others may be kusala or akusala. Jon #112572 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:39 pm Subject: Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Robert E (112234) > What I am saying is that the equivalence works both ways. He is not saying "do not think in terms of birth and death but only of in terms of kandhas;" he is saying "think both ways - that birth and death have these attributes, and that they also break down to the elements of experience - the five kandhas." It is a teaching that works on a continuum that spans both conventional and a more analytic view. He is not taking away the conventional but including and explaining it. > =============== J: This interpretation of yours doesn't fit with the teaching elsewhere in the Tipitaka where anicca, dukkha and anattaa are mentioned in the context of dhammas only. > =============== > The teaching of the five kandhas, or in this case mentioning them in passing, is the essential analytic of the teachings which shows that there is no self, but only process. However, it can be explained on the "dhamma only" level as you explain it, and the middle-path level of "here is life, and here is how it breaks down," where the conventional is not considered an unreality, but a reality that needs to be examined more closely. > =============== J: But where in the teachings is there any detail as to how, as you put it, the conventional is to be examined more closely? What is there to be known about the conventional that we don't already know? > =============== > You can take it that way, but it is a particular interpretation of what he says. When he says the five clinging aggregates are dukkha, that can be explained as "the five clinging aggregates cause suffering," rather than making dukkha a "special object" and raising it to the level of an inherent characteristic. One can even summarize this by saying "life sucks," which doesn't emblazon "suckiness" as a 'capital S' characteristic. > =============== J: Yours is equally a "particular interpretation" of what the Buddha says. Which is why there needs to be reference to other parts of the tipitaka, so that passages that are open to different interpretations can be understood correctly. > =============== > Well it seems to me that this is often the message. I think there have been many instances where one is advised to ignore the conventional appearances of life, illness, death etc., and translate them into momentary dhammas immediately, and accept this as the *only* viable conceptual framework. In fact, if what you say here were the case, we would have very little argument about these levels of understanding. > =============== J: The idea that the conventional appearances of life should be translated into (seen as?) momentary dhammas is definitely not how I understand the development of the path. > =============== > I disagree here, to the extent that I don't believe the conventional level of anatta, anicca and dukkha are contemplated and worked through anywhere near enough. > =============== J: Can you say a little more about this conventional level of anicca, dukkha, anattaa? It's not an idea I've come across before. > =============== And I personally think that this conventional consideration, rather than intellectual understanding of the breakdown of dhammas, may be the most important bridge to a finer view of the kandhas. We may acknowledge disappointment, loss, sickness and death in passing without really contemplating the clinging, craving and aversion involved, and how objects and people cannot really satisfy our desires, but it is this more prolonged and deeper contemplation and understanding that begins to look more closely at what these dhammas are made of. Then we can naturally begin to look at the way in which these objects, including our minds and bodies, are encountered through the kandhas. To me it is a seamless whole, not alternative realities. > =============== J: So, as you read the teachings, at what stage would it be appropriate to move from the conventional to the absolute? And what would be the consequence of doing so before the appropriate stage had been reached? Jon #112573 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:41 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (112235) > Since the suttas do say that "y can be developed by doing x" and the Buddha admonishes his followers to diligently work for this development, I think it is up to you to show that this is really another way of describing naturally arising dhammas, and not really instruction to be intentionally followed. I have provided quotes that seem quite clear on this, and I will be happy to see your quotes or translations that show a different picture. If you have commentary that gives a viable interpretation of a sutta to demonstrate this, I will enthusiastically read it. > =============== J: I'm afraid I can no longer find the sutta passages you mentioned. Would you mind re-quoting them (if you still have them, of course). Thanks. Regardless of that, commentary passages are always being quoted here, so it's only a matter of time before something pertinent to this thread comes up. Jon #112574 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:44 pm Subject: Re: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? jonoabb Hi Robert E (112299) > Jumping back in, would you thus say that killing might be okay if the accompanying citta was kusala? Or did Buddha teach ahimsa in deed as a necessary value? I don't recall an instance in which Buddha said that if there is a good, wholesome reason for killing, it's kusala to kill. That would be the logical conclusion of saying the underlying mental state is of paramount importance, not the deed itself. > =============== J: Every act of killing must involve some level of akusala. The conventional act of killing could never be described as a kusala act. > =============== > > Where do you see understanding of deeds on the conventional level fitting into the teachings? > > Well that is the problem. You are interpreting Buddha's teachings on Right and Wrong Actions as representing a mental condition, whereas the Buddha did not teach that way. He taught that there are kusala deeds and kusala mental states and that both must be observed, not just the latter. > > So deeds may not really fit into your understanding of the path, but that may be a mistaken view. > =============== J: Deeds are not among the dhammas that are spoken about throughout the suttas; whereas mental states are. Jon #112575 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:48 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (112301) > The way I see it, with admittedly limited understanding, is that a deed may be made akusala on two grounds: it may be akusala because of the deed, or it may be akusala because of the mental state. If the mental state is kusala but the deed is akusala, the result is at least partly akusala. If the mental state is akusala and the deed is otherwise kusala, the result will still be at least partly akusala. > =============== J: But the 'result' of a deed cannot be kusala or akusala. Results of deeds are conventional concepts only. Results may be immediate or longer term, tangible or intangible, etc. Only nama dhammas can have the quality of being kusala or akusala, not deeds/actions. > =============== In order for the act to be kusala, both the deed and the mental state need to be kusala. If either the deed or the mental state or akusala, the result will be at least partly akusala based on the akusala influence. > =============== J: Your analysis above does not address the scenario I mentioned of a so-called kusala deed the was performed with no kusala whatsoever (as in the case of holding back from killing for purely selfish and nefarious reasons). How would you classify that? A further problem with what you say here is that only a very few deeds have been classified by the Buddha as being either kusala or akusala. So by what measure are all the other innumerable, indeed infinite, kinds of deeds to be classified? > =============== > The point is that a deed can be akusala in its own right, not dependent on an akusala mental state. I believe that killing of others is *always* wrong according to the Buddha, notwithstanding this or that mental state. > =============== J: I don't think so. Deliberately taking the life of another always involves an akusala mental state. Jon #112576 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? jonoabb Hi Herman (112353) > > Thus, if he said that restraint from killing was kusala, he was referring > > to kusala restraint and not to refraining from killing for purely akusala > > reasons (as in the example I gave to Robert E). > > > > Hoping this clarifies a little the context of my earlier remarks. > > > > Regarding "understanding of deeds on the conventional level", I'd be > > interested to know how you see this. As I read the teachings, understanding > > of 2 kinds is taught: kusala consciousness vs. akusala consciousness (this > > is the understanding necessary for the development of samatha) and dhammas > > as dhammas (the understanding necessary for the development of > > awareness/insight). > > > > Where do you see understanding of deeds on the conventional level fitting > > into the teachings? > > > > Ever heard of something called the Patimokkha? Of course you have! Why is it > there? Because there is not only this sphere of mental deeds. The being in > jhana has no need of Patimokkha. That is because deeds at the thinking level > have no consequence for anyone else. It is deeds at the action level that > have consequences for others. And guess what, when you're not in jhana, > there is the world, there are others! That's why there's a Patimokkha, > because without it others are at others throats. When you're not in jhana, > everything is conventional, Jon :-) And as long as there is a need for > Patimokkha, there is absolutely no need for, or use in concerning yourself > with magga-phala-citta and stuff like that :-) > =============== J: I agree that at one level the Patimokkha is concerned with deeds of the conventional kind. This is because, as you neatly put it, there is the world, there are others, and without the Patimokkha others are at others throats ;-)). My comment about mention of conventional deeds being in fact a reference to the underlying mental state was made in the context of the development of insight, in suttas such as the Satipatthana Sutta (for example). Hoping this clarifies. Jon #112577 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Breakfast discussion with Han nilovg Dear Sarah and Han, thank you for the report on the discussions. It seemed lively with Thet Oo. When Lodewijk and I were in Bgk last time, meeting Han at your hotel was certainly one of the heighlights. You had it all so nicely arranged, Sarah. With so much hospitality, as always. A pity to have missed it now. Nina. Op 16-dec-2010, om 13:16 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > It was lovely to see you again when you came over with your > grandson, Thet Oo, to join Jon and I for breakfast at our hotel, by > the river. #112578 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends and dwelling place as natural decisive support condition nilovg Dear Phil, Op 16-dec-2010, om 3:12 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I have a question about the difference between decisive support > condition of object and natural decisive support condition. > > Let's say a friend who is usually not particularly more or less > generous than other friends demonstrates a really wonderful moment > of generosity that impresses on me greatly. And let's say there is > a friend who is consistently generous, day in, day out like you, > for example. If I had found a Dhamma book in my post box sent by a > person who was usually indifferent to me, it would leave a more > outstanding impression. But when I found a book from you in my post > box, I was happy but not surprised. Would the first case be > decisive support condition of object (or just plain object > condition?) because it stands out more, and the second natural > decisive support condition because it happens often, and particular > instances don't stand out, it is more like a general blanket > condition....? -------- N: As you suggest, just object-condition. It seems that the object is stories about the generosity of this or that person, thus, concepts. A concept is object-condition, it conditions the citta by being its object. The decisive support-condition of object indicates that the object is a cogent reason for this or that citta.The natural decisive support- condition: this pertains mostly to our accumulated inclinations. But it is very wide, such as kusala can condition akusala and vice versa. We cannot compare the two types of conditions. ----- Nina. #112579 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. on Nimitta. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 16-dec-2010, om 3:05 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > hardness appears through the bodysense, but is it only one unit of > > hardness that is experienced? No. There are many groups of ruupas > > containing hardness and we do not know which one is the present one. > > It does not matter. Just know the characteristic of hardness as only > > a dhamma, not a self or belonging to a self. > > How does one "know" the characteristic of hardness through the > nimita, which is like watching the rupas on television? It seems > that this secondary understanding is okay as long as it is *about* > the real dhamma? Even if the dhamma is not directly discerned. ------- N: I would not compare this with watching ruupas on T.V. Touch a table and then hardness may appear. This should be enough, and no need to think at all. Why all that thinking? In this way understanding can investigate the nature of hardness as only a ruupa- dhamma. And later on (but not yet) its nature of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. --------- > > R: My question is whether there is panna in clear discernment of a > nimita, and of what kind? ------ N: Pa~n~naa with discernment of a characteristic. It can become clearer, but not in the beginning. Knowing about nimittas is good as foundation knowledge, but, as said before, if we think too much about it, we may get lost. -------- > R: . All that is only thinking. > > Instead of this, :-)).... (shall I parrot this?) > > I think the nimita is already parroting paramatha dhammas. Probably > not necssary to parrot the parrot. :-) ------ N: ;-)) ------ Nina. #112580 From: han tun Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:14 pm Subject: Breakfast discussion with Han (1) hantun1 Dear Sarah and All, I am amazed that you could write the Notes so quickly. First, I thank you and Jon very much for the most delicious breakfast I have had for the past few years. Second, I apologize for the last remark made by my grandson. He is stubborn and he has his own way of thinking things. That was why I do not have much discussion with him. Physically, I feel much stronger than before the gall bladder surgery. But my family is still treating me like a baby. They will not allow me to go alone for long distances. --------------------- I will take up the Discussion topics a few at a time. 1. Dhammacakkana - turning of the wheel and whether the 4NT are always taught first. What else, as you said. From Madhuratthavilaasini (PTS The Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning, PTS transl by I.B. Horner), Commentary to the Buddhavamsa (Chronicle of the Buddhas). Extract from the final chapter concerning what is common to all Buddhas, p429: ***** "15) the turning of the Wheel of Dhamma in a seers’ resort in a deer-sanctuary;" As you said, not much use if someone doesn't accept the commentaries. [Han] I told a friend that the Buddha wanted to teach the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, which are the main essence of Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, and that a Burmese Sayadaw once said that all Buddhas delivered the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta when they were enlightened. So he asked me: 'why would it be necessary for the Buddha, to preach the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, in the same way'? I replied that the Burmese Sayadaw said that all Buddhas delivered Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, based on the Commentary. But if he does not believe the Commentary we could not proceed further. As regards why would it be necessary for the Buddha, to preach the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, in the same way, I asked him [If the Buddha does not teach the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as the top priority, what do you think he should teach as the top priority?] He has not yet responded. -------------------------- 2. Puggala Pannatti - why included in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? You gave us a hand-out with some comments by various scholars on this topic. We were in agreement that whichever part of the Tipitaka we're reading, any kind of language may be used to convey the Truths, the convey the paramattha dhammas. For me, I don't mind where I find any of the texts - they are all pointing to the same Teaching. So we can have paramattha language in the Suttanta and conventional language in the Abhidhamma. Perhaps you'd care to share the extracts here with everyone as you already have them typed out. [Han] A friend asked me why is the Puggala Pannatti included in the Seven Books of Abhidhamma. Here, we need to first consider the scope of Abhidhamma. Does it include pannatti? A Venerable Bhante said that the Abhidhamma does not deal only with the paramattha dhammas but also with pannatti. If that is so, there is no problem of Puggala Pannatti being included in Abhidhamma, in the first place. If, on the other hand, one considers that Puggala Pannatti is misplaced in Abhidhamma, we may have to look for the *reason* why it was included in Abhidhamma by the Elders who classified the Tipitaka? There must be a very good reason for that. So I read about Puggala Pannatti in the books that I have, and I found the following two excerpts. (1) Guide to The Tipitaka, by Prof U Ko Lay IV. Puggalapannati Pali Abhidhamma is mainly concerned with the study of abstract truths in absolute terms But in describing the dhammas in their vanous aspects, it is not possible to keep to absolute terms only. Inevitably, conventional terms of every day language have to be employed m order to keep the lines of communication open at all. Abhidhamma states that there are two main types of conventional usage; the first type is concerned with terms which express things that actually exist in reality and the sec'ond type describes things which have no existence in reality. The first three books of the Abhidhamma investigate the absolute Truth of Dhamma in a planned system of detailed analysis employing such terms as Khandha, Ayatana, Dhatu, Sacca and Indnya. These terms are mere designations which express things that exist in reality and are therefore classed as the conventional usage of the first type. To the second type of conventional usage belong such expressions as man, woman, deva, individual etc , which have no existence in reality, but nevertheless are essential for communication of thoughts. It becomes necessary therefore to distinguish between these two types of apparent truths But as the terms Khandha, Ayatana, Dhatu, Sacca and Indnya have been elaborately dealt with in the first three books, they are dealt with here only briefly The terms used in the second type concerning individuals are given more weight and space in the treatise, hence its title Puggalapanfiatti, designation of individuals. Different types of individuals are classified, in ten chapters of the book, after the manner of enumeration employed in Ariguttara Nikaya ---------- (2) Guide Through The Abhidhamma Pitaka by Venerable Nyanatiloka Puggalapa~n~natti This smallest of the seven Abhidhamma books appears to be somewhat out of place in the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, as is shown even by its title 'Description of Individuals'. For it is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma that it does not employ conventional concepts like 'individual' (puggala), etc., but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the 'highest sense' (paramattha-dhamma), i.e. the mental and material phenomena, and their classifications into groups (khandha), bases, elements, etc. This treatise, however, in accordance with its subject-matter, is written in the conventional language as used in the Sutta Pi.taka. In fact, most of its contents has literal parallels in the Anguttara Nikaaya and the Sangìti Sutta of the Dìgha Nikaaya. The treatise is introduced by a Matrix and its first part is suggestive of a formal reason for the inclusion of this book in the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. The Matrix begins with enumerating six kinds of 'descriptions' (pa~n~natti): the description of Groups (khandha-pa~n~natti), of Bases, of Elements, of Truths, of Faculties, and finally, of Individuals (Puggalapa~n~natti). The first five fall certainly within the scope of the Abhidhamma, and may well have been the original reason for ascribing this treatise to the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. These five items, however, appear only in the Matrix, which adds only their respective divisions into corporeality-group, etc. There is no detailed treatment of them in the main body of the book. As a reason for that omission, the commentary mentions that the subject-matter of these five 'descriptions' had already been dealt with, in full detail, in the respective chapters of the Vibhanga. The Matrix now proceeds to give the headings for the 'description of individuals'. That description divides into 10 chapters, of which the first deals with single individuals, the second with pairs, the third with groups of three, and so forth, up to a tenfold classification. These ten chapters contain 142 groupings of individuals with 386 single individuals, which, however, partly overlap. The detailed exposition that follows after the Matrix has the same divisions. It contains not merely brief definitions of the various human types, but also some fairly long descriptions, and a number of beautiful and elaborate similes. Apart from ethical classifications of individuals, a great number of important specifically doctrinal terms concerning human types are explained here, and among them also some of relatively rare occurrence. Therefore this little work makes a handy book of reference that will prove very useful in Buddhist studies. ----------- [Han] I also found the following excerpt by Sarah in "Useful Posts" at DSG. [Sarah]: The Puggala Pa~n~natti (Designation of Human Types), a volume of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is interesting because after giving a table of contents, in lay-out it follows the style of Anguttara Nikaya and includes many AN suttas. Starting with the table of contents, it lists the six kinds of designations by way of: 1) khandhas 2) ayatanas 3) dhatus 4) Noble Truths 5) Indriyas 6) Puggala Pannatti The text then elaborates on the last category and 'people' and 'persons' are used throughout. However, I think all such terms and language have to be read and understood in the light of categories 1) -5) and the rest of the Abhidhamma about paramattha dhammas. For example, under the first grouping of Human Types by One, we read about different people, such as different kinds of ariyans, but really these refer to cittas and cetasikas. In other words, I think the suttas about people can be appreciated at different levels. In our recent discussions in Bangkok some of the concerns people have about 'too much ultimate' was raised and K.Sujin's response was an emphatic 'never enough!'. 'It's the truth!'. Yes, whatever the topic, whatever the language, the truth is about paramattha dhammas. ---------------------- [Han] For me, I agree with the remark by the Venerable Bhante that the Abhidhamma does not deal only with the paramattha dhammas but also with pannatti. But please do not ask me why I agree?:>) The readers may give their opinion on this matter if they so desire. To be continued. With metta and respect. Han #112581 From: nichicon cp Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:21 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta 7.6 nichiconn ?Dear Friends, Section 330 ends: CSCD < Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:30 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta, the Sevens, sutta 6 and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Book of the Sevens, sutta 6: Walshe: DN. 33.2.3(6) 'Seven qualities of the true man (sappurisa-dhammaa): Here, a monk is a knower of the Dhamma, of meanings (attha~n~nuu), of self (atta~n~nuu), of moderation (matta~n~nuu), of the right time, of groups (parisa~n~nuu), of persons. (Satta sappurisadhammaa - idhaavuso, bhikkhu dhamma~n~nuu ca hoti attha~n~nuu ca atta~n~nuu ca matta~n~nuu ca kaala~n~nuu ca parisa~n~nuu ca puggala~n~nuu ca.) ---------- N: the commentary: Here he knows the Dhamma of sutta, geyyaa etc. This is a summing up of the contents of the Tipi.taka: Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na, Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhuta, Vedalla. The Tiika adds: knowing the practice of dhamma in accordance with the dhamma, not merely the reading of the text. ------ Co: He knows the meaning of what has been spoken of. The Tiika: he knows the meaning with reference to kusala. As to knowing ‘self’:he knows to what extent (he is proficient) in siila, samaadhi and pa~n~naa. As to moderation, he knows the right measure in the use of what he receives. As to knowledge of time, he knows that this is the time for recitation, this is the time for interrogation, this is the time for endeavour and attainment. Here (after) five rainy seasons it is the time for recitation. (After) ten rainy seasons for interrogation. (If) this is too confined, ten rainy seasons for recitation, twenty for interrogation. Tiika: As to being too confined, by not being able to determine the time, because of his lack of keen understanding. Besides, endeavour must be applied. The Tiika: as to endeavour, for the application to mental development. ------ As to knowing groups: he knows the eight groups of persons. N: The co mentions groups such as the khattiyas, ‘warriors’, which is the highest class. As to knowing persons, he knows those who should be followed and those who should not be followed. The Tiika adds: when he knows that by following this person akusala dhammas diminish and kusala dhammas grow, he should follow that person. And in reverse, if akusala dhammas increase and kusala dhammas wane, he should not follow that person. --------- Conclusion: As we read in the Tiika, knowing the meaning is knowing the practice of the dhamma in accordance with the dhamma, not merely the reading of the text. We may read texts and merely know words, but that is not the aim. The practice of the dhamma in accordance with the dhamma (dhammaanudhamma-pa.tipannaa) is mentioned in the Suttanta as one of the conditions for enlightenment. We read an explanation of these words in the co. to the mahaa-parinibbaanasutta (Ch III, 7, translated by Yang-Gyu An): “Those who practise the teaching of insight (vipassanaa), which is consistent with the teachings of the noble (ariyadhammassa)”. The practice of vipassanaa is the development of understanding of the dhammas appearing one at a time through the five sense-doors and the mind-door. We read in the Tiika that he knows whom he should follow and whom he should not follow. Another condition for enlightenment is association with the right person. He explains the dhamma and the practice in accordance with the dhamma. One can verify for oneself whether one has met the right person by knowing one’s cittas, knowing whether kusala cittas increase and akusala cittas diminish. ------- Pali of commentary: Tattha suttageyyaadika.m dhamma.m jaanaatiiti dhamma~n~nuu. Tassa tasseva bhaasitassa attha.m jaanaatiiti attha~n~nuu. <>ti eva.m attaana.m jaanaatiiti atta~n~nuu. Pa.tiggaha.naparibhogesu matta.m jaanaatiiti matta~n~nuu. Aya.m kaalo uddesassa, aya.m kaalo paripucchaaya, aya.m kaalo yogassa adhigamaayaati eva.m kaala.m jaanaatiiti kaala~n~nuu. Ettha ca pa~nca vassaani uddesassa kaalo. Dasa paripucchaaya. Ida.m atisambaadha.m. Dasa vassaani pana uddesassa kaalo. Viisati paripucchaaya. Tato para.m yoge kamma.m kaatabba.m. A.t.thavidha.m parisa.m jaanaatiiti parisa~n~nuu. Sevitabbaasevitabba.m puggala.m jaanaatiiti puggala~n~nuu. ****** Nina. #112584 From: "revtriple" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Nina van Gorkom / What type of philosophy would we say.... revtriple Yes it does Nina, please continue. If it is neither than it would be both no? Just how would it be neither/ both? Thank You! Rev.Triple #112585 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:08 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E (and pt) > > (112202) > > There is a funny contradiction here, in that it is often considered more "in the moment" and more attuned to anatta to *not strive for a result,* and instead to trust in a correct *process.* In what is being said above, one is only really honoring the *result* one wants, and *not* honoring the process, which seems to me to also be the opposite of the dsg philosophy of understanding the arising of dhammas in the moment without any choice or sense of personal volition, [ie, coming from self-view.] > > =============== > > J: Just a correction. Nobody here has been advocating an approach of "understanding the arising of dhammas in the moment". That would be no different to, for example, an approach of understanding a particular chosen dhamma. You are advocating understanding that there are only momentary dhammas, but the ultimate result of that is to experience the dhamma that is arising now as it actually is. Is that not correct? > > =============== > > If one says that meditation, bhavana, development only represent the "good," "kusala" moments and the rest is akusala, that is the opposite of a process-view. In fact it seems to me to be self-view, pushing through the process to get to the result one desires. > > > > Good meditators do the opposite, and in fact are more in line with what folks here would normally profess as "choiceless" understanding of conditions-based arising of moments - these meditators have given up wishing and hoping for only kusala moments and instead understand that whatever conditions and tendencies have developed they will experience in due order, according to current conditions and accumulations. So if akusala arises, they treat it with openness and mindfulness, understanding that it is discernment and equanimity that create kusala, not judging "good and bad," "good and bad," [kusala and akusala] for every arising moment. To know kusala and to accumulate kusala is one thing - to say that the process is not kusala when the moments are not kusala and that the process is only kusala when the moments are kusala is a very different thing. > > =============== > > J: What you are describe above is still a 'practice' that is undertaken with the idea of inducing awareness to arise. So it's not really 'in line with' anything talked about here ;-)) Studying and discussing dhamma is also done with the idea of inducing awareness to arise, as it is understood that it is the process by which awareness *is* induced to arise. So if one does that, they are doing it with that intention. The only difference is that pariyatti is considered an intermediate step to direct awareness, but the intention and the reason for undertaking Dhamma study is the same. I continue to contend that the real difference between the commentarial philosophy and the meditational philosophy is the assessment of the correct means to the end, the preferred "practice" in other words, not the intention or the undertaking of an activity. Both sub-commentarial Abhidhammikas and meditators want to follow the Buddha's path and eventually reach enlightenment. There is just a different assessment of how Buddha said to get there. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #112586 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:12 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Colette > > (112208) > > Do I detect a bit of tension in Robert E's response to you, Jon? > > =============== > > J: Robert E and I have been crossing swords (as it were) on dhamma issues for as long as I care to remember; it's just the way we hold a conversation ;-)) I disagree! ;-))) > > =============== > > Maybe I should have asked if I can play before playing here in the sandbox with you boys. I think we should consider what the issues really are before we continue. > > =============== > > J: You're welcome any time (no personal sandboxes on this list) Only naturally occurring sandboxes, arising due to corresponding weather conditions and accumulations of sand formations. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112587 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:06 pm Subject: Re: Breakfast discussion with Han epsteinrob Hi Sarah, Han and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Han & All, > > It was lovely to see you again when you came over with your grandson, Thet Oo, to join Jon and I for breakfast at our hotel, by the river. The first big surprise for me, and also for Jon when he joined us a little later, was to find you looking so very well. Very glad to hear this. Han, sounds like your recovery has gone very well! Nice to hear that you were able to meet and had such a good discussion. Thanks for sharing the topics. > 8. Thet Oo - his aim is to have more calmness, whereas for us, the aim is to develop more understanding of whatever dhamma is conditioned. If one is so concerned about calmness, one becomes very concerned about being agitated or about a lack of calm at the present moment. I just picked out this one topic, which interests me a lot. I don't think Buddha was opposed to developing samatha for its own sake, as it is kusala and leads to pleasure that is removed from attachment to sensory cravings, so I think to that extent it is all good. However, I agree with you very much that when there is *attachment* to calm, that causes more problems than it solves. Attachment to calm is almost certain to cause *more* agitation, since every time calm is disturbed, the person attached to calm will become more irritated with the disturbance, and increase the disturbance. With calm as something to cultivate, but accepting the ups and downs which can be looked at with equanimity, that causes more calm even in the midst of disturbance. Hope that makes sense. I don't think I'm very good at staying calm, period, but staying aware when calm, and being calm when disturbances arise, I think is positive. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112588 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:02 pm Subject: The 32 Parts! bhikkhu5 Friends: Awareness of the Body just as a Foul Frame! The Buddha once asked: How does one view the Body only as a Form? Herein, Bhikkhus & Friends, the Bhikkhu contemplates the body from the soles of the feet upward, and from the top of the hair downward like this: This filthy frame with skin stretched over it, which is filled with many kinds of impurities consists of head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, vomit, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestine, membranes, stomach, excrement, brain, bile, lymph, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin, tallow, spit, snot, joint-fluid, and urine... Just as if a man with good sight would examine a sack with openings at both ends, filled with various kinds of grain; paddy, beans, sesame, on opening it would recognize its contents thus: That is paddy, this is beans, that is sesame, this is husked rice: Even exactly so does the Bhikkhu investigate this body... While always fully aware & clearly comprehending, he thus removes any lust, urge, envy, frustration and discontent rooted in this world! Such intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating any and all bodies as remote carcasses of filthy foul form. As something bound to emerge, decay and then inevitably vanish... Not regarding the body as 'mine', as belonging to 'me', or as very 'my self'! Not regarding the body as lasting, safe, as pleasant beauty, or as happiness! In this way the intelligent Bhikkhu keeps reviewing any & all bodies, whether internal or external, whether his own or others, and he notes the cause of its arising and the cause of its ceasing, or he just notice: There is this body! In this way he comes to live not clinging to & thus independent of the body! This is the way to contemplate the body only as a transient empty shell... The fine reward is fearlessness of death and thereby fearlessness of all! Without fear there is the mental elevation of gladness and confidence! This contemplation detaches one from the body & form and frees thereby... Clever Disgust by anti-porn thereby cooling all lust and greed for body! Just a painted puppet! A chain of bones plastered by skin with 9 oozing holes! A heap of sores and rotten excrement with evil intentions! For Inspiration have a collection of Corpse Pictures been deposited here: http://s914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/Asubha/ Password: corpses <...> Source Text: Majjhima Nikaya 119: Kayagata-Sati Sutta http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.ht m Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112589 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:06 am Subject: Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112234) > > What I am saying is that the equivalence works both ways. He is not saying "do not think in terms of birth and death but only of in terms of kandhas;" he is saying "think both ways - that birth and death have these attributes, and that they also break down to the elements of experience - the five kandhas." It is a teaching that works on a continuum that spans both conventional and a more analytic view. He is not taking away the conventional but including and explaining it. > > =============== > > J: This interpretation of yours doesn't fit with the teaching elsewhere in the Tipitaka where anicca, dukkha and anattaa are mentioned in the context of dhammas only. Do you have a handy citation that I can refer to? > > =============== > > The teaching of the five kandhas, or in this case mentioning them in passing, is the essential analytic of the teachings which shows that there is no self, but only process. However, it can be explained on the "dhamma only" level as you explain it, and the middle-path level of "here is life, and here is how it breaks down," where the conventional is not considered an unreality, but a reality that needs to be examined more closely. > > =============== > > J: But where in the teachings is there any detail as to how, as you put it, the conventional is to be examined more closely? What is there to be known about the conventional that we don't already know? That is an interesting tack that you and a few others have taken when questions of the conventional teaching are raised. I don't think Buddha dismissed the knowing of the conventional as you do here, because there is a big difference between understanding something in passing, as a kind of mental acknowledgment, and a full grasping of the reality and implications of something. So many times, people have the attitude, "oh yes, I know that people get sick and die," but it is more than obvious that when we are hit by a sickness or when someone close dies, the understanding becomes much more wise and the implications for oneself become much more clear and in fact hit the entire mental and emotional levels like a ton of bricks. This kind of knowing is totally different from being able to recite a list of things that happen in life. Likewise, when one fully contemplates the course of life and death, or when the Buddha explains the implications of the events of life as a continuum that has the properties of anicca, anatta and dukkha, he is leading them into a contemplation towards understanding that is totally different and much more profound than their previous thoughts that "everyone knows." Why else would Buddha have such an extensive regimen of corpse contemplations, imagining one's own body in various stages of dissolution, from rotting corpse, to skeleton with flesh, to skeleton without flesh, and then scattered bones, as well as observing actual corpses when handy. :-) Obviously the knowing that comes from this kind of deep contemplation and exposure is far different from merely saying "Oh I know that I will die and my body will rot," as you are implying we "already know" in the conventional realm. Yet these contemplations are also both conventional and paramatha. One goes through the whole sequence of what happens to *the body* as *ones own* and this is conventional, though deep and profound. And at the same time when imagining or observing the rotting of the corpse, one may perceive the more microscopic level of dissolution of rupas associated with each stage of rotting. So it is both that the Buddha teaches - deep, profound conventional contemplation, and clear, specific contemplation of dhammas. We do *not* know that we will die and rot. We just "think" we do, in a passing understanding that is neither profound nor comprehending of the Buddha's teaching on life and death. > > =============== > > You can take it that way, but it is a particular interpretation of what he says. When he says the five clinging aggregates are dukkha, that can be explained as "the five clinging aggregates cause suffering," rather than making dukkha a "special object" and raising it to the level of an inherent characteristic. One can even summarize this by saying "life sucks," which doesn't emblazon "suckiness" as a 'capital S' characteristic. > > =============== > > J: Yours is equally a "particular interpretation" of what the Buddha says. Which is why there needs to be reference to other parts of the tipitaka, so that passages that are open to different interpretations can be understood correctly. Show me a reference that alters the context of what I have observed in the sutta. The difference between our interpretations, Jon, is that I accept and incorporate *everything* the Buddha said in the sutta as part of his message, since he said that he teaches *only suffering and the cessation of suffering,* and he said that thus he would not bother to mention anything that was off that topic, though he knew many other things. So he would not mention the conventional level of life and death if he didn't mean what he said about asking us to contemplate it that way. You on the other hand, skip all the Buddha's words on life and death, and skip to the "good part" that you agree with, about how it all breaks down to dhammas. That is only a passing reference in the sutta. Most of it is spent on the conventional teaching! > > =============== > > Well it seems to me that this is often the message. I think there have been many instances where one is advised to ignore the conventional appearances of life, illness, death etc., and translate them into momentary dhammas immediately, and accept this as the *only* viable conceptual framework. In fact, if what you say here were the case, we would have very little argument about these levels of understanding. > > =============== > > J: The idea that the conventional appearances of life should be translated into (seen as?) momentary dhammas is definitely not how I understand the development of the path. Well then what do you advise one to do with the conventional teachings that the Buddha gave about life, personhood and death? Ignore them, or pay what kind of attention to them? What should we do with them? They make up a large percentage of the Dhamma. > > =============== > > I disagree here, to the extent that I don't believe the conventional level of anatta, anicca and dukkha are contemplated and worked through anywhere near enough. > > =============== > > J: Can you say a little more about this conventional level of anicca, dukkha, anattaa? It's not an idea I've come across before. Sure. Buddha spoke about disappointment, the inability to control the things of life, sickness and death. He taught about incessant rebirth, brought on by craving and ignorance. If one has a treasured object and it is taken away, one feels suffering based on uncontrollability and changeability of reality. If one gets old or sick, one feels sadness, suffering the loss of the body that one once had and still craves. When one is driven by desire, and the object of love rejects one, one feels suffering over the clinging and craving for the desired person. Buddha talked about these kinds of things and said that they were to be seen as non-self because they could not be controlled or directed. He said things like "If this were my self, I could make it do what I wanted it to do," and pointed out that the inability to control the things in our life made them non-self. He tied anatta and anicca together, and showed that clinging to objects in life caused suffering. > > =============== > And I personally think that this conventional consideration, rather than intellectual understanding of the breakdown of dhammas, may be the most important bridge to a finer view of the kandhas. We may acknowledge disappointment, loss, sickness and death in passing without really contemplating the clinging, craving and aversion involved, and how objects and people cannot really satisfy our desires, but it is this more prolonged and deeper contemplation and understanding that begins to look more closely at what these dhammas are made of. Then we can naturally begin to look at the way in which these objects, including our minds and bodies, are encountered through the kandhas. To me it is a seamless whole, not alternative realities. > > =============== > > J: So, as you read the teachings, at what stage would it be appropriate to move from the conventional to the absolute? And what would be the consequence of doing so before the appropriate stage had been reached? I think that insight will develop and get deeper as one continues to contemplate the things of life. As one looks more closely you see them in more detail. The more closely you are able to look, the more you will see. Buddha navigated throughout his life between the conventional and dhammic view. He was able to hold both in mind and work with both, as he demonstrated in the sutta we are talking about. I don't think the ability to exist in that continuum and go back and forth ever goes away while one is in the world. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112590 From: han tun Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:26 am Subject: Re: Breakfast discussion with Han hantun1 Dear Robert, [Robert] Very glad to hear this. Han, sounds like your recovery has gone very well! Nice to hear that you were able to meet and had such a good discussion. Thanks for sharing the topics. [Han] Thank you very much for your kind concern about my health. I have recovered completely and I am now feeling stronger than before. But my family is afraid to let me go out alone. Their biggest fear is that I might fall down and break my bones, or I might fall down while crossing the road and hit by a vehicle. I have low blood pressure and have the history of accidents. In 1985 (that was when I was 25 years younger) I was squatting down and looking at the books in a book-shop, and when I stood up I had the black-out and fell down. I was lucky not to have any bones broken. At my age now, it is very easy to break the bones, especially the fracture of the neck of the femur (thigh bone). I trip very easily when I walk. In July 2007, I fell flat on my face while I was taking a morning walk. My upper front tooth was broken (root fracture). The broken root, which was stuck in the bone, had to be extracted by surgical operation. Then six months later, I had to have the permanent bridge. When I look right and left quickly, I get dizzy. So it is dangerous when I cross the road and look right and left quickly for the passing vehicles. If I get dizzy and have the black-out in the middle of the road it will be the end for me. With metta and respect, Han #112591 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:44 am Subject: Re: Breakfast discussion with Han philofillet Dear Han > When I look right and left quickly, I get dizzy. So it is dangerous when I cross the road and look right and left quickly for the passing vehicles. If I get dizzy and have the black-out in the middle of the road it will be the end for me. Thank you for this first hand report from the reality of ageing and illness. It reminds me of the sutta where the king who was once so mighty says that when he wants his foot to go one way, it goes another, and so on. Please hang in there and keep sharing your deep understanding of Dhamma (and simple encouragements to friends, which in my book are maybe just as important) as long as possible. Metta, Phil #112592 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:58 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112235) > > Since the suttas do say that "y can be developed by doing x" and the Buddha admonishes his followers to diligently work for this development, I think it is up to you to show that this is really another way of describing naturally arising dhammas, and not really instruction to be intentionally followed. I have provided quotes that seem quite clear on this, and I will be happy to see your quotes or translations that show a different picture. If you have commentary that gives a viable interpretation of a sutta to demonstrate this, I will enthusiastically read it. > > =============== > > J: I'm afraid I can no longer find the sutta passages you mentioned. Would you mind re-quoting them (if you still have them, of course). Thanks. > > Regardless of that, commentary passages are always being quoted here, so it's only a matter of time before something pertinent to this thread comes up. I can't keep track of threads very well. Too many at once! But there are countless suttas that say that if you want to do x, do y, and to diligently practice. The one I think we were talking about was one where Buddha said that if you wanted to cultivate a particular quality, that you should put that intention into your meditation and focus on it. He gave about 4 or 5 different examples of qualities you could intentionally cultivate through meditation. It's' your nightmare sutta! ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #112593 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:20 am Subject: Re: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112299) > > Jumping back in, would you thus say that killing might be okay if the accompanying citta was kusala? Or did Buddha teach ahimsa in deed as a necessary value? I don't recall an instance in which Buddha said that if there is a good, wholesome reason for killing, it's kusala to kill. That would be the logical conclusion of saying the underlying mental state is of paramount importance, not the deed itself. > > =============== > > J: Every act of killing must involve some level of akusala. The conventional act of killing could never be described as a kusala act. Well in that case, you seem to be agreeing with me that the act itself has this akusala quality, and that it is not a matter of akusala being 100% a mental factor. > > =============== > > > Where do you see understanding of deeds on the conventional level fitting into the teachings? > > > > Well that is the problem. You are interpreting Buddha's teachings on Right and Wrong Actions as representing a mental condition, whereas the Buddha did not teach that way. He taught that there are kusala deeds and kusala mental states and that both must be observed, not just the latter. > > > > So deeds may not really fit into your understanding of the path, but that may be a mistaken view. > > =============== > > J: Deeds are not among the dhammas that are spoken about throughout the suttas; whereas mental states are. How can you say that? If Buddha says "killing is akusala" or the equivalent, he is saying that the deed of killing is akusala. How is that a mental state? If he says that the householder gains merit by meritorious acts of kindness, charity etc., how are those not deeds? I do not understand your reasoning, unless you are saying either that when Buddha speaks of a deed he doesn't really mean it, or unless you are ignoring those passages that don't speak of experiencing dhammas, and speak of acts. But Buddha most certainly spoke of deeds all the time. Here's an example, in case you still have doubts. I have excerpted passages that reference deeds and actions: Mangala Sutta: Blessings http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.5.nara.html "Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise; ...to honor those who are worthy of honor... To reside in a suitable locality... ...to have done meritorious actions in the past... To have much learning, to be skillful in handicraft...and to be of good speech... To support mother and father, to cherish wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation... To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct, to help one's relatives, and to be blameless in action... To loathe more evil and abstain from it, to refrain from intoxicants ...to listen to the Dhamma on due occasions... To be patient and obedient, to associate with monks and to have religious discussions on due occasions — this is the greatest blessing. Self-restraint, a holy and chaste life.. These are the greatest blessings." ================================= Just to highlight a few clear, unmistakable *deeds* Buddha says are "the greatest blessing" in this sutta: meritorious actions skillful in handicraft to be of good speech support mother and father be engaged in peaceful occupation generous in giving to be righteous in conduct to help one's relatives to refrain from intoxicants to listen to the Dhamma to associate with monks to have religious discussions Is that a good enough list, or do you need more evidence that Buddha spoke directly and fully on kusala and akusala *actions* and *deeds* in the suttas, not just mental states as you state above? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112594 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:26 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112301) > > The way I see it, with admittedly limited understanding, is that a deed may be made akusala on two grounds: it may be akusala because of the deed, or it may be akusala because of the mental state. If the mental state is kusala but the deed is akusala, the result is at least partly akusala. If the mental state is akusala and the deed is otherwise kusala, the result will still be at least partly akusala. > > =============== > > J: But the 'result' of a deed cannot be kusala or akusala. Results of deeds are conventional concepts only. Results may be immediate or longer term, tangible or intangible, etc. > > Only nama dhammas can have the quality of being kusala or akusala, not deeds/actions. Not according to Buddha. > > =============== > In order for the act to be kusala, both the deed and the mental state need to be kusala. If either the deed or the mental state or akusala, the result will be at least partly akusala based on the akusala influence. > > =============== > > J: Your analysis above does not address the scenario I mentioned of a so-called kusala deed the was performed with no kusala whatsoever (as in the case of holding back from killing for purely selfish and nefarious reasons). How would you classify that? That is included in my analysis above. I said that an otherwise kusala action with akusala intentions was at least partly akusala. The akusala mental state would spoil the kusala action. But it can also happen that an akusala action can also spoil a kusala mental state; ie, if I kill someone to defend my family, and my mental state is out of love to protect my family, but the killing is still akusala. > A further problem with what you say here is that only a very few deeds have been classified by the Buddha as being either kusala or akusala. So by what measure are all the other innumerable, indeed infinite, kinds of deeds to be classified? In my last post to you I mentioned one sutta that spoke of 10 or 20 categories of kusala actions. I'm sure there are plenty more. Anyway, I don't think it's rocket science. Drinking intoxicants is akusala. Drinking lemonade is probably okay. Killing - bad. Acts of kindness - good. etc. > > =============== > > The point is that a deed can be akusala in its own right, not dependent on an akusala mental state. I believe that killing of others is *always* wrong according to the Buddha, notwithstanding this or that mental state. > > =============== > > J: I don't think so. Deliberately taking the life of another always involves an akusala mental state. I just said, killing is *always* akusala. Quote: "I believe that killing of others is *always* wrong according to the Buddha..." That was me, just above. You are not disagreeing with me. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112595 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Q. on Nimitta. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Pa~n~naa with discernment of a characteristic. It can become > clearer, but not in the beginning. > Knowing about nimittas is good as foundation knowledge, but, as said > before, if we think too much about it, we may get lost. I am happy to know about the nimitta. It takes the impossible task of discerning dhammas and makes it accessible, a good building-block. Still, touching the table and discerning "hardness" through the nimitta is not much different from ordinary touching of the table and experiencing conventional hardness, is it? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112596 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:44 am Subject: Re: Breakfast discussion with Han epsteinrob Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > [Robert] Very glad to hear this. Han, sounds like your recovery has gone very well! Nice to hear that you were able to meet and had such a good discussion. Thanks for sharing the topics. > > [Han] Thank you very much for your kind concern about my health. > I have recovered completely and I am now feeling stronger than before. > But my family is afraid to let me go out alone. > Their biggest fear is that I might fall down and break my bones, or I might fall down while crossing the road and hit by a vehicle. > > I have low blood pressure and have the history of accidents. > > In 1985 (that was when I was 25 years younger) I was squatting down and looking at the books in a book-shop, and when I stood up I had the black-out and fell down. I was lucky not to have any bones broken. At my age now, it is very easy to break the bones, especially the fracture of the neck of the femur (thigh bone). > > I trip very easily when I walk. In July 2007, I fell flat on my face while I was taking a morning walk. My upper front tooth was broken (root fracture). The broken root, which was stuck in the bone, had to be extracted by surgical operation. Then six months later, I had to have the permanent bridge. > > When I look right and left quickly, I get dizzy. So it is dangerous when I cross the road and look right and left quickly for the passing vehicles. If I get dizzy and have the black-out in the middle of the road it will be the end for me. Wow, Han, you have had to put up with a lot in terms of the low blood pressure. The only thing I can see positive about it is that it is a good occasion for mindfulness! :-) To be cautious not to stand up too quickly or turn the head too quickly would give you an occasion for paying close attention to the full sequence of action. I have a swallowing difficulty, which makes it a little tricky for me to swallow liquids and pills. My swallowing muscles are a little discoordinated. The doctors have never been able to figure it out, but if I swallow the wrong way I start choking pretty badly, as the liquid goes into my windpipe. So I have had to be very conscious every time I drink for about 20 years. And drinking green tea is one of my favorite activities, which I do throughout the day. It's very annoying, but it has caused me to pay careful attention to the actions and sensations in the throat and mouth every time I swallow. I'm hoping it is developing some sati! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112597 From: han tun Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:55 am Subject: Re: Breakfast discussion with Han hantun1 Dear Phil, You and I are on the same wavelength on many issues. I was thinking it would be very nice if you were there at the breakfast. The effect of ageing and illness was felt even by the Buddha himself. In Mahaaparinibbaana sutta, on his way to Kusinaara, the Lord, who was very strong when younger, had to take a rest because he was tired. 4.21. Then turning aside from the road, the Lord went to the foot of a tree and said: "Come, Aananda, fold a robe in four for me: I am tired and want to sit down". Han: And the Buddha had to ask Ven Aananda to bring water for him, because he was thirsty. 4.22. The Lord sat down on the prepared seat and said: "Aananda, bring me some water: I am thirsty and want to drink". Han: These are all timely reminders for me, while facing the ageing and illness first-hand. With metta, Han #112598 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:17 am Subject: Re: Terminology Question Re: [dsg] Friends and dwelling place as natural decisive... nilovg Hi Howard, Op 16-dec-2010, om 17:08 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > < < ================================= > A question occurs to me with regard to the usage of "x conditions y" > as it occurs in Abhidhamma for example as above. What does a > sentence " x > conditions y" mean? Does it mean that x contributes to the occuring > (i.e., > arising/existing) of y, or does it mean that x influences the > nature of y > (which seems to fit in the case above), or does it mean one > sometimes and the > other on some other occasions - or does it mean something else > entirely? --------- N: We should not forget that there is a great diversity of types of conditions and that the conditional forces operate in various ways. A conditional dhamma can cause the arising of the conditioned dhamma or it may merely support it. Visible object is object-condition for seeing, citta cannot arise without there being an object. Each citta experiences an object. Kamma-condition is different. When it is asynchronous kamma, kamma working from a different time (thus not cetanaa that is conascent with each citta) can produce result, but it also needs natural decisive support-condition in order to be able to do so. Seeing now is the result of kamma. When performing a good or evil deed through body, speech or mind, there are many kusala cittas or akusala cittas involved. These are conditions by way of natural decisive support-condition for similar cittas arising later on. Thus, as was also explained in the Jaatakas, by way of this condition one may perform similar deeds later on. This is just an illustration that conditional forces operate in many different ways. It is not as simple as: x conditions y. We need many examples to illustrate the intricate working of different conditions. ------- Nina. #112599 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:27 am Subject: Re: Breakfast discussion with Han philofillet Hi Robert (and Han) and all >>>> Wow, Han, you have had to put up with a lot in terms of the low blood pressure. The only thing I can see positive about it is that it is a good occasion for mindfulness! :-) To be cautious not to stand up too quickly or turn the head too quickly would give you an occasion for paying close attention to the full sequence of action. > > I have a swallowing difficulty, which makes it a little tricky for me to swallow liquids and pills. My swallowing muscles are a little discoordinated. The doctors have never been able to figure it out, but if I swallow the wrong way I start choking pretty badly, as the liquid goes into my windpipe. Ph: Hey, what's wrong with you guys??? Get with the program! I'm in perfect health, play squash three times a week, go swimming, running, I'm an energetic person with no difficulties sleeping, no health problems of any kinds at all! All the people around me have had colds this season already, and only *I* havent't... I eat amazingly healthy food and get all that exercise so it will never change! Metta, Phil p.s the above sounds like a joke, but a lot of the time I still believe it no matter how foolish it sounds on paper, in the mind it goes on, that deluded infatuation with health, youthful energy etc.... an example of how thick and strong delusion is....what helps us get rid of that delusion? Awareness of realities would never hurt, but I think conventional reflection is better, hearing from Han, for example, seeing the messengers of old age, illness, death and separation in daily life who as far as I can see come not in paramattha form, but in conventional form in the shape of people who are sick, growing old, nearing death etc.... p.p.s sorry to hear about those difficulties, Robert. My perfect health is a temporary freak of nature, I keep that in mind as often as possible...